July 2005 Archives

I'd been thinking of reading Ha Jin's "War Trash" for a while since it is so highly acclaimed. It's one of those books that I'd spend a little more time staring at while shopping or would keep popping up in my Amazon.com recommendations but I just never really got the urge to take the relationship any further. Then I found myself at the King of Prussia Borders browsing their buy-two-get-one-free section with "War Trash" as my potential get-one-free. I read the first two pages while standing over the table and didn't put it down until I finished on a train ride last night. (Okay, that's not quite true - I put it down to pay for it, and to go apartment hunting in NYC, and to travel to Washington D.C. for interviews.)

Needless to say, I really enjoyed it. It is a story about a Chinese POW during the Korean War. Yu Yuan is not a communist but out of a sense of duty to his mother and his fiance he wants to be repatriated to communist China after release. This makes him an outsider in a camp of outsiders. He is caught between the pro-Nationalist Chinese POWs who hate him because he doesn't want to go to Taiwan and the Communist Chinese POWs because he isn't a Party member. As an intelligent, educated man and the best English speaking POW, he forges relationships with American GIs and is often used as a translator. He tends to go where fate takes him, with the difficult goals of protecting his life, returning to China, and not doing anything that would show him as a traitor to China (therefore causing harm to his family back home).

Because of Yu Yuan's situation he is both wrapped up in all the intriguing politics of the POW camp but also remains what he considers to be objective. But the reality is he is completely subjective. Rather than being partisan to one group he judges everybody harshly, reading into the motives of the prisoners and guards even when they do seemingly noble or brave things. He is truly a solitary man who is separated from others because of his position and because of his own thoughts.

The book, while attempting to show the horror of war does what many other well-intentioned war books and movies do, which is actually glorify it instead. "Saving Private Ryan" is still one of the only war movies I've seen that actually manages to make me pray that I'm never a soldier. Every other war movie or book awakens the fifteen year-old boy in me, at least a little, to think that war is a place for man's nobility and honor to shine through. I guess it's because despite a lot of people dying needlessly and cruelly, we are always following the story of a man who rises above it all. Maybe someone should write a war novel where the main character gets shot in the head halfway through the book or dies of dysentery or something.

[Note: On my normal blog these posts go into a separate section for personal viewing. However, until my normal blog is repaired everyone will have to deal with my book tracking alongside other posts.]

Despite my failure to ever finish reading "Anna Karenina," I have proved my ability to get through long Russian classics by reading "Crime and Punishment" by Fyodor Dostoevsky. I have mixed feelings about this novel, though I can see why it is a classic. It kept me engaged throughout, except for the second quarter of the book where the main character, Raskolnikov, wanders around and thrashing around in a delirious haze. That section dragged on a bit, there's only so much I can read about a man lying in bed, ranting to himself, and shouting at people to leave him alone, but once he was up and about again it got really exciting. A lot of this is a crime drama, and I loved the scenes where Raskolnikov is talking with (or, really, being talked at by) the detective. Part of the tension is wondering whether and when Raskolnikov will crack.

The story tends to get bogged down by discussions on the main character's belief in a Nietzschean ubermensch philosophy. This does serve to create a fuller picture of the mostly unrepentant Raskolnikov, but I didn't think it added that much to the novel. If you want to read about Nietzschean ubermensch philosophies you should read Nietzsche.

As for the albatross around me neck, "Anna Karenina," while I'm not willing to say I've officially abandoned it, I'm at least putting it off for the forseeable future. I've got a list of other books to read that are going to come first, including "The Liberty Campaign" by Jonathan Dee, a potential instructor of mine at the New School.

For many years I've been an angry advocate for the dismemberment of those who misuse the phrase "beg the question." Why did I stand so firm on the side of grammatical purity? Because people were out there, people who were otherwise not to be considered evil, using the phrase improperly. But recently I've seen that my own justification itself begged the question. Misusing "beg the question" was wrong because it was wrong to misuse "beg the question." Such logic is textbook question begging! And this realization, in what I formerly considered to be incorrect usage, further begged the question: why did I even care?

It pretty much comes down to two things:
1) Pragmatism. People, institutions, publications, and authors whom I respect all utilize the phrase "beg the question" using the new, theoretically incorrect, meaning. It's a losing battle. For the most part, if you use the phrase properly (to point out circular logic) most people, even well educated and otherwise grammatically prudent people, don't know what you are talking about. They stare at you and wait for you to follow up with a question that was begged, a question that won't ever come. So as a "beg the question" purist I spent my time either a) berating people for using a phrase the way 99% of the rest of the population now uses it or b) sounding like an idiot.

2) Realism. (Okay, "realism" and "pragmatism" are synonyms, but I couldn't think of a good one-word heading for list-item number two.) The fact of the matter is people who are using the phrase "beg the question" with its new, altered meaning are actually making perfectly valid grammatical sense! Though the phrase "beg the question" is meant to point out circular logic, based on changes in the English language, specifically changes to the usage of "beg," the WORDS "beg the question" do, in fact, mean exactly what most people now use them to mean. Often purists such as myself state that people should say "demands the question" or "asks the question" instead of the incorrectly applied "begs the question." But though these alternatives would also work, that doesn't mean "begs the question" is incorrectly applied.

So, with that, I pass on the task of ridding the world of incorrect usages of "begs the question" to those who are more resilient against changing times and more duty-bound to archaic rules. I will not go so far as to start using the phrase with its new meaning, but I will at least stop correcting those who do.

Note: Actually, I'm pretty sure I'll still keep correcting everyone, but only because I enjoy being a pedantic know-it-all.

