The Democratic National Convention is over ending with a magnificent speech by Senator Barack Obama last night.  Speeches over the course of the week by John Kerry, Al Gore, Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, former President Bill Clinton, and Joe Biden, were all fantastic.  I particularly thought Bill and Biden’s speeches helped Obama the most and everyone else’s helped the Democratic Party.  I know a lot of people questioned the decision to move to the stadium on the last night but I thought it was great.  It looked magical, historical, and a lot more people go to witness Obama speak than at any other point thus far in person.  I liked that he spoke directly, confidently, with purpose.  He started out talking about the American Dream being deferred, went into specifics on how he was going to help the American Economy, and then into why he is better for the job over John McCain.  Exactly what I wanted and needed to hear as a choosy and skeptical voter. 

Problems I have with the convention aren’t necessarily ones that I have with THIS convention, but the organization of all conventions.  And it mixes with my contempt for the general election debates.  I am looking excitedly and with equal loathing towards the debates.  I’m ready to see Obama and McCain duel it out and VERY curious to see Biden against Palin-how is he going to attack a mom??  She is a good speaker, has a son going to Iraq like Biden, but has little experience-which honestly cannot be compared to the experience Barack has because he’s been in politics for eight years in a highly populated state and then in Washington making national policies whereas she’s been the head of a state that has roughly the same population of Memphis, Tn for only two years.   But that’s another blog. 

I wish that instead of getting two minutes to lay out specific plans and then 30 seconds of a rebuttal-I mean, REALLY!!-that the conventions were spent going over those issues and exactly the plans of the candidates when they have SO much time and access to the American people.  The candidates always complain about how they hate the debates because they have little time to give their plans and rebuttals-but why not use the hours of time at the conventions to talk about these things?  It is SO frustrating to try and glean information from the debates.  At the DNC, a lot of the same rhetoric was given over and over-the regular people who have problems like no healthcare, the keynote speakers giving the list of problems America faces and dogging Bush and “freudian slips” of comparing Bush and McCain.  Their motto has actually been “we don’t want more of the same”.  But if McCain is giving speeches talking about how he and Palin want to change America too then isn’t all that rhetoric just a big fat waste of time?  Both parties want change and to help Americans-just have different ways of accomplishing it and yes, it does matter.  IT’s like saying it doesn’t matter how I get delicious plate of food when I eat out as long as it gets to my table timely.  But it DOES matter because one chef could do it in a more efficient, healthy, sanitary manner, whereas another chef could have dropped your food on the floor and not washed his hands. The food still looks the same and might even taste the same but you’ll feel differently when you’ve got food poisoning the next day.  The ends don’t always justify the means. 

So, I’ll be watching the RNC which usually contains a lot more rhetoric which is frustrating, but I’m very curious to see what Bush, Palin, and McCain say-if they say anything specific or attacking at all. 

I give the DNC a B+ for the speeches and information I received.  I feel that what was said by Obama was genuine-not everyone was necessarily sincere in their speeches, but I believe that he will do what he says and what he wants to do is right on the money.

So, I’ve thought of some “rules” for living with readers-readers like me, who read all kinds of books (most recently, see at the end of this piece).  For starters, some quiet would be nice.  Keep the t.v. down, don’t start our extremely loud garbage disposal while you’re doing the dishes (thank you by the way), and why oh why do you start to pick up the house when I’ve just settled into a harrowing scene?

Now, I’m not complaining about cleaning up the house-that is all very much appreciated.  It’s the noise-and right when I seem to be needing quiet.   Sometimes, I hear nothing at all-in fact, this brings  me to my next rule.  No asking questions until you’ve gotten my attention-and please-only when necessary.  Sometimes I hear nothing when I read-when my mind has slipped into the mind of a character or into the poetic imagery of another time and world.  I’m gone-only here in body-not mind.  So while you’re going on about what to do for dinner-I’m in England with Elizabeth Bennet, in Iran with Professor Nafisi, or maybe even on a Wisconsin farm with Edgar Sawtelle.  So, first get my attention-but gently.  No hand waving or grabbing a hold of the portal into the world of giant mirrors that reflect so cleverly back on our society.  Just a simple, “I need to ask you something”-maybe a few times until I can focus and realize, I’m quite hungry too. 

Okay, so, let’s summarize here: quietness, and no interruptions unless absolutely necessary.  One more thing for now.  After I’m finished with a book-I might be….emotional.  Sometimes I may not know what to say-but I certainly WANT to talk about it.  Over dinner, dishes, over you turning the pages of your blasted newspaper finally.  I don’t really need any comments back-unless you’ve read the book, but certainly no arguing against how a book or character’s actions make me feel…maybe just questioning why.  After reading a particularly dramatic, dark, tragicomic, or lovely story, I feel as though I’ve gained something from reading this story, from following the actions and decisions of these characters.  They aren’t real, but the experience ruminated over in with my own in my mind is certainly real.  And I’ve either been somewhat changed in my own way of thinking-some kind of alteration has occured when writing has persuaded me to look at something, whether it be relationships, politics, society, or the nature of man, differently.  Not all books do this-in fact, a lot don’t, but there are some that really touch an individual’s mind, and all I’m asking is to please take the trash out in an hour. 

Recently Read:

The Story of Edgar Sawtelle, by David Wroblewski

The God of Animals, by Aryn Kyle

Persuasion, by Jane Austen

I feel like I’ll never catch up.  EVER.  Are these people bluffing?  They must not have real hard-working jobs unless reading is PART of their job.  Writers and editors who write these articles and suggest this book or refer to that book in the most pretentious way, such as:

“I want to be a part of this exclusive club of intelligent people who have read not only the most fundamental books of the 20th and 21st centuries, but of course, the great ones which are over 1,000 pages and require the patience and intelligence of the well-read citizen.” 

You know what I say to this guy?  Screw YOU! Let’s see you read a 1500 page book and work 40 hours a week on your feet and then come home to your husband or wife, maybe some kids, and have time to read only such books. 

Or maybe I should congratulate you, oh Worthy One, for explaining how you neglect refinancing your mortgage just so you can be part of this “club” that has also created the literary canon, has decided what our children read in schools, and what our teachers teach in English classes.  Oh, and what makes the list of a well-read reader. 

Now, I work fulltime at a bookstore and I read a lot.  There are books for fun and adventure (Harry Potter, Twilight series, the 13 and a Half Lives of Captain Blue Bear, The Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime, etc.), books for your soul (those that leave lasting impressions on you like The Odyssey, To Kill a Mockingbird, Ender’s Game, 1984, Reading Lolita in Tehran, etc.) and books that everyone is reading ( The Kite Runner, Anna Karenina, The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, etc).  By “everyone”, I mean those who read only the most highly recommended pieces of “literature”, sometimes award winners.  Now I’m certainly not against award winners.  I’ve read many that I’ve liked, even loved.  But there is this expectancy that they MUST be read, at ONCE.  “I can’t believe you haven’t read…..(fill in the blank)”!  Also, that if they are an award winner or highly recommended that they are untouchable.  They  must be great, they must be on your list to read, they must be in the literary canon for all time.  You cannot say you didn’t get through Anna Karenina. 

 There are other sorts of books, but the ones above happen to fall in my sights most of the time.  I have not read romance books, non-philosophical or non-fun science fiction/fantasy, horror fiction (I’m a total wimp), chick-lit-nothing personal, its just not my style after the addictive quality of better writing and complex characters, and then there’s nonfiction.  I have branched out into nonfiction (for fun) starting back in college.  I took some really fascinating “relevant” history classes and had to read some current nonfiction books on the war in Iraq.  Also, my husband is a journalist and frequently recommends books he’s reading as I do to him with fiction.  Mostly to no avail, but I’m definitely trying to be more varied.  In fact, my co-worker and I are starting a book club in which are third pick will most likely be Confessions of an Economic Hitman.  I would also love to do Reading Lolita in Tehran because I could read that book over and over but the terrifying events depicted in the book prevent me so I am saving it for when I am in the safety of a group of friends.  

I guess the point is that I’m tired of reading these articles or reviews where these people write about all the books well-read readers should have read.  According to them, I won’t be well-read until I’ve read every major classic and contemporary award winner, including the 15 or 20 new nonfiction books that come out each week!

I refuse now and forever to fold under the pressure of living up to the standards of the “exclusive” members of the past generations because I have a life to live.  A professor once told me that a life in books isn’t really a life at all.  When you spend all your time reading, life is going on around you.  One day, you look up from your books and realize life has passed you by. 

I’ll always be reading.  But, I’m going to live life too. 

 Host: a Novel by Stephenie Meyer

      The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is an explosive mystery involving decades of a family’s history discovered by the two main characters, Carl Mikael Blomkvist and Lisbeth Salander.  I couldn’t put this book down until I found out not only the truth of the mysteries but the fate of Lisbeth and Blomkvist.  This unlikely pair come together over unusual circumstances but decide to work together to solve a mystery.  What they discover about this shocking family secret and even about themselves will have you hungry for more. 

The title is named for Lisbeth who is one of the most unique heroines I’ve come across in a long time.  Her special skills combined with her antisocial personality leads the reader to be driven by curiosity about her.  I found myself asking: Why is she like that?  Why doesn’t she just show everyone how brilliant she really is?  Larsson doesn’t disappoint.  He answers all the questions you find you have about Lisbeth and her own story alone is worth its own book.  Readers have nothing to fear when it comes to the welfare of Lisbeth.  She may seem slow but her brain isn’t and she’s the bravest character in this book.  You’ll find yourself on her side, cheering her on, wanting to fight for her as well as for Blomkvist. 

At the beginning of the story, Blomkvist finds himself being accused of libel against a major industry tycoon in Sweden.  The book goes into his background and he really is in the book more than Lisbeth as a protaganist.  Though, the story goes into first person when we get to Lisbeth’s own personal story.   I found myself wondering when Lisbeth was going to show up because the book jacket really markets this book as Lisbeth’s story.  However, just be patient, because the case Blomkvist is working on along with the crime he’s accused of eventually intersects with Lisbeth’s story and from then on, the two work together on solving the family mystery. 

As far as mysteries go, this book reminded me of an Elizabeth George book or even a Reginald Hill novel.  The family mystery is definitely dramatic and gruesome.  But like those authors George and Hill, Larsson digs deep into the lives and psyches of the mystery solvers.  Except Blomkvist and Salander aren’t detectives or policemen.  They’re just a reporter and a computer hacker.  So, because they don’t have detecting skills or backup to call on, the story is that more tense.  They don’t have guns, the right to ask questions, or legal access to files or property.  But Blomkvist is a journalist and has an instinct of how to look at a story and he’s solved a big one before.  And he has motivation this time.  Lisbeth is a computer hacker and although most of what she does is illegal, she manages to do it without getting caught.  Also, she works for a high end security firm and DOES has access to security equipment thats probably better than anything the police have. 

Lisbeth and Blomkvist, who have sacrificed their happiness at the beginning of their stories, take a journey that will lead them to the truth.  The truth isn’t pretty either, as it has been in a George or Hill novel as well.  Getting to the truth can be dangerous and can even surprise you with what you end up finding out about yourself as Lisbeth and Blomkvist discover.  I’m glad this story continues even though the family mystery is brought to light after decades because the readers will still yearn for more of Blomkvist and Lisbeth. 

Larsson weaves a gruesome family drama that goes back decades in with the complicated lives of two characters you will not forget.  This book is not a great mystery but delves into the ethical dilemmas that Lisbeth and Blomkvist find themselves facing and questioning.  Larsson really presents the moral answers with two different perspectives that caused me to really think about what I would do in those situations.  These ethical challenges really enrich the story with a more personal relevance to the reader and along with the depth of the characters, you’ll be thinking about this book for months!

The Host  by Stephanie Meyer is filled with exceptionally complex characters that caused me to fall under their spell.  The plot contains beings from another world who have inhabited Earth and taken over the bodies of humans to continue on with their lives but continuously peaceful.  This is a form of a utopian society where you can go shopping at the grocery store but don’t have to pay.  Where this kind of society hits home is when the protaganist, Wanderer, gets treatment at a hospital without worrying if her insurance will cover it because the entire world now has free health care.  Also, no worrying about gas prices.

The heart of the story lies with Wanderer-a “soul” that has taken up residence inside Melanie’s body.  But Melanie is still in existence-she’s always been a fighter and isn’t giving up her control so easily.  Wanderer, practically a celebrity among other souls due to her successes with subduing other beings in eight other planets, starts to feel what Melanie has felt after so much exposure to her memories and her human emotions.  She yearns for Jared and Jamie, Melanie’s lover and younger brother, respectively.  The story continues in a tense fashion where we eagerly desire the acceptance of Wanderer among a group of rebellious humans she comes across. 

Through interaction with true humans, we come to see and sympathize with Wanderer as she sacrifices so much of her own happiness to try and make up for what the souls have taken from mankind: their free will to love.  We also witness Wanderer often display more love and humanity than some of the actual humans around her who have succumbed to their hatred for the souls. 

Stephanie Meyer does a masterful job of showing both sides of the picture.  The souls took over to keep mankind from destroying itself.  Instead they put in place a very organized, disease-free, economy-free, control-free society where no one questions your motives or actions because souls never lie.  On the other hand, the humans feel as though their freedom-their very existence has been snatched away by invaders and for some, no reason or benefit is good enough. 

The Host displays humans at their best: accepting, tolerant of others, and loving unconditionally.  It also shows mankind at its worst: prejudiced, hateful, and murderous.  Meyer does a fantastic job of allowing the reader to decide whose side they’re on but clearly tolerance and perspective are shown to be the best option no matter whose side you’re on. 

I couldn’t put this book down!  Any fan of Meyer will not be disappointed.  But for those who’ve never read the Twilight series or even any Science Fiction/Fantasy books could still easily pick up this book and thoroughly enjoy it.  Meyer has always focused on what it means to be a human-just from a perspective you might not have ever thought about before.  She’s great at writing about characters-women protaganists- that always seem to sacrifice their own happiness for those they love and often feel lonely because of it.  I could also compare her story here to Orson Scott Card’s Ender’s Game.  The plots are completely different, but the essence of the main character going through this personal journey to prove their worth or love for mankind while it is displaying intolerance for others is the same in both books. 

Meyer writes a story that is compelling, thoughtful, and beautiful.  This is a must-read for those who enjoy great story-telling at a brisk pace combined with characters that walk around in your head for months after. 

Jim the Boy by Tony Earley, is a wonderful book.  It features a young boy, Jim, having just turned age 10 growing up in Aliceville, North Carolina with his three uncles and widowed mother during the Depression.  They aren’t really affected all that much by the Depression-just in little ways because people around them are affected by it.  But, the experiences this boy goes through is one that is familiar to lots of people who had good childhoods and grew up in the south.  I, of course, did not grow up on a farm.  I’ve always lived in big cities or around them in the suburbs.  But I’ve always lived in the south and frankly, Jim the boy reminds me of how my uncle Buddy who farmed in Ripley, TN must have grown up.  Jim is curious, mostly does what he’s told to do, sometimes selfish, but often feels guilty for it.  He adores his uncles and loves his mamma.  He misses his Daddy (who died right before he was born of a heart attack) and often wonders if he is like him.  He loves baseball and feeling like he’s good at whatever he does.  He’s smart in school but often misbehaves.  The best thing about this book are the descriptions of how Jim feels about new things or when he sees or experiences something that he’s been around for before but sees it in a new light.  Like when he wakes up on his birthday and there’s all this energy pent up that makes him so excited he feels like giggling or like he’s going to burst.  So finally he goes outside to walk around and explore and its really early morning.  To him, this morning, with him so excited about the coming day, feels new to him.  Like the dew and rising sun have come for the first time.  And in a way it is, because this is the first time Jim, as a ten year old, will have experienced the early morning. 

The story is really wonderful.  There are so many instances that took me back to feeling like a kid again-not the same experiences Jim had, but certainly the feelings that go on in a kid’s head when you’re up against something new and exciting or even scary and overwhelming. 

It’s definitely a must-read.  My friend and I are picking it for our first book club selection coming up in June.  We wanted something that appeals to all ages and genders and kinds of readers.  The language is certainly simple and its a fast read.  But the descriptions make you want to slow down and settle in, rolling the imagery and feelings around in your head a bit, because you just fall in love with it. 

Here’s a sample from Jim the Boy :  “There he is,” Mama said.  “The birthday boy.”  Jim’s heart rose up briefly, like a scrap of paper on a breath of wind, and then quickly settled back to the ground.  His love for his mother was tethered by a sympathy Jim felt knotted in the dark of his stomach.  The death of Jim’s father had broken something inside her that had not healed.  She pulled the heaviness that had once been grief behind her like a plow.  The uncles, the women of the church, the people of the town, had long since given up on trying to talk her into leaving the plow where it lay.  Instead they grew used to stepping over, or walking inside, the deep furrows she left in her wake.  Jim knew only that his mother was sad, and that he figured somehow in her sadness.  When she leaned over to kiss him, the lilaced smell of her cheek was as sweet and sad at once as the smell of freshly turned earth in the churchyard.”

The book is mostly about Jim-not his mother, but the quote above is an example of how Jim sees things in his life and how the author, Tony Earley is adept at describing the people around Jim.  Jim’s mama and her grief mixed with her love for Jim is seen in that passage, but it also shows how thoughtful Jim is to notice and care about the complexities of his mother. 

The second book with the character Jim, that just came out in hardback is really wonderful too.  It’s about Jim when he’s older-a Senior in high school and he falls in love really for the first time.  He also deals with the coming War-WWII that is and what part he will play in it. 

Next book review: Stephanie Meyer’s Host

           I thought about all the coverage-on t.v. and in print-that I’ve seen and have been so overwhelmed with.  I’m sick of watching political pundits and even late night hosts talk about politics.  They have nothing new to say or if they do its inconsequential. 

    I’m ready for a REAL debate.  I stopped watching after Super Tuesday because the candidates are repeating themselves constantly and they get 30 seconds to explain their solutions to very complicated problems.  Since television is driven by ratings then the real debates should be in print.  Real journalists who have more than 20 minutes to ask questions should sit down with all three candidates and ask questions letting them say as much as they need to and then devote an entire issue of Newsweek or a section of the Times to these candidates debating each other on issues.  I’ve read a lot of great articles on sit downs with these candidates, but not with all three.  Although I’m sure it would be difficult to get all three at the same time.  Obama recently declined a recent televised debate and I don’t blame him.  What’s the point? 

  There’s so much to be fixed in this country-problems we’ve had (healthcare, Iraq War, poverty) and problems that have recently crept up into the spotlight (Economy, Environment, Iran).  After visiting the candidates websites, clicking on the “Issues” feature and seeing almost 20 issues these people as President would have to fix and all of them legitimate concerns-how in the world would any ONE person be able to focus on all these things?  It conjures up an image of a person who has major health problems and a doctor has to go in during surgery and fix all of these problems or the person will die.  But they are all so critical that how can one doctor do this?  He must prioritize and get help, obviously.  These candidates won’t realistically be able to fix all the problems in this country or even promote and create all the bills and solutions they say they want to.  They also don’t want to turn any voter away because one issue is in a worse state than another.  If I were being inaguarated here is what I would focus on immediately:

1.  Iraq War:  the first thing I would do is meet with the U.N. and apologize on behalf of my predecessors and make nice.  Get ideas from the rest of the world including people in Iraq on what should be done next.  Even if that includes keeping some troops in Iraq so as not to create an open CIVIL war there with all the neighboring countries taking sides.  I would send home soldiers who have been there a long time and try to get other countries to help out again-with genuine promises of listening to experts and having realistic plans for the future.  I would probably try and see what people there think of creating separate states/ areas for the Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, etc.  who cannot live together and a place where some can.  Its very complex-thats just one idea I’ve read about that seemed realistic over others. 

2.  Healthcare-setting up a National Healthcare Committee to start process on getting affordable healthcare to every child, every person-whether through jobs or individual, and giving tax breaks to employers who provide first rate care to their employees ( AFFORDABLY).

3.  Economy/Environment: these really go hand in hand in some respects-convincing companies to  turn to next generation fuels and technologies that cut carbon emissions and lower number of carbon footprints.  Also creating new jobs by training people in local community colleges in new clean technology fields.  Providing huge tax cuts to companies that fund and provide clean technology and really cut carbon emission-and provide new jobs in these areas.  Also, I would make sure that banks were held responsible for their actions in mortgage loans and that “people” who play games with whether or not average Americans can pay their mortgages find something else to do with their time and money (ex: not hedge funds). 

4.  Education: State and local colleges should be free, there should be more training in techonological jobs, and math and science in elementary school and beyond should be promoted more.  Also teachers should be paid more and kids should have to take less standardized tests that prove nothing anyway.  Oh, and a person should NOT teach a subject that they did not go to school for.  How can a person who majored in Art or political science be qualified to TEACH Algebra or Biology?  It’s ridiculous.  And just because a person likes to read and did well on their Praxis in the writing part doesn’t mean they can teach High school English.  Just because kids live in a bad part of town doesn’t mean they should get older “kids” who went to a good school to teach them in subjects they aren’t trained in! 

5.  I would let Congress decide on number 5-this is a democracy after all.  Whatever wasn’t being done right then and these leaders decided should be next on the agenda, I would focus on that. 

What would you focus on? 

I slept in-way late, read, went to the park, got my husband to take off some time, we visited a used bookstore, went to our favorite bake shop and loaded up for the weekend, just drove around at sunset-not the time where the sun hits you in the face no matter how you try to block it with your visor, but right AFTER that time when its really pink and light blue and beautiful.  I call it the Blue Phase-it casts this cool, beautiful light blue on everything and kind of makes you feel like the world has been dunked in a pretty fishbowl.  Anyway, we ate out at restaurants, we stayed in too and watched movies till 2am, and read till our heads hurt on Sunday and had to watch a Family Guy episode to kill off some of the brain cells that had multiplied by reading so much. 

Movies: The Philadelphia Story-the one with Katherine Hepburn and Cary Grant, not Tom Hanks; For Your Consideration-Christopher Guest is a GENIUS!; some of Ali with Will Smith-btw, that Sam Cooke impersonator was horrible!  Sam Cooke has this clear, gorgeous, full sounding voice and that guy was raspy and made my throat hurt just listening to his nasally drivel.  Just go on youtube, listen to a video of Sam Cooke and then listen to the guy from Ali-not the same AT ALL.  A Mighty Wind-another Christopher Guest movie; and Forgetting Sarah Marshall-at the movies.  The latter was really funny and really awkward at points but not bad for a matinee.  Kristen Bell was really funny as the breaker-upper/movie-star.  

