Monday, June 13, 2011

The Pale King and considering (too?) curiously

Click on the image to enlarge. Via René of Teorí del Caos.

There's much to say about this cartoon, probably more than was intended by its maker. But to simplify things, let's just say for now, as per René's placement of it in a post on The Pale King, that it's a pretty fair summation of the dynamic Wallace creates when he occupies the Writer corner of the Writer-Subject-Reader triangle.

[I (belatedly) add: This is not a bad thing! DFW requires stamina of his reader; the reader needs to know that going in.]

I am near the end of Wallace's novel and will have a wrap-up post in a couple of weeks--beginning today, I'll be out of pocket and then out of town (and thus away from "here") for a while. The short version: despite (or maybe because of) its unfinished state, you'll want to give this a try. Oh: and there'll be a few wild and whirling words about Hamlet as a subtext for the novel, too.

In the meantime, I encourage those of you who read Spanish to read René's sustained and insightful series of commentaries on The Pale King and, by extension, Wallace's zeitgeist and his place in contemporary fiction. The first post is here.

[Edited to correct the title. About, my brains!]

UPDATE (June 30): Via 3 Quarks Daily, this discussion of the short story collection Oblivion, the last fiction published while Wallace was alive, is well worth reading as a source of insight into Wallace's work more generally.

Read More...

Sunday, June 12, 2011

The first (and last) thing I'll say about Anthony Weiner

A good bit of the brouhaha over Anthony Weiner's actions really is being driven by various subtexts: partisanship (or, in the case of House Democrats' calls for Weiner's resignation, trying not to appear partisan); the tangential (but important) debate about what constitutes "public" and "private" space and activities in this electronic-media-saturated world of ours; definitions of fidelity and infidelity; and a discussion of, for lack of a better way of putting it, the etiquette of when/how/to whom one can send pictures of one's body parts to another party. (Miss Manners needs to do some serious updating, methinks.) No doubt there are others.

All that brouhaha is occurring in various contextual vacuums and thus, to my mind, missing a crucial point when assessing what Weiner did. Once Ta-Nehisi Coates dusts off his Locke and reads Weiner's actions through the lens of the space in which they occurred, there's nothing left to discuss except Weiner's fate as a representative of his district. This is from a few days ago, but it's such a clear statement of the matter, and one that I've not seen elsewhere, that it bears repeating (emphasis added):

I think, among those of us who find the strict moralizing about human sexuality offered up in our political discourse repellent, there's an impulse to defend Anthony Weiner. I sympathize with that impulse, but I do not share it.

[snip]

[I]t's important to focus on what Anthony Weiner's specific acts. Weiner, at the very least, sent a unsolicited picture of his thinly veiled privates to a woman. This was not a woman whom he'd met socially, or in some private capacity. This was a college student who "tweeted words of support for him as a politician." In other [words, Gennette] Cordoba was interested in supporting a public official whose positions, and stridency she admired. Weiner took that as invite to forward Cordoba a picture of his privates.

Weiner serves in the aptly named House of Representatives. In the most specific sense, he represents his District here in New York. But in the broader sense he represents a set of policies which progressives like Dana [Goldstein], Amanda [Marcotte] and I generally admire. His skill and tenacity in the media, particularly, made him a darling to those, like Cordoba, who shared his policy positions. When you represent a portion of the public, you are awarded a certain amount of social and cultural power. But the source of that power is always the people you represent; it's called a "base" for a reason.

Using the power of representation to send unsolicited explicit photographs of yourself is reckless. It endangers, not simply your private interests, but the public interests of those you represent. When Anthony Weiner goes on Face The Nation and argues for public option, he represents my policy interests to those who are on the fence. He is, essentially, a spokesperson for my causes and the causes of the party to which I belong. When he commits an act which injures, as he's done here, his allies share that injury.


With that said, we all must draw a line where we deem it appropriate. Early in the 2008 campaign it was argued that by dint of race, Barack Obama would be an effective ambassador for his party. I could see the logic easily being extended to gays or women or other minorities. The difference is that opening up electoral office to all Americans is a part of the liberal agenda. Opening up electoral office to those who would use that office to recklessly dispense unsolicited explicit photos of oneself is not.


Word.

Read More...

Saturday, June 11, 2011

Overlooked music: Willem Maker

UPDATE: Some added information re Maker's biography, and a discography at the bottom of the post.

[Note: We all have our lists of artists we think deserve more recognition than they appear to have. Here begins my list. It'll appear on occasion, as mood and opportunity strike.]


Willem Maker. Website here; (free downloadable) Daytrotter session here.

I briefly mentioned Willem Maker (born Wes Doggett) in my Best of 2010 Music list, but I didn't speak to my sense of his being Overlooked--and I should have. Consider this post a belated remedying of that oversight.

Actually, Maker may not remain Overlooked for much longer. In the course of looking around for links for this post, I learned that Maker received brief mention in this past Sunday's New York Times, in belated acknowledgement of Maker's album Agapao, released back in April. Ben Ratliff describes Maker's music as "sophisticated southern-rock trance music, composed with open-tuned guitar and boot heel, adjoining blues and country and heterophonic gospel music," and that is hard to improve upon.

But, this being the Internet, I'll elaborate anyway.

Maker's biography is a powerful one that gives added weight to his work. His career, in fact, very nearly came to an end just as it was beginning. As described in this article in No Depression, Maker and his brother's band had just recorded a single with alt-country star Jay Farrar (co-founder of Uncle Tupelo and, later, Son Volt) in the mid-'90s when Maker began exhibiting bipolar-like mood swings. Extensive testing revealed that he and the rest of his family had toxic levels of lead and mercury in their bodies: it turned out that their rent house in Georgia had been built on (and parts of it with) slag from the local copper refinery. The family then moved just over the state line to the somehow-apt Turkey Heaven Mountain in Ranburne, Alabama, where Maker still lives.

You don't have to know all that, though, to sense Maker's music's power. And it is powerful: This man is no whiner. At its heart is that trance-like quality Ratliff mentions. It owes something of its quality to the droning, proto-boogie style of north-Mississippi blues practiced by R. L. Burnside and Junior Kimbrough (both also very much worth knowing, if you don't already), but its tempos are slower, giving Maker's songs a more expansive, starker quality. Think of the opening riff of Led Zeppelin's "When the Levee Breaks"--not just its rhythm but its overall mood--and that's something like the feel of Maker's songs.

But these songs wouldn't work if Maker had a crooner's voice, and fortunately, he doesn't. Imagine a rougher-voiced Bob Seger who isn't so much singing as declaiming rhythmically, and you'd have Maker's voice.

I said "declaiming." Maker's songs are more like visions (often foreboding) than stories. In some of them, lovers done each other wrong, but more often than not the speaker's concerns transcend the particulars of his world to include all of us. Maker sees, he doesn't like what he sees, but he's unafraid of what he sees. This isn't exactly lounge-by-the-pool, Southern good-timey music, but it's heady, heady stuff.

As an example of his work, click to play "Red as a Rose," from Maker's first album, the one-man-show Stars Fell On. This link is a freebie via Maker's record label, so download with impunity, if you're so inclined. Lyrics below:

Black road's busy
Toll's overflowin
Payin for a promise
It'll take care and save
Away from the danger
Away from the threat
Wolves for shepherds
Chains for charms

They say
It's all gonna be alright
But I don't believe em
And if they say
Its all gonna be alright
Don't you believe em
Don't you believe em

I came here for joy
I came here for love
I came here to open the darkest door
I say I'm a lover
That knows how to fight
For the precious, the dear and the quiet
that cries

No more to be so civilized
With teeth like fangs, eyes flashin knives
A hunger’s shift from led to lied
I pass the sheep for the shepherd’s hide
Gold’s illumination to hide the beast inside

I see a road
And it's red as a rose
I see a road
And it's red as a rose
Red as a rose
Red as a rose
Red as a rose



Discography:

Stars Fell On (2008)

New Moon Hand (2009)

Agapao (2011) (presently available only via Maker's website)

Read More...

Thursday, June 09, 2011

Caption Contest

Watch, consider, then post your submission in the comments section. The winner will receive a Blog Meridian Virtual Snow-Dome!



(via Andrew Sullivan)

Read More...

Wednesday, June 08, 2011

More on "my own louts": A rifle as a Texas madeleine

Some of you may recall that I posted on my father's brother's unexpected death. There had been a bit of unfinished business regarding his possessions; and so on my recent trip to Texas, my brother and I drove over to Houston to collect those things and, if possible, figure out what to do with them. I've recently found out a little more about one of these objects that, in conjunction with my recent reading of John Graves' Goodbye to a River, has me thinking about the history of the place where I grew up and, as Graves so eloquently puts it in his book, "my own louts."

Among those possessions are two shotguns and a rifle. The shotguns, according to a friend of mine who also buys and sells older guns, aren't anything special--he agrees with my calling them "varmint killers"--but the rifle is a Winchester made in 1903. It's been in thinking about this rifle over the past couple of days that I've been filled with a flood of family and community memory.

Some boring reminiscing follows, below the fold.



Since my grandfather was born in 1907, I'm thinking (though I have no proof) that the Winchester originally belonged to his father. I can't say for sure because, to be honest, if I had ever seen these guns before, I have no memory of them now, and I remember no talk about them. I knew Grandpa had guns, though, because we'd hear the occasional story about his having to shoot raccoons or, on occasion, coatis that were getting into the hen house. But aside from my dad's occasional coon hunts with high school friends of his, we weren't hunters. But the rifle. That takes me back to a time when Oak Hill wasn't on the frontier, but it was still pretty wild: the last black bear in the area, people said, had been shot only in 1900; and if one reads between the lines of this article on Oak Hill, one can see that it was pretty rough around the edges, too (really: ask yourself what a place must be like that has 70 people and 4 saloons; something else it doesn't tell you is that that limestone for the state capital was quarried out of one of the hills by prison labor--hence the name Convict Hill, given to that hill), and would be for much of its first century.

(Case in point: When my dad was a boy (this would have been in the mid-to-late '40s), after school let out the kids would have rock fights between the "clean" kids and the "dirty" kids. The "clean" kids were the ones who bathed more than once a week.

My daddy was a "clean" kid, I'll have you know.)

Oak Hill was just becoming a more-or-less respectable place to be from when I was a boy growing up in the '60s. Most of the kids I went to elementary school with were like me: not farmers, but a generation removed from that life and never to return to it, and often living on land that had been in the family for a generation or (in my case) three. But the son of the man who shot that last bear was a friend of our family, as his father had been (their property adjoined each other), and I was growing up on land with dense stands of "cedar" trees (which are really junipers) and had deer and fox and the occasional bobcat, while across the road was another thousand acres where, somewhere down in a limestone canyon, a mountain lion lived. You get the idea: combine undeveloped land held for generations, a family who loved to tell stories about people whose relatives at least were still alive, and one boy who loved running around in those woods and possessed of an overactive imagination, and you have someone who, when he first read certain passages in Faulkner, understood them at a subconscious level before he could have told you in an articulate fashion what Faulkner was actually saying.

I'm going on and on about all this because that Oak Hill is gone except in memory. Forty years ago, my family thought people were nuts for building a subdivision west of us; today, all those hills, all the way out to Dripping Springs, 30 miles away, are filled with people on one- and two-acre lots enamored of Hill Country living. Driving around that part of the county can be a melancholy experience, to the point that, for a longer time than I can remember, I'd not thought much about those times before me that, when I was a boy, didn't feel all that distant. But something about hefting that rifle--no desire to shoot it, mind you, just holding it--filled me with something a lot sweeter than melancholy.

Read More...

Sunday, June 05, 2011

"My own louts": An excerpt from John Graves' Goodbye to a River

Having grown up in Texas, and grown up hearing his name, it's hard for me to gauge how well known John Graves (b. 1920) is outside Texas. The fact that he's been nominated twice for the National Book Award, though, would suggest that he has a reputation in some circles. Anyway, while I was in Austin, the Barnes & Noble I visited happened to have a copy of the book which established Graves' reputation, Goodbye to a River; I don't think I'd ever even seen a copy of it before, so I grabbed it. It's been my bedtime reading for a few days now.

The book's plot is a simple one. In the 1950s, the government proposed a series of dams along 200 or so miles of the Brazos River south and west of Forth Worth, a stretch of river that Graves grew up along and knew well as a boy and a young man. Graves wants to see that stretch one last time, before the impounded water floods the canyons and sand bars and still-untouched stands of oak and elm, so in November of 1957 he loads up a canoe with provisions (more than he really needs--he occasionally uses Thoreau to reproach himself) and a "not very practical" six-month-old daschund and heads downstream. As he relates the incidents of travel, the changing weather and the folks he meets along the way, he also tells the stories he knows about the flora and fauna (both presently there and long gone), the bends and crossings and landmarks.

That's the plot. Here's the book's ethos in a nutshell (the ellipsis is Graves' own):

Nothing that happened in this segment, [during the time of the Comanche raids] or later, made any notable dent in human history. From one very possible point of view, the stories tell of a partly unnecessary, drawn-out squabble between savages and half-illiterate louts constituting the fringes of a culture which, two and a half centuries before, had spawned Shakespeare, and which even then was reading Dickins and Trollope and Thoreau and considering the thoughts of Charles Darwin. They tell too--the stories--of the subsequent squabbles among the louts themselves: of cattle thievery, corn whisky, Reconstruction, blood feuds, lynchings, splinter sectarianism, and further illiteracy.

Can they then have any bearing on mankind's adventures?

Maybe a little. They don't all tell of louts. There was something of a showing-through; meanings floated near the surface which have relevance to the murkier thing Americans have become. It didn't happen just on the Brazos, certainly, but all along the line of that moving brush fire. There's nothing new in the idea that the frontier had continuing impact on our character, or that one slice of that frontier, examined, may to some degree explain the whole . . .

But in truth such gravities were not what salted the tales I could read, looking off over the low country from the point atop the bluffs. Mankind is one thing; a man's self is another. What that self is tangles itself knottily with what his people were, and what they came out of. Mine came out of Texas, as did I. If those were louts, they were my own louts. (143-144)


Only three of the dams were built--due in large part, many say, to this book.

Read More...

Wednesday, June 01, 2011

At the mid-point of my journey through The Pale King

Wallace's workbook pages for what would eventually become Chapter 9 of The Pale King. Click on the image to enlarge. Image found here.

(I promise that this blog isn't turning into an "All David Foster Wallace, all the time" blog. Something other will follow this post.)

The Pale King is going to be a hard novel to discuss coherently, once I finish it; I can't imagine what it would be like to teach it. It's also going to be a tough sell to the Wallace-curious among you--even harder than Infinite Jest. At least that novel has plot lines to it. This thing, so far, is remaining true to Wallace's stated goals (which I've referred to before) of “Realism. Monotony. Plot a series of set-ups for stuff happening, but nothing actually happens.”

NB: The above is not to be read as my indictment of the novel. On the contrary: It's succeeding in its intention of, well, describing boring things in a way that is appropriately tedious and yet makes you want to keep reading. It is to say, though, that The Pale King will not, I predict, appeal even to every already-confirmed DFW fan--and that, too, is very much part of its point. More about that below.

I'm afraid even to try to offer brief comments on what I've read so far--not because I'm afraid of spoiling anything (so far, there's nothing to spoil, which is also part of the novel's point as far as I can tell) but because I fear becoming trapped like Sisyphus (or like some of the novel's narrators) in comments that lead to explanation upon explanation. Or, Hamlet-like, that I'm about to cross a bourn of an undiscovered country from which no traveller returns. Wish me luck . . . or journey with me . . .

First of all, a quick explanation of the Dante reference in this post's title: I'm presently in "David Wallace"'s second section, in which he is one of three passengers in the back seat of a Gremlin with barely-functioning air conditioning (it's a warm, humid central Illinois afternoon). He'd finally been picked up at the Peoria bus terminal, after several IRS vehicles had come to pick up other new arrivals and "Wallace" had been passed over. He and his fellow passengers, all of them new IRS employees except for the driver, have just arrived at the IRS's Peoria facility and are in search of a parking space. Pages 274-281 are taken up with a description of said arrival, chiefly consisting of, of all things, a description (and elaborate criticism and footnotes, natch) of the parking areas and traffic flow around the facility itself, though he also throws in a passing mention of three signs; these read in their entirety, "Entrance", "Exit", and "It's spring, think farm safety" (this last sign put up by a 4-H Club).

Dante and Charon, you may be thinking. Yes (I suspect). So far, though, "Wallace" has no Virgil, but it looks as though he will be our Dante.

One has to be careful in pushing that idea too hard, though, and for this reason: Dante is describing a System, too, and all Systems (and journeys into and through them) will have shared attributes. One of those attributes is that when Systems work, they are tedious. We don't get that sense when reading Dante because, after all, our narrator isn't confined to any of the realms he visits; for those whom he converses with, though, well, eternity is a long time, isn't it?

The characters Dante describes, of course, can't opt out of the circle of Hell in which they find themselves . . . which is part of Dante's point: Choose well in this life, he is saying to his readers. Wallace (our author, not the character in the novel), though, is describing our encounters with and participation in Systems in this life. In this life, most of us don't actively choose those Systems whose machinations affect our daily lives--like the IRS and other such government agencies, yes, but also things like a city's infrastructure; mostly, that's because we feel as though we have no choice in the matter. (Well, we do, collectively, but Systems are belated responses to the ways we've collectively fallen into living our lives.) By the same token, though, certain types are drawn to or are best suited for working within certain Systems. So, Wallace's "Wallace" can on the one hand curse the stupidity of Peoria's planning department and, on the other, look forward anxiously to working for the IRS. (Well--up to the point I've read so far, he is an eager would-be IRS employee. He still has to get into the building . . .)

In short, to modify Sartre a bit: "The IRS is hell for other people."

As for Hamlet being a point of reference for this novel: well, maybe. Here and there, we get overt nods in the play's direction, such as in this list of Peoria's "other little outlying communities[:] Peoria Heights, Bartonville, Sicklied Ore, Eunice, &c" (256n.2) and this list of IRS Regional Examination Centers: "Philadelphia PA, Peoria IL, Rotting Flesh LA, St. George UT, La Junta CA, and Federal Way WA" (266). More subtly, though (or maybe this is a case of over-reading), one way to think about Hamlet is that its titular character is trying to understand Systems that have defined him as both a public and a private person but have now failed him, and then deciding whether or not to opt out of the most crucial System of all, Being Alive. ("Sicklied o'er," just to remind you, comes toward the end of Hamlet's "To be or not to be" soliloquy in Act 3 scene 1:

Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.


From that point on, it's pretty much downhill for Hamlet. Whether one is a lawyer or Yorick or the noble Alexander, one's just going to end up in the graveyard anyway. What will be, will be; "There is special providence in the fall of a sparrow," he tells Horatio shortly before his fateful duel with Laertes.

What follows is very provisional: The Pale King seems to be about something like the inverse of Hamlet's despair, of finding and perhaps even insisting that there be meaning within the system within which one finds oneself and--and this is crucial--which one one finds to be bigger than oneself; that is, that while within it, one feels as though one is in service to something larger and more profound than one's self-gratification. One character, describing the day of his epiphany that he should work for the IRS (a student at DePaul University, he wandered into an Advanced Accounting class by mistake), recounts the class's sub, a "substitute Jesuit," concluding the class by saying, "Gentlemen, you are called to account" (233). A clever pun, sure, but that simple line pretty neatly summarizes what I've read thus far.

There's (much) more to say about the (apparent) paradox that those things (and people) we feel most called to serve often involve--indeed, demand, as Wallace put it in his Kenyon College commencement address, "attention, and awareness, and discipline, and effort, and being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them, over and over, in myriad petty little unsexy ways, every day." For "petty little unsexy ways," read "boring" or, less pejoratively, "tedious." Yet, therein lies "the really important kind of freedom": in deliberately choosing to embrace that calling.

That seems to be where this novel is headed--if "headed" is the right verb. We'll see. I mean, it was Wallace's intention for this novel that "nothing actually [happen]."

Read More...