I'm pretty sure I've created some kind of property dispute between my employer and a neighboring residential apartment company. Since being here in Pennsylvania I've taken to walking to work, as my walk is only slightly longer than the walk I'd have to do from my car in the back of the company parking lot to the building. (No matter how early I get to work it appears that the parking lot is full.) My complete walk-to-work path consists of:
a) crossing the parking lot of some small residential apartment buildings.
b) walking over a grassy field for about 20 feet.
c) getting on a jogging path and navigating that path.
d) crossing the parking lot of my current company.

Aside from the brief moment when I have to tramp through the grass, it's a nice, simple walk. Sometimes if it rained the night before I'll end up with some grass stuck to my shoes, but no one at the office ever seems to notice.

Unfortunately, a chain of events have led me to believe that my path will soon be cut off. First, some "No trespassing" signs appeared all over the parking lot of the apartment building. Then, a new sign appeared in front of the company jogging path stating that it is for employee use only. Then, dividing the jogging path from the field closest to the apartment building, wooden stakes appeared in the grass with the words "property line" stencilled on them. And then, this morning, I noticed some new metal fence posts set up along that property line, obviously intended for an actual fence.

I can't help but harbor the suspicion that all this nonsense is because of me. Perhaps I'm paranoid, but I have never seen anyone else cutting from the apartment building to the company jogging path. One time a woman who was walking to her car in the apartment building parking lot asked if she could help me and I said, "No, I'm just walking to work." It was the kind of "Can I help you?" that sounded more like "You are on my property," but perhaps it is still a little self-aggrandizing to think that my little morning perambulation has sparked a fence building frenzy.

Here's the ironic twist to the whole story: I am an employee of the company that owns the jogging path and I am a resident of the apartment building that owns the parking lot. At no point am I trespassing! If they are in fact building the fence because of me, they are putting in a lot of effort to stop one person from doing something he is doing legally. The second ironic twist is that I'm moving to New York in August. It will all have been for naught... By the time the fence is complete I'll be gone.

I played cricket yesterday with some Indian guys from my office. It was my first cricket experience and made me feel very British... well, I suppose it should have made me feel very Indian, but I'm pretty sure the British are the reason cricket is a big sport in India, so the indirect connection is still there. Here are some interesting things I learned about cricket, especially in its relation to baseball:

1) I kept running towards first base even though you're not supposed to do that. You're supposed to run towards a wicket on the pitcher's mound instead.

2) Oh, there is no pitcher's mound, there's a "bowler's" mound.

3) There's also wickets.

4) It's a lot easier to bowl than it is to pitch. Because when you bowl the cricket ball you actually have to bounce it once, so you don't have to be a strong enough pitcher to throw it straight over the plate like you do in baseball.

5) You can get people out by pegging them with the ball. It's awesome. Unfortunately no one told me that and I missed my one chance to peg someone with the ball. Instead I just ran after him like a spaz.

6) Before you bowl the cricket ball at the batter you have to circle your arm in at least one complete revolution, which, frankly, looks kind of dorky.

7) There are no strikes or balls in cricket. It was very hard for me to keep track of how long I'd be at bat. Essentially, you keep going until you've had 6 good bowls, whether you hit them or not, or until you get out (you get out if someone catches the fly ball, pegs you with the ball while you are running, or knocks over the wickets --- PROTECT THE WICKETS).

Those are all my thoughts about cricket.

I'm not really sure what the point of this post is, but I wanted to share my cricket thoughts with the world.

Since my official blog (www.MixedMetaphors.net) seems to be offline at the moment, I've decided to keep an unofficial blog. I've been itching to record my thoughts in a public forum and this way I can do so. Eventually I'll transfer all my posts back to MixedMetaphors when I've completed my move to New York and have my server set up and running again.

My one complaint is that mixedmetaphors.blogspot.com is taken. Darn you! Doesn't everyone realize I am the rightful owner of all MixedMetaphors related web addresses? The answer to that would be, apparently, "no." Anyway, this is really just a status post. Coming soon: An interesting post describing my experience with the game of cricket.

Feeling a bit nostalgic after seeing the movie, I decided to reread the entire "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" trilogy. I've been zipping through the five books (plus one short story) included in the "complete" edition over the last month or so, whenever I needed a break from "Crime and Punishment" or one of the other books taking up my time recently. (I decided to wait until I finished the whole set rather than post about each individual book, especially considering the series is shorter than the aforementioned Dostoevsky work.)

Though I only ever read the books once before during my adolscent days, I remembered almost every detail. I felt that the second book ("The Restaraunt at the End of the Universe") is actually both funnier and a better social commentary than the first. The series does drag down a little bit after that, but it is still funny and clever and a decent read. (The only first-time reading for me was the included short story "Young Zaphod Plays it Safe," which, unfortuantely, is sort of dumb and is just a thinly veiled commentary on Adams' dislike for then-president Ronald Reagan. Oh, well.)

Anyway, hopefully I'll finish up "Crime and Punishment" soon. Unlike "Anna Karenina" I actually will finish this lengthly Russian novel in a reasonable period of time.

I bought "Nine Stories" specifically to read the short story "A Perfect Day for Bananafish," which is the first (bibliographically) and last (chronologically) story about Seymour Glass, the often mentioned character in Salinger's novels, novellas, and stories. I didn't get around to reading the rest of the stories until now (five months later) but I'm glad I did. It's concise and well written, in the Salinger style of super-intelligent children and ultra-distant adults. My favorite story is "De Daumier-Smith's Blue Period," which is the tale of a disaffected teenager who pretends to be an accomplished thirty year-old artist and moves to Canada to work in an art correspondance school. It's funny and touching and I really loved it.