Books: Enders Game by Orson Scott Card-I loved it! I want to read the sequel now.  I didn’t feel like I was reading a certain genre-just really dimensional characters.  The Introduction to the copy I had (the authors definitive edition) is really great too-with letters from fans and Card addresses concerns readers had with certain plot points.  I picked up The Brother’s Karamazov by Fyodor Dosteovsky because I’ve always heard it was a great piece of fiction but have put it off b/c of the freakin enormity of it-it’s like a thousand pages!  But he was surprisingly easy to read.  Yes I stumbled over names and Russian history I’m not familiar with, but the writing in general is not so “literary”.  It’s almost conversational, like this narrator is telling his friend the life story of these brothers he came to know.  It will take me awhile to finish it though. 

As far as relaxation and reflection: I decided I want to take up photography again.  When I was like a tween, I used to take these gorgeous shots of the sky-everywhere I went-all kinds of skies.  I have whole albums of clouds, sunsets, blue skies with birds floating in the air on the wind currents.  I didn’t ever have a decent camera and I really can’t afford one now, but I’d like to just start shooting again.  There is just something about shooting nature, especially the sky and trees, that makes me feel utterly in awe.  Like the whole “sublime” movement in literature-I completely understood that feeling of the “Sublime” and the “Beautiful” with nature at least-not like Edmund Burke’s idea of Marie Antoinette and how being small and submissive and pretty is the epitome of the “Beautiful”.  But I am in complete awe of nature and its breathtaking beauty-especially when I have time to enjoy it.  Sometimes, it can be downright scary and overwhelming.  If I’m able, I’ll try to post some of my old pics up here of some shots I’ve taken before.  I really wish I’d had a camera the other day when these massive, low, gray, white and deep blue clouds rolled through quite swiftly with layers and layers of different kinds above them and the golden sunlight breaking through in huge shafts, spotlighting certain places on the ground.  I almost had a wreck watching them. 

They took my mind off the greenery that has taken over here in Memphis.  I love nature, but often I love the dramatic darkness of winter and the colors in the fall as opposed to the overwhelming green of the trees, grass, bushes, and weeds of the spring.  I’m so used to it being dark, gray, and bare, knarled trees and then, like overnight there is Green everywhere!  It’s too much!  We need some yellow, purple, blue, red, white, and at least some brown!  And the sun is out more than ever-especially when I’m driving and it always finds a way to sneak in and spotlight my face so I can’t see where I’m going.  As if it knows I’m not ready for spring and summer and its taunting me.  Well, you know what sun?   I’m going to get some glasses that turn dark in bright lights so I won’t have to be bothered by you when I drive. 

So, my vacation was lovely.  And needed, I’m sure again soon.  Hopefully I’ll have a great camera by the next vacation and will have some photos to share of what I observe. 

According to the article, “those were difficult years for dragons in China.”  Why?  Because Christian missionaries had arrive in the early 20th century and sorcerers in the countryside believed dragons were horny-not the physical attribute kind-but the lusty kind.  When it didn’t rain, these sorcerers “suspended nubile virgins on ropes above known dragon lairs, and then yanked the virgins away at the very last moment, causing the frustrated dragons to ejaculate into farm fields far and wide.”  No lie-that is a direct quote. 

 Do you know what this means?  Dragons were real! Not only were they real, but, I guess, mostly male.  You might ask-then why don’t we see any today?  Well, the article addresses this too (this is the best journalism I’ve seen in a long time): “The rain dragons were slaughtered (oh no!) and banished from thought.”  How awful!  Communism destroys not only an individual’s rights, but rain dragons too!  They got rid of the sorcerers as well, replacing them with “real” scientists. 

Another interesting tidbit: there’s a connection to Kurt Vonnegut!  Apparently in the late 1940′s, some scientists got together at a G.E. facility to conduct experiments involving rain clouds.  Among them were Vincent Schaefer (did something with dry ice), Nobel laureate Irving Langmuir (*yawn*), and former M.I.T. chemist Bernard Vonnegut! (older brother of Kurt Vonnegut-who they enlisted to do their project’s p.r.!)!! The article states that Langmuir proposed an idea about an “imaginary crystal that would set off a chain reaction, solidifying rivers and oceans at warm temperatures.”  He tried to give this idea to H.G. Wells who couldn’t care less, but Kurt (we go by first names now) loved it!  Kurt eventually used it as “Ice-Nine”-stories about scientific hubris and runaway techonology. 

They go on to talk about “seeding” clouds, but I don’t exactly understand what they’re doing.  What the result is that they get a dry cloud to snow or rain by somehow sprinkling forms of dry ice into it.  To me, the experiments are a little sketchy because in both experiments that they list, these guys got it to snow in the winter-wow!  The first time they got it to snow was in November-I checked back to make sure it wasn’t in the middle of the summer, but no, its in November ( I guess, technically, fall).  Then, the second time, a predication of snow comes on the radio and the scientist gets in the plane and sprinkles some chemicals and it starts to snow-wow, again.  I don’t know how they can definitively say they caused it.  But they seem to think that they caused it to spread a lot farther than the storm was going to go.  But again, how does this help the slayed dragons and the drought in China?  We certainly don’t need more snow! (Except here in Memphis-please, someone sprinkle some dry ice into clouds that pass through Arkansas and never make it over the Mississippi river in the wintertime so we can finally get more than half an inch of snow!!). 

Back to the Chinese.  This statement is priceless: “It is typical that over the following years, as the forced collectivization of Chinese agriculture induced a famine that killed millions, the Communists di dnot swerve from their economic policies but responded, in part, by shooting the clouds.”  Yes, you read that right-instead of using planes, they took the cheap route of firing rockets into the clouds.  Nowadays, the Chinese still continue to meddle with nature and the United States has backed off.  The Chinese are worried about the 50% chance of rain that is predicted for the 2008 Olympic opening ceremony and according to international journalists, there are weather people standing by to prevent the rain clouds from reaching the stadium.  Good luck to the Chinese weather team!  Talk about pressure…

You think that the weathermen you see on your local t.v. station are goofballs, wondering who did their hair, and how they were allowed on camera.  But in China, its a whole different ballgame, or sport, probably: “to endure this life it helps to be a social misfit, awkward as hell, and, incidentally, uninterested in the opposite sex.”  The writer goes on to say “I have nothing against the Chinese.  The fact is that meterologists everywhere are weenies in the extreme.  They are twerps.  Dweebs.  Instrument tappers.  Professional virgins.”  Good Lord-this guy must have had a girlfriend stolen by a nerdy weather guy. 

Anyway, I’m just satisfied that dragons really existed and there might be a way to make it snow more here in the south.  Although, in all seriousness, it seems pretty dangerous to mess with nature.  Messing with rain here, could cause a bad effect somewhere else-a drought, lets say, in the rainforest instead!  It would be wonderful to prevent hurricanes, floods, and tornadoes, but if that just causes consequences that are just as bad, then its not worth it.  If the world could somehow control the weather to where there weren’t any negative consequences, then that’s great.  But when it comes to nature, so far, that’s hardly ever the case. 

   May 2008 issue of Vanity Fair: “Stealing Weather” by William Langewiesche         

  Kurt Vonnegut

“These expressions come to us from movies, novels, newspapers, and everyday conversation.  The entries represent the language of the underworld, the nursery, the college campus, California beaches, urban back streets, and Wall street.  We hear from prisoners, surfers, junkies, Valley girls, weight lifters, and just plain country folks.”   That really was the beginning of my love for this book-they got me at the word “underworld” to describe the criminal world and paring it with “nursery”. 

But here’s a little something more they said:

“For more than 200 hundred years the jargon of criminals has been a major source of everyday slang words.   Alcohol, drugs, and crime have been firmly fixed in the public consciousness since the time of U.S. prohibition.  The entertainment value of crime and law enforcement has brought a constant stream of of criminal slang…Even more remain hidden behind closed doors.”  

 

  Only 200 years??  I guess they mean only in America but I love that they get entertainment value out of criminal slang because I certainly do!

Okay, so I’ve perused this great reference tool and decided to first give you a list of my favorite finds so far-I haven’t gone through the entire thing yet-its just too much to take in at once.  Also, I have a list of slang words that mean “intoxicated”.  The examples are theirs, of course.

First list: My Favorites So Far:

-absotively: absolutely: I will be there at ten, absotively!

-air one’s pores: to become naked.  Me and Wilbur, thats my brother, both fell in the creek and had to air our pores a while so our pants could dry out.

-bafflegab: confusing jargon.  Don’t throw that bafflegab at me. Use English!

-diddenwhacker: a name for a gadget.  Have you seen that diddenwhacker in the kitchen drawer?

-furphy: groundless rumor.  Did you hear that furphy that’s going around?

-flimflam: a deception.  That whole business sounds like a bit of flimflam to me.

-george: to seduce and copulate with someone.  They say he georges her a lot. 

okay, so you get the idea.  There are A LOT of words associated with the “underworld” as the book describes it and here are a sampling of words that mean intoxicated: (This time the example sentences are mine)

-activated: Man, she got so activated she fell down the stairs!

-bagged: I couldn’t recite the alphabet backward if I wasn’t bagged!

-chucked: You are chucked, dude-let me take your keys for you-and your date.

-dinged out:  Whoa-that last martini has made me dinged out!  Let’s dance!!

-embalmed: Stacy broke up with me and I’m so depressed-I want to get embalmed tonight!

-fuzzy:  My vision is blurry, I must be a little fuzzy…he he he…

-googly-eyed: Whoa, that long-island iced tea has made me googly-eyed! 

-hepped up:  I’m hepped up on vodka tonics-look out, I’m gonna go throw up now…

illuminated: “I think that guy is checking me out!” “No sweetie, you’re just illuminated..”

jugged up: Lets go get some cupcakes and then get jugged up!

Kentucky fried: Lord love a duck, you are Kentucky fried-put some clothes on!!

lubricated: Maam, I think that you are quite lubricated, so I insist on calling you a cab.

mashed: I am totally mashed, dude. Kerplunk!

 Anton states “Out of respect for you I shall be frank.  You are angry and insulted….but not because of my gibes….The fact of the matter is that you yourself, as a fundamentally decent person, feel you are living a lie; and he who has a guilty feeling always seeks justification outside of himself.”  Then he goes on to describe Nikolai’s one failing-a lack of culture, and then procedes to describe what constitutes a cultured person:

1.  “They respect the human personality and are therefore always forbearing, gentle, courteous and compliant….They will overlook noise, and cold, and overdone meat, and witticisms, and the presence of strangers in their houses…”  I have to admit that I HATE restaurants that insist on blaring loud, awful music while you’re trying to talk to someone across the table.  But I just complain to my husband and then try to ignore it.  But I can’t be compliant, gentle, and courteous to some of the customers who come in the bookstore and leave all manners and common sense behind them. 

2.  “They sympathize not only with beggars and stray cats; they are also sicka t heart with what is not visible to the naked eye.”  I know what sympathy means, but I hate cats-they are demons!

3.  “They respect the property of others and therefore pay their debts.” Tell that to Bush and Co.

4.  “They are sincere and fear untruth like the very devil.  They will not lie even in small matters.  They do not pose, they behave on the street as they would at home….Out of respect for people’s ears they are more often silent than not.” The last one is my favorite-not because it would make a person angry, but because my ears can’t handle your voice!  But seriously-there are a lot of people that say everything they think with no filter-and often I am one of them. 

5.  “They do not make fools of themselves in order to arouse sympathy.  They do not play upon the heartstrings of people so that these will have pity and make a fuss over them.  They don’t say, ‘I am misunderstood!’ or ‘I’ve made a mess of everything!’ because all this is striving after cheap effect, vulgar, stale, false….”  I’ve seen more women do this than men, but maybe men are just more subtle at it than women.  This reminds me of something else….what is it?  Oh yeah-Political elections!

6.  “They are not vain.  If they accomplish a kopek’s worth of good work they don’t make a hundred rubles’ worth of fuss over it and don’t boast they can get into places from which others are excluded.”

7.  “If they have talent, they regard it with respect.  To it they will sacrifice their repose, women, wine and vanity…They are proud of that talent.” 

8.  “They develop an aesthetic sense.  Truly cultured people don’t cheapen themselves.  Artists in particular require from their women companions in freshness, elegance, humanity; not a whore, but a woman who can be a mother….They don’t swill vodka all the time, or sniff cupboards–because they realize they are not pigs.”  I realized the other day that I’m not a pig when I put back half the stuff in the grocery cart shopping for food while hungry-not a good idea.

He ends with “What you need is constant work, day and night, eternal reading, study, will power…Every hour is precious.”  And then I imagine him raising his voice in a battle cry as he says this “You must spurn this way of life once and for all, tear yourself away with a wrench…Come to us, smash the vodka decanter and lie down with a book….you must rid yourself of vanity, for you are no longer a child.  You are getting close to thirty.  Time to make a change!”  

Whew!  What a sermon!  I thoroughly enjoy reading it…it really reminds me of reading the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin who is all over effeciency and fastidiousness.  Chekhov is much more passionate about what makes a cultured person though.  Franklin, who really wrote the first kind of autobiography we see today-away from the spiritual journey personal narratives and onto self-discovery and personal ambition-was more into writing a guidebook for younger men to follow at the request of someone else.  Chekhov, here is just writing advice to his younger brother, but you can see these qualities he talks about in his characters-whether he mocks silly, vain, frivolous women characters or displays the worthless life of an upperclass gentleman who drank and gambled his life away. 

 I personally see all these faults he mentions on display every week at the bookstore where I work.  We have a lot of people that come through and although I am guilty of boasting about this or complaining about a horrible customer to gain a sympathetic ear or perhaps a similar story from a fellow employee, you’d be shocked (or maybe not) at the rudeness and lack of reason and common sense so many people portray on a daily basis. 

Plato says: “Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.”    I would agree to that, but often people talk because they’re nervous about the empty silences too. 

Matthew Arnold: “Culture is to know the best that has been said and thought in the world.”  But who decides what’s “best”?

So, what do you think?   What makes a person cultured?