There is a great article in the NYTimes about a 31 year-old feud between Marquez and the Peruvian writer Mario Vargas Llosa, who, apparently, gave him one serious shiner. Also, a great quote about the equally interesting Gore Vidal / Norman Mailer feud. I won't ruin all the details. Read it for yourself!
I became a big fan of Lorrie Moore after reading her book Birds of America. Soon after reading that book I ordered Self-Help from Amazon.com. Despite the fact that they claimed to have one in stock, it took them six months to finally give up trying to send it to me. Fortunately, Vintage just released a new edition though, as you can see from the post title, I ended up ordering the reprint edition of Like Life instead (based on preferable reviews). I did like Like Life, though it is not nearly as good as Birds of America. The stories don't have as much variety, and almost all of them seem to be about young, female artists who live in tiny, crappy apartments in bad NYC neighborhoods.
The title story, "Like Life," has some interesting sci-fi elements thrown into it, such as a city where no water is drinkable and televisions are manadatory, though these quirks don't seem to be essential to the story. I am pretty sure Moore is making a kind of pun. The story is not actually about life, it is LIKE life. Of course this reminds us that ALL fiction is not life but, rather, like life.
I'm not sure what's happening with my blog, but leaving comments seems to be problematic. If you submit a comment and nothing seems to be happening, just be patient. It's working, just grindingly slow. In fact you don't even have to keep the comment page open. You can close it and walk away and when you come back the comment should be there if you refresh the page.
Anyway, I'll get around to fixing it. It's not like that many people are actually trying to comment here.
The last post got me thinking about zombies. I'm pretty much done with what you might want to call my "zombie stage," a time when zombies seemed to come up in conversation at least once or twice a day. At the moment zombies have been become more of a running joke in my life and not a constant obsession. As a public service to myself (if it's for myself, is it still public?) I'm going to chart the rise and fall of my zombie obsession.
STAGE 0: Not obsessed with zombies.
At this point I don't even know what zombies are, probably because I'm a baby.
STAGE 1: Scared of zombies, but scared of them on an equal level to everything else.
Zombies, vampires, werewolves, murderers, the dark. I probably haven't even seen a zombie movie at this point, just heard someone mention them or saw a picture. At this stage they are a frightening concept, no more real than any other monster, but when has that kept me from lying in bed at night and thinking about something?
STAGE 2: Still scared of zombies, but MORE scared of poltergeists.
At some point a babysitter let me watch the movie Poltergeist.
STAGE 3: Not really scared of zombies.
I become a semi-adult and am no longer afraid of the dark.
STAGE 4: SCARED OF ZOMBIES!!!
Not sure exactly when this happened. At some point I became aware of the metaphorical implications of zombie-hood, how it preyed not upon my fear of death but my fear of meaninglessness and loss, of futile attempts at art, of humankind's inability to rise above its animal nature. Plus those zombies are scary! In this stage I think about zombies a lot but don't mention it to anyone. This stage doesn't last long though, because the truth is my fear of zombies is tied directly into my desire to create an outward appearance of eccentricity.
STAGE 5: Mention zombies to others.
In various moments of weakness I bring up zombies to my friends and loved ones. I take my girlfriend to see the remake of Dawn of the Dead. I discuss how I chose my condo because of its zombie-proof features. I wonder aloud what I would do if a zombie infestation suddenly breaks out in the supermarket. My girlfriend starts to have nightmares (about zombies or about the fact that she is dating a crazy person? I don't know). She bans me from saying the word "zombie" and so I resort to calling them "z's" when she is around.
STAGE 6: Is it a zombie obsession or a zombie obsession obsession?
Suddenly everyone seems to know about my zombie obsession. Whenever I'm anywhere with my friends someone says, "What would you do right now if you saw a zombie?" For the first time in years I don't feel like talking about zombies. I have gone too far, I have talked about zombies too much.
STAGE 7: Zombies recede into the background.
Zombies become an alternate-personality concept, something I post about on my blog and use in some absurd literary short stories, but in rarely do my friends or I mention zombies anymore. But they are not forgotten. No, I am ever vigilant, looking for the signs of the coming zombie hordes. When that day comes I will be ready. This is my current stage.
STAGE 8: BECOME A ZOMBIE.
My Girlfriend: If I die, I want to donate my organs.
Me: Okay.
My Girlfriend: But the truth is I'm a little scared about the idea.
Me: Why?
My Girlfriend: I'm afraid that one day scientists might be able bring me back to life. But if I've already donated my organs...
Me: If you're scared about that, I can make sure they cremate your body.
My Girlfriend: What? I WANT to be brought back to life!
Me: Oh, I thought you were talking about becoming a zombie.
* * * * *
There are seven reasons I'm posting this conversation. (Actually, there are only two, but I've decided to set an arbitrary goal for my numbered list.)
1) It was kind of funny. The zombie thing was actually a joke, but my girlfriend thought I meant it. It's great when you're so crazy that you're girlfriend actually believes you are crazy when you aren't being crazy. This alone would not have been enough reason to post this conversation. Hence the six more reasons.
2) My girlfriend has requested that I include references to her in more blog posts, specifically in a positive manner. Apparently she feels I've been referencing her in a negative/neutral way or not at all.
3) I have no standards about what to include on this blog.
4) I haven't posted anything in a couple of days.
5) I enjoy tooting my own horn.
6) Zombies!
7) The metaphysical implications of organ donation, the afterlife, and post-mortem tissue regeneration is an important topic, one not discussed enough in today's culture. What makes up our identity and is it a uniquely non-Newtonian thing? Does this identity (or "the soul") exist after death, and if so is it connected in some way to our corporal form? Is it physical or spiritual, and how is it impacted by the idea of donating body parts and, obviously, the inevitable onset of world-wide zombieism?
I'm pleased that the new horror movie about the ten plagues, The Reaping, is being released on April 6th, smack dab in the middle of Passover. Excellent job by Warner Brothers for their synchronization with the Jewish holiday!
I have a hunch that this movie will become an immediate Passover classic, second only to the 1956 Charlton Heston, Yul Brynner film, The Ten Commandments.
I do have two concerns about the movie. First, it seems a bit heavy on the Christianity, with lots of priests but nary a rabbi in sight. Second, they have their plagues wrong. Anyone who has read the Passover Haggadah twice a year, every year, can tell you the ten plagues are:
1) Blood.
2) Frogs.
3) Lice.
4) Wild Beasts.
5) Pestilence.
6) Boils.
7) Hail.
8) Locust.
9) Darkness.
10) Slaying of the Firstborn.
But in the movie trailer they are listed out as:
1) Water into Blood.
2) Frogs.
3) Lice.
4) Flies.
5) Diseased Livestock.
6) Boils.
7) Storms of Fire.
8) Locusts.
9) Darkness.
10) Death of Firstborn.
I'm willing to accept "Storms of Fire" as opposed to "Hail." I get where they're going with that. Pep it up a little for the big screen. And "Cattle Disease" instead of "Pestilence" is just a synonym issue, dumbing it down a bit for today's less educated viewer. I'm even willing to overlook the swap of "Wild Beasts" into "Flies," though, frankly, I'm not sure why they made the switch. My guess is that "Wild Beasts" ups the action too early in the film. They're trying to keep things isolated to bug/amphibian terror in the first half of the movie.
But while it may seem like a simple semantic difference, the whole "Death of Firstborn" instead of "Slaying of the Firstborn" is a major change that doesn't sit well with me. It's so passive. As if the Firstborn just happen to die. No, this isn't some circumstantial death, this is about SLAYING. God sends out the Angel of Death to reap some holy vengeance.
Of course, with slayings I suppose the Haggadah solution might be considered anti-climatic. Maybe that's why there are no rabbis in the film. All the Jews are at home saying, "Guys, trust us, we've dealt with this kind of thing before. Just put some lamb's blood on the front door and you'll be fine." Meanwhile Hilary Swank is out killing satanic babies or something.
When I was a child we used to watch The Ten Commandments every year on Yom Kippur. I guess my parents wanted to keep us kids quiet while they were fasting but since it seemed wrong to have us watching Weekend At Bernie's on the High Holy Days they compromised with a religiously-affiliated film. Plus it's four hours long.
I'll do the same kind of thing with my kids, except those punks are going to watch The Reaping, and then I'll tell them that's what's going to happen to them if they don't leave mommy and daddy alone.
That reminds me of this time the babysitter let me watch Poltergeist and I spent the next five years convinced the tree outside my window was going to eat me.
Actually, by the time I have kids movies will probably be some kind of holographic image instantaneously injected into the brain. Forcing them to sit through four hours of black and white Charlton Heston will be the worst torture I can possibly inflict on them. Come to think of it, I'm not sure I ever actually enjoyed The Ten Commandments in my youth. But, hey, it was better than NOT watching a movie.
This all reminds me of the time my girlfriend and I went to see the 2004 remake of Dawn of the Dead while on vacation in Corpus Christi, Texas. (I'm still not sure how I talked her into that.) On opening night at 10 o'clock the line extended out the theater, and a conservative-looking couple with their three young daughters stood behind us. My girlfriend and I whispered to each other, shocked that parents would take their young children to see Dawn of the Dead, at 10 in the evening no less. Finally the father tapped me on the shoulder, explained that he didn't frequent the movies, and wondered if this was in fact the line to see The Passion of the Christ. I breathed a sigh of relief and pointed him elsewhere (he looked horrified when I told him what the line was actually for). Then my girlfriend and I spent the rest of the wait whispering about how we couldn't believe parents would take their young children to see The Passion, at 10 in the evening no less. I'm still not sure which movie is bloodier.
In Summary:
The Reaping opens during Passover. Isn't that funny?
For reasons I cannot fully explain the forthcoming Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie fills me with a sense of excitement and what can only be called "the giggles." It would be untrue to claim that I ever considered myself a true Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles fan. Rather, they served as my introduction into the world of "camp," something to approach with a measure of gleeful irony, helping me understand that you can be both horrified and amused by ridiculous constructions of logic, in this case, four teenage turtles that have been mutated into ninjas.
But this being MixedMetaphors.net, my main point is one of grammar. Why "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" as opposed to "Teenage Ninja Mutant Turtles"? I've never known the exact rule (don't worry, by the end of this post we will have that rectified) but it always seemed to me that adjectives should be listed in ascending order of importance. And what adjective is the most important - the most crucial - to the nature of these turtles? That they are ninjas? No, that they are mutants. If not for their mutant-ness they would not even be capable of ninja-ness! They are first and foremost mutant turtles, and only secondly are they teenage ninjas.
So I turned to my Chicago Manual of Style, which isn't really a grammar book and never seems to answer my most pressing questions. This time was no exception. I next turned to Google, which always gives me what I want but in a way that makes me feel vaguely uncomfortable with the results (there is a rude metaphor there, but I will it leave up to the reader). Google pointed me to learn4good.com, which had the following to say about adjective order:
Opinion -> Size -> Age -> Shape -> Colour -> Origin -> Material -> Purpose
That "u" in "colour" disturbed me, but I decided if British/Canadian English speakers use the rule, then it's probably stricter than any corresponding rule in American English.
So, if we classify the words in question as follows:
Teenage = Age
Mutant = Origin
Ninja = Purpose
It turns out that the name "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" utilizes correct adjective order after all. I will adjust my mental-block accordingly and give the Ninja Turtles their due. Yes, they may be teenage mutants, but were it not for their excellent martial arts skills they would have little hope of defeating the maleficent Shredder!
Today I guest contributed a post for the blog "Ladies and Gentlemen We Are Sitting Here Listening to this Recording." Read my entry about sponge dinosaurs and the new movie Zodiac. Note that I am not responsible for the picture of Stacy Keibler in her underwear, though you are welcome to look at it. Also, there are certain things said of me that are untrue.
You should feel free to read the LaGWASHLttR blog beyond just my well-crafted article. It puts my blog to shame. It has things that MixedMetaphors.net lacks, such as content. But also, pictures and music and links to videos. It is as if it has taken full advantage of the internet, recognized its position in this vast network of various media and decided to be a part of it. MixedMetaphors.net, on the other hand, stands with its face to the wall. But, let us not forget, I hate all blogs, including this one, and I never intended MixedMetaphors.net to be anything more than a place to talk about how much I hate blogs. Which, frankly, I haven't done enough of lately. So, getting back to our statement of purpose: I hate blogs.
Sigh. My heart's just not in it anymore. Clearly - after almost three years of existence - this is not a blog about hating blogs. I'd like to say it is a place for a metatextual deconstruction of quasi-public journaling, but I don't know what most of those words mean.
Since this afternoon's post I have not been able to stop thinking about the Swiss accidentally invading Liechtenstein. In fact, I feel it deserves to be in all caps at all times and all conjugations: Yes, the Swiss Accidentally Invaded Liechtenstein.
This has led me towards a Philip Rothian envisioning of an alternate universe where the Swiss do, in fact, Accidentally Take Over Liechtenstein. We can call it The Plot Against Liechtenstein if you want to extend the Philip Rothisms. I haven't read The Plot Against America but I do own it in a delectable hardcover, and I understand that the "plot" has something to do with Nazis taking over America. Since I still haven't fully forgiven the Swiss for harboring stolen Nazi loot, this becomes an even more appropriate parallel.
Here is what happens in my imagined alternate universe: The Swiss Accidentally Invade Liechtenstein. Liechtenstein, not having an army, Accidentally Surrenders to the Swiss, despite the fact that the Swiss Have No Ammunition. The Swiss accept the surrender and Take Over Liechtenstein. At no point do the Swiss return any stolen Nazi loot, but who would expect these accidental aggressors to do such a thing right at the moment they are expanding their empire.
Next in this fantasy: nothing. The U.N. may or may not pass some kind of tepid resolution speaking for or against the Accidental Taking Over of Liechtenstein. Otherwise the world continues as usual. For the Swiss it is something of a Pyrrhic victory as they now are responsible for 34,000 additional Liechtensteinians.
I am perhaps being unfair to Liechtenstein. Because I have never been there and because it is so small I act as if no one would care if the entire country changed ownership. Someone would probably care.
There is a new comic today, one which I am particularly fond of because it involves a mixing of media.
This actually happened. The Swiss actually invaded Liechtenstein accidentally. It's perhaps the funniest New York Times headline ever. There is little I can add. Except to say that it would have been even funnier if the Swiss accidentally took over Liechtenstein, which, considering Liechtenstein consists of 34,000 people and has no army, doesn't seem so unlikely.
That's all for today.
So I read this book a while ago but - as discovered during the previous post - I didn't write about it on BookTrack! This calls my entire BookTrack into question! The whole point is for me to remember what books I have read! If I skip books how can I count this as an accurate history of my reading life! Well, I'll have to hope this is the only oversight, and since I have no recollection of when I read this third book I'm going to have to post it now without backdating it.
As mentioned in the last BT post, I didn't enjoy The Brief and Frightening Reign of Phil as much as I have enjoyed Saunders' story collections. Not that I didn't like it - I did, it was pleasurable to read - but I found the political satire a little too unsubtle. Not that I can say precisely what he was politically satiring, but the idea that the strange characters were clearly some kind of statement about "good" and "evil" never left me for a moment. Unlike his other stories where there is a layer of absurd humor and underneath that a hidden layer of real, important meaning, in TBaFRoP both the absurd and the meaning were on the top layer. Which, I think, is what George Saunders was trying to do, so in that I'd have to say I think he succeeded. And, I'm not saying it is a "bad" book, just one that I don't think is as great as his others.
An interesting side note... Here are some of the adjectives I have used to describe Saunders' writing and the man himself: pleasurable, charming, funny, endearing, entertaining, musical. I clearly have some kind of reader-crush on him. But, seriously, it's good stuff.
I went to see George Saunders read on Monday as part of The Story Prize presentation, an award exclusively dedicated to collections of short fiction. He was a finalist for his collection In Persuasion Nation which I later bought and read. I've read three of his previous books and really liked the two other story collections (though I was less enamoured of his novella, which I apparently didn't post). His reading was so charming - George Saunders in person is really funny and endearing - that I decided to get his latest work.
I liked it (and read it in a couple of days) though I didn't think it was his best. His past two short story collections have focused almost exclusively (and oddly) on near-future semi-apocalyptic history-based theme parks. It's been an extreme example of "finding a niche and sticking with it," and I wondered what his writing would be like if he left the theme parks behind. In Persuasion Nation he does move out of the theme park and into other areas of the near future, even - in certain stories - the present, though all with an absurd tint, and he does it successfully. His work is much more than funny absurd satire, underneath that layer there are universal stories of sadness and guilt and real emotion. In this particular collection I thought some of the stories had less of that undercurrent than others, though none failed to leave me laughing and scratching my head and thinking about life.
For some reason I have been brainstorming titles for Harlequin romance novels set in an insurance company. Why? Because perhaps some small part of me misses my days as an insurance executive. Did you ever want to know what sultry seductions go on behind the scenes of the risk management industry? Read these books to find out!
- Underwrite My Heart
- Insufficient Coverage
- You're in Good Hands With All-State
- PPO & OPP
- Speaking as an Actuarial Statistician, You Are 17% More Likely to Go Home with Me If You Let Me Buy You Another Drink
- Short-Term Disability, Long-Term Affair
- The Marraige Rider
- The Co in Co-Pay
- HIPPA Violation
- Love, Actuary
- High Deductables, Low Inhibitions
- HSAs Are Both an Effective Means of Preparing For Medical Risk and a Good Financial Investment, Now Let's Do It
and, for the reader with different tastes:
- HMOsexual
