Wakefield Étudiant: literature

Showing posts with label literature. Show all posts

Sunday, March 29, 2009

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Radiohead and R&G

Call it a coincidence or call me crazy, but I've found some connections between Radiohead's works and the text in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead.

Page 38
- There! ... and we'll soon be home and dry...and high and dry...

Page 41
- Some kings tend to be amnesiac, others I suppose -- the opposite, whatever that is...
- What did you have in mind?... A short, blunt human pyramid...?

General
- On Amnesiac, Radiohead has two songs: "Dollars and Cents" and "Spinning Plates." Rosencrantz and Guildernstern discuss spinning coins together.

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Kill Uncle

I heard Mr. Brennan utter the words "kill uncle" during a discussion of Hamlet so naturally I thought of the Morrissey album of the same name. Was Morrissey at all influenced by Shakespeare? Maybe.

Monday, December 22, 2008

John Donne Quotes

I think John Donne is a wise man:

Death be not proud, though some have called thee Mighty and dreadful, for thou art not so. For, those, whom thou think'st thou dost overthrow. Die not, poor death, nor yet canst thou kill me.

God employs several translators; some pieces are translated by age, some by sickness, some by war, some by justice.

Wicked is not much worse than indiscreet.

Thursday, December 11, 2008

A Rant On "All The Pretty Horses"

Since I'm a major procrastinator, I didn't feel like starting my All the Pretty Horses essay early. Instead, I penned a rant on the novel. Here it is:

In one of the most poorly written novels of all time, Cormac McCarthy describes characters in great detail, but fails to depict their adventures in a tone rousing to readers. McCarthy overuses motifs to the point where the reader is besieged beyond belief. Corm Corm, we know you are adept and stylistic in incorporating blood, skulls, landscapes, and wait for it – horses. Born in Tennessee, the best you could do was presume what life in the south was like. Your stereotypical portrayal of the culture is derisory at best. You thought you were too good for college so you didn’t even finish. Your whole trying to one-up the world needs to end. We all know Albert Erskine is the brain child behind all of your work. It wouldn’t be the least bit surprising if Erskine, an old time Faulkner editor, penned All the Pretty Horses, but you wanted to take credit for it to boost your unbounded self-worth. Why don’t you give interviews, Corm? Because you don’t write your books, maybe? Loner. You don’t even know traditional punctuation rules. An English 101 class would have helped, Einstein, wouldn’t it have? Don’t give me your “well, I did it on purpose” crap. No, you didn’t. Punctuation rules aren’t included in a thesaurus, bud. Your extensive use of vocabulary is done to make the reader feel brainless. Couple that with your long sentences and you have succeeded in that regard. Don’t you feel special now Cormac? Don’t cha? Oh yeah and Spanish? An Irishman trying to speak Spanish. Wow. English-to-Spanish dictionary much? There’s minimal dialogue because you thought rambling was preferable in order to make you sound better. In sum, you need to retire. You already amassed a fortune writing books about the Old South. You are profiting off of reader stupidity. So called intellectuals who read your book should be ashamed if they can’t realize your wretched attempt at good writing.

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Classic Dialogue

When I was independently reading this passage from All The Pretty Horses, I didn't realize how awesome it really was. Once Mr. Brennan read it, I did. Here it is (Page 26-27)

- Rawlins propped the heel of one boot atop the toe of the other. As if to pace off the heavens. My daddy run off from home when he was fifteen. Otherwise I'd of been born in Alabama.
- You wouldn't be born at all.
- What makes you say that?
- Cause your mama's from San Angelo and he never would of met her.
- He'd of met somebody.
- So would she.
- So?
- So you wouldnt of been born.
- I don't see why you say that. I'd of been born somewheres.
- How?
- Well why not?
- If your mama had a baby with her other husband and your daddy had one with his other wife which one would you be?
- I wouldnt be neither of em.
- That's right.
- Rawlins lay watching the stars. After a while he said: I could still be born. I might look different or somethin. If God wanted me to be born I'd be born.
- And if He didnt you wouldnt
- You're making my goddamn head hurt.

Friday, November 7, 2008

A & P

A & P | Movies & TV | SPIKE.com

His accent gets me every time.

Excellent Short Story

Popular Mechanics by Raymond Carver

Early that day the weather turned and the snow was melting into dirty water. Streaks of it ran down from the little shoulder-high window that faced the backyard. Cars slushed by on the street outside, where it was getting dark. But it was getting dark on the inside too.

He was in the bedroom pushing clothes into a suitcase when she came to the door.

I’m glad you’re leaving! I’m glad you’re leaving! she said. Do you hear?

He kept on putting his things into the suitcase.

Son of a bitch! I’m so glad you’re leaving! She began to cry. You can’t even look me in the face, can you?

Then she noticed the baby’s picture on the bed and picked it up.

He looked at her and she wiped her eyes and stared at him before turning and going back to the living room.

Bring that back, he said.

Just get your things and get out, she said.

He did not answer. He fastened the suitcase, put on his coat, looked around the bedroom before turning off the light. Then he went out to the living room.

She stood in the doorway of the little kitchen, holding the baby.

I want the baby, he said.

Are you crazy?

No, but I want the baby. I’ll get someone to come by for his things.

You’re not touching this baby, she said.

The baby had begun to cry and she uncovered the blanket from around his head.

Oh, oh, she said, looking at the baby.

He moved toward her.

For God’s sake! she said. She took a step back into the kitchen.

I want the baby.

Get out of here!

She turned and tried to hold the baby over in a corner behind the stove.

But he came up. He reached across the stove and tightened his hands on the baby.

Let go of him, he said.

Get away, get away! she cried.

The baby was red-faced and screaming. In the scuffle they knocked down a flowerpot that hung behind the stove.

He crowded her into the wall then, trying to break her grip. He held on to the baby and pushed with all his weight.

Let go of him, he said.

Don’t, she said. You’re hurting the baby, she said.

I’m not hurting the baby, he said.

The kitchen window gave no light. In the near-dark he worked on her fisted fingers with one hand and with the other hand he gripped the screaming baby up under an arm near the shoulder.

She felt her fingers being forced open. She felt the baby going from her.

No! she screamed just as her hands came loose.

She would have it, this baby. She grabbed for the baby’s other arm. She caught the baby around the wrist and leaned back.

But he would not let go. He felt the baby slipping out of his hands and he pulled back very hard.

In this manner, the issue was decided.

Monday, August 4, 2008

Russian Novelist/Dissident Solzhenitsyn Dead

Russian novelist and historian Alexander Solzhenitsyn, whose works detailed the horrors of Stalin's Soviet labor camps, has died at 89, Russian news agencies reported Monday.

His son, Stepan Solzhenitsyn, told The Associated Press his father died of heart failure late Sunday at his home near Moscow, Russia.

Awarded the Nobel Prize for literature in 1970 for "The First Circle," Alexander Solzhenitsyn was considered a moral voice for Russia. His works centered on issues of good and evil, materialism and salvation.

His three-volume "Gulag Archipelago" unveiled the horrors of the Soviet labor camps, where he himself was imprisoned for eight years. - CNN

Sounds like a good man. He ended up fleeing to Vermont for some time.

Friday, July 4, 2008

What If Prohibition Wasn't Passed?

Prohibition is the name given to a period in the 1920s and early 1930s in which the sale of alcohol was made illegal via the Eighteenth Amendment. Andrew Volstead, a member of the House of Representatives from Minnesota, introduced the eponymous Volstead Act in 1919 along with Anti-Saloon League attorney Wayne Wheeler. The bill was initially vetoed by President Wilson on October 28, 1919, but was overridden by Congress on the same day[1]. The Prohibition movement began as early as the 1600s, but increased greatly in popularity over the next two hundred years. Large groups began to move away from socially criticizing alcohol to denouncing it on a political level as well. After a multi-century struggle, Prohibition was passed much to the delight of millions of Americans. Society was supposed to become more moral and more responsible, but this was not the case. Organized crime was directly tied in to bootlegging and smuggling, two illegal large businesses in the U.S during the 1920s. In addition, corrupt law enforcement officials often condoned the illegal activity because it offered them a chance to profit off of bribes. Also, with alcohol no longer in the public spotlight, people from every town and city began to flee to speakeasies to indulge in their favorite illegal beverage[2]. The amount of speakeasies grew exponentially starting in 1919[3]. Overall, America became a country marred by unlawful doings. Prohibition didn’t end the problem of alcohol; it created more problems than ever before. A country without Prohibition would have been one without the tarnish of mobs, illegal breweries and bars, and bootlegging.

Prohibition causes have been around since the early beginnings of American history. As early as the 1600s, English colonists began to recognize the evils of excessive drinking. With a large presence of alcohol in the colonies, settlers began to realize that excessive drinking wasn’t good; shipments of tens of thousands of galloons of beer and spirits were frequent as supplies were quickly being used up. Plymouth was the first colony to prohibit the sale of spirits in 1633[4]. Other colonies did not follow suit and drinking continued to be commonplace.

In fact, many of the popular religions in early America denounced drinking, but this did not stop the wealthy from opening up taverns and bawdyhouses. Non-alcoholic drinks simply weren’t as reliable as their alcoholic counterparts. Without refrigeration, milk spoiled quickly. Water that was gathered from filthy lakes and streams was unpurified and repugnant. