May 15, 2012
Hemingway jacks Faulkner to be jacked by Nabokov

William Faulkner on Ernest Hemingway

“He has never been known to use a word that might send a reader to the dictionary.”

 Ernest Hemingway on William Faulkner

“Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words?”

 Vladimir Nabokov on Ernest Hemingway (1972)

“As to Hemingway, I read him for the first time in the early ‘forties, something about bells, balls and bulls, and loathed it.”

________________________

There are few things more enjoyable then a good writer’s roast.

— http://flavorwire.com/188138/the-30-harshest-author-on-author-insults-in-history?all=1

May 14, 2012
Why Jonathan Franzen deserves a review

When I read Franzen, his fiction or essays, I can’t help but feel like he wrote every single page with Charles Mendez in mind.  It’s as if I’m scrolling through an email filled with inside jokes and signed with a “take care, Jon.”  I guess the actual reality is his writings are personal to each reader though not unique: on the right day, “Happy Birthday” is only for me despite the fact it’s sung to millions each year.

It’s fascinating that although I’ve read less than half of his works, I feel closer to Jonathan Franzen— in terms of writer-reader relationships — than I do to many of the authors which I’ve exhausted all or close-to-all of their published materials, writers like Salinger, Heller, Potok, Bradbury, Camus, Steinbeck, William Kennedy, and C.S. Lewis.  Writers who, in my mind, easily surpass Franzen in imagination, wit, versatility, and genius; who haunt the very outlook I have of myself and others; and who have truly changed the way I think and act.  But the degree of immediate intimacy I share with Franzen in comparison to the authors mentioned above is like the difference between watching a televised speech and having coffee with a dear friend.  

If there are two schools of writers — a) those whose purpose is to build their reader’s trust in an effort to journey together through a shared world and b) those who are apathetic, if not hostile, to the reader and are merely permitting, allowing, a momentary viewing of the world in which they bear solitude — then perhaps what makes Franzen so endearing, both lovable and admirable, is his effortless ability to be both.  He at once relates with his readers and presents a piece of true, literary art, an exclusive showing of his individually owned world.  His characters are as personal as the Glass family while sharing influence in things as colossal and worldly as did Joe Kavalier and Sammy Clay.  

Franzen’s books are admittedly only inviting/appealing to a privileged few, yet bearing of a nursing relationship to those who accept.  Like many serious fiction writers, he is deeply committed to the inherent struggles of the human condition, it’s complicated morality, contradictory integrity, and complacent identity.  Yet he is conscious of the absurd foolishness of taking such matters too seriously.  You can see this in characters like Chip, a sexually inexperienced college professor whose relations with a student only become non-pathetic after he takes a drug that eliminates shame.  Or, in Chip’s sister, who writes an email to Chip scolding him for being a horrible brother and son.  Then, after receiving no response, desperately asking for forgiveness, admitting he’s the only person she can truly confide in, and confessing that she was recently fired from the best job she will likely ever have for having an affair with her Boss and, shortly thereafter, her Boss’ wife.  

By his own admission, his novels are autobiographical, but they are never about himself.  Likewise his nonfiction may often draw on his feelings and experiences but never so personal as to make the reader feel isolated.  

In his essays, you find a whiny man fed up with all society has to offer yet unable to pull himself away from its influence.  He’ll begin about his disgust and repulsion of smoking and end with his utter addiction, off and on, throughout the years.  He’ll talk about cringing as he hears people end phone conversations with meaningless, perfunctory “I love you’s” and yet concedes that, if his mother was still alive, he’d not be a step above saying it himself.  

I suppose he’s an author as sincere as he is contradictory.  He writes about failing to overcome the struggles that none of us can seem to overcome.  And by doing so, he is an artist and also a human.  

May 3, 2012

What do you call an author whose first page warrants quoting?  

a) Genius  b) Impressive c) Brilliant d) DFW

“When they were introduced, he made a witticism, hoping to be liked. She laughed extremely hard, hoping to be liked. Then each drove home alone, staring straight ahead, with the very same twist to their faces.

The man who’d introduced them didn’t much like either of them, though he acted as if he did, anxious as he was to preserve good relations at all times. One never knew, after all, now did one now did one now did one.”

— David Foster Wallace.  ”A Radically Condensed History of Postindustrial Life.”  Brief Interviews with Hideous Men.

April 29, 2012

I often struggle to fall asleep at night.  If peace and rest are even marginally connected, then I imagine the stress/anxiety of knowing I’m going to sleep with a docket far from finished has little diminishing value.  

Lying awake in bed a few nights ago, bittered that all other attempts had failed, I visited the bookshelf.  I found an old, white-elephant copy of My Name is Asher Lev that I bought for a $1.88 on a not-so-sunny Saturday in Santa Barbara.  The cover has a cheesy picture from, what I suspect was, a low budget film that probably went straight to VHS. 

I shuffled to a random page and began to read, a similar strategy I suspect many people use when reading the Bible.  As if some divine intervention has place in you opening up to a naked verse in, say, Deuteronomy 6 that will somehow, miraculously, as thought the meaning of the word, fill you with vital information that will bring a healthy sustenance to your day.  

Nothing came from the portion I read, as to be expected.  It did, however, remind me of something interesting I encountered when I read the book long ago.  Asher’s father, his name Aryeh, a holy and respected man, gives Asher a paralyzing instruction toward the beginning of the story.  It was during Shabbos, while he was singing zemiros.  I picture Aryeh in a shadowed kitchen, rocking his upper half back and forth as he sits in a hard, oak chair.  His eyes are tightly shut and he rocks and hums deeply.  The sort of cliche depiction of a praying religious man you find in any movie, the rocking back and forth providing the subtle impression of a man seesawing between the physical and spiritual world.

In referring to a picture Asher drew of his mom, and more generally to Asher’s talent as a young artist, Aryeh says, (and I spent an offensive amount of time searching for the page this quote is found) “Asher, you have a gift.  I do not know if it is a gift from the Ribbono Shel Olom or from the Other Side.  If it is from the Other Side, then it is foolishness, dangerous foolishness, it will take you away from Torah and from your people and lead you to think only of yourself.”

Now I’m not clear-creeked sure what the Other Side means.  Since Ribbono Shel Olom roughly translates to Master of the Universe, I’m going to propose it means Satan.

But, really, what the hell?  A gift given by the Other Side?  When I think of gifts — and I’ll expand this to talents and skills — I dare not cripple myself by determining whether their origin is good or evil.  As if I could place my gifts on a table (as if I had more than one) and, like jelly beans, separate the blue ones from the red ones.  Because, to extend this metaphor long past its purpose, eating the red ones will eventually lead to a splattered toilet.  That the fault is not wrongly using something like artistic ability but rather its pursuit altogether; that any passion leading to self-glorification and away from the implications of the Torah; that the failure to distinguish and quarantine such an item; this is but dangerous foolishness.   

I think the starkly different Protestant view is that any talent you have, any gift that you try to disguise in the “interests” section of facebook, is God given.  Hands off.  It is up to the person to use that God-given gift for good or evil.  I think the great Reformers would give themselves a hemorrhoid if someone suggested otherwise.  I pray my reader will forgive my adding, as much of a theological hero, genius, incomparable powerhouse Calvin was (and I do believe that…and if you don’t then I dare you to read a chapter, a few pages, even one line, from the Institutes and see if you can maintain any other disposition…truly, just a sentence from Calvin’s theology is enough to make Piper, Wright, and Keller’s entire combined collections read like chicken scratch), he was also a pompous prick.  He skipped around Geneva, not an inch taller than Napolean, I should add, verbally humiliating any and everyone else — granted, the sort of life I dream of.  The fact is, the reformers, so in need of an enlightenment and humanism, would have a belly-aching time hearing that the human person has anything within him that isn’t straight from the Heavens.  I dare not, by the way, be so bold, in this modern society I live, to call either of these views of gifts right or wrong, lest I be thought of as radical or worse, much much worse, close-minded.  

But ponder Aryeh’s view, if you can stand it.

Several months back, I suffered through an obsessive Jewish Mysticism stage.  It was up to the point where I took the initial steps to learn Hebrew in order to better understand the Kabbalah.  Needless to say, I never learned Hebrew, and like most of my interests, the flame of my Jewish Mysticism stage went out like a neglected cigarette.

During that time, however, I did share quite the courtship with Martin Buber.  In particular, “The Way of Man,” which is a compilation of several reflections derived from Hasidic folklore.  Buber makes a striking distinction between Christianity and Judaism that has haunted me ever since. 

One of the main points in which Christianity differs from Judaism is that it makes each man’s salvation his highest aim. Judaism regards each man’s soul as a serving member of God’s creation which, by man’s work, is to become the Kingdom of God; thus, no soul has its object in itself, in its own salvation….but [in] the work which it is destined to perform in the world. — Buber, The Way of Man

I’m not sure he’s exactly right.  But too often, way too often, Christians do seem to have salvation as their ultimate goal.  That faith is something we achieve rather than something we use.  What a goddam selfish, fruitless, and stupid way to look at it.  

That the gifts we possess are meant to contribute to the purpose of serving as a destined member in Creation is the only non-contradictory way I can reconcile the good of individualistic self-interest with the righteousness of altruism.     

And I suppose the one thing that Ayn Rand did get right (and then comically, embarrassingly, outright offensive to common sense, completely fucked up the point of) was that we start with the selfish pursuit of our gifts, our interests.  We use our intrinsic desire to perfect our ability to add beauty to Creation, disregarding all the scruples of the outside world.  And we do this in an effort to perform the work we were destined to achieve in the world.  Agents, relational and rational, collectively restoring beauty to a fallen Creation — a job only daunting when taken on alone.  

To lay waste this calling, to pursue something else, is foolishness, dangerous foolishness.

February 11, 2012

But sympathy in novels need not be simply a matter of the reader’s direct identification with a fictional character.  It can also be driven by, say, my admiration of a character who is long on virtues I am short on (the moral courage of Atticus Finch, the limpid goodness of Alyosha Karamazov), or, most interestingly, by my wish to be a character who is unlike me in ways I don’t admire or even like.  One of the great perplexities of fiction — and the quality that makes the novel the quintessentially liberal art form — is that we experience sympathy so readily for characters we wouldn’t like in real life.  Becky Sharp may be a soulless social climber, Tom Ripley may be a sociopath, the Jackal may want to assassinate the French President, Mickey Sabbath may be a disgustingly self-involved old goat, and Raskolnikov may want to get away with murder, but I find myself rooting for each of them.  This is sometimes, no doubt, a function of the lure of the forbidden, the guilty pleasure of imagining what it would be like to be unburdened by scruples.  In every case, though, the alchemical agent by which fiction transmutes my secrete envy or my ordinary dislike of “bad” people into sympathy is desire.  Apparently, all a novelist has to do is give a character a powerful desire (to rise socially, to get away with murder) and I, as a reader, become helpless to make that desire my own.

— Jonathan Franzen, A Rooting Interest, The Newyorker

February 1, 2012

fuckyeahfluiddynamics:

As a followup to yesterday’s question about ways to explain lift on an airfoil, here’s a video that explains where the circulation around the airfoil comes from and why the velocity over the top of the wing is greater than the velocity around the bottom. Kelvin’s theorem says that the circulation within a material contour remains constant for all time for an inviscid fluid. Before the airplane moves, the circulation around the wing is zero because nothing is moving. As shown in the video, as soon as the plane moves forward, a starting vortex is shed off the airfoil. As the plane flies, our material contour must still contain the starting position and thus the starting vortex. However, in order to keep the overall circulation in the contour zero, the airfoil carries a vortex that rotates counter to the starting vortex. This is the mechanism that accelerates the air over the top of the wing and slows the air around the bottom. Now we can apply Bernoulli’s principle and say that the faster moving air over the top of the airfoil has a lower pressure than the slower moving air along the bottom, thus generating an upward force on the airfoil. (submitted by jessecaps)

My friend Jeremy, who is currently getting a PHD in Mechanical Engineering with a focus in Fluid Dynamics from Cornell, ever heard of it…

(via turnupmysymphony)

November 23, 2011
"There is no other moment when a man so surely has the world by the tail as when he strolls down the midway swinging a prize cane."

— E. B. White, One Man’s Meat

October 13, 2011

I realize I haven’t posted in like months.  But, I had a worthy rant tonight, first appearing in an email to a dear friend, now making its face on the world wide web. Who doesn’t like reading rants?  They are how William Gaddis made his entire living, (all $500 of it) right?  I guess, by posting this, I could have gotten the same reaction had I sent it as a group email to 3 people — no response and no actual reads.

So, here’s the snippet from the email…

__________________________________

I mean, really, what is life but a rancid competition to appear to be the best, the happiest, possessive of the most sun-burned face and uniquely tailored jacket?  Or, on the other hand, the simple magician who has figured out a way to go against the thread and still make everyone jealous.  That guy you see tossing Frisbees to his lab on a fucking Tuesday afternoon, wearing a cloth headband and frayed corduroy shorts.  And you snicker to yourself in pride, yet your heart grows green with envy.  Because how did that guy get to the point in his life when he was mad enough, noble enough, to say “Forget you, western culture.  I don’t need the illusions of success, purpose, and meaningfulness to duck-tape my job.  So scoff at my cloth headbands and unwashed hair, and I’ll call bluff on your audi sedan and daily lunch appointments.”

Did I mention “My dinner with andre” is one of my favorites too.  It had been ages since I’ve even thought about that movie.  It is so good.  It has had me thinking much, lately, of whether things like happiness, prosperity, and meaning, all so deeply woven into our desires for life, marriage, and, dare I use such an ambiguous word, career, are actually intrinsic to human nature, or whether they are simply the malicious influences of western culture, religion, and history.  Because what is this tower (of Babel) we are all trying to build?  A career that I can say I love, and love more than everyone else, and makes me feel fulfilled, and happy, and religious, and rich?  And what if we achieve it?  And what if we achieve it in a noble way, because we worked hard and smart and honest and altruistically?  What then?  What have we to live for then?  That career?  Bullshit.  No, we have to find something else to quench our thirst, our lust, our “purpose.”

Or…shall we narrow it to the religious sector?

There are 2 types of damn good Christians out there.  The type that is striving to fix/understand himself, become a man worth admiring, who has not only the answers but the actions to back them up. Then you have the type that is trying to fix/understand the world, his energies take aim at altruism and beneficence.  But once again, the cynic says, “Are not both of you striving at an empty goal that finds assurance only in its journey because the destination, be it however tangible, hardly cares to be reached? “

There is a fine line between those deeply rooted needs, intrinsic to human nature, and those shallow roots that culture, religion, and history have successfully treated us to want, and it rarely, if ever, goes un-meddled…

What am I saying?  Who knows?  I watched several of your videos the other night, and they made me happy – especially the second to most recent one that played “the tallest man on earth”…And then I was reading your blog tonight thinking about the line, “50 more days” and whatever else followed and I wondered (wandered? Mentally, perhaps).  I wondered if everything that I have done, am doing, will do is because I’m striving for things that my culture has made me think are necessary for my existence, or, if they are things I find necessary because of my own humanity.   And then I wondered, if all the things I’ve done, am doing, and will do are because I want my friends, peers, loved ones, and family to have a certain perception of who I am, what I’m capable of, and what makes me unique, or, if these things are what I want to do, what I believe I’m capable of, and what makes me unique.  And then I wondered if I could ever know.  And then I wondered if it even matters.  Then I wondered why/how this plays out in a universe that resists its own very purpose – to bring its creator glory.  Isn’t it funny, the connection?  That we, as humans, struggle to define that line between our intrinsic desires and our desires to fulfill a certain perception from others, meanwhile the universe, speaking collectively of all humanity and the cosmos, fights that same battle, the intrinsic desire to bring its creator glory in meddled relation to the opposing desire to establish its own glory.  

And so spins the world round…

August 25, 2011
If you’d like to try them, I have a box full in my fridge.  Not good.  Like pecan pie full of ginger, fat, and skin.

turnupmysymphony:

Duck Feet Dim Sum.

If you’d like to try them, I have a box full in my fridge.  Not good.  Like pecan pie full of ginger, fat, and skin.

turnupmysymphony:

Duck Feet Dim Sum.

August 2, 2011
Also, we were sweating.

turnupmysymphony:

Went on a 1.5 hour quest to find this yesterday. In the end, after 9 stops, Zucherman, Charles and I found 1 bottle.
Most delicious of drinks.

Also, we were sweating.

turnupmysymphony:

Went on a 1.5 hour quest to find this yesterday. In the end, after 9 stops, Zucherman, Charles and I found 1 bottle.

Most delicious of drinks.

Liked posts on Tumblr: More liked posts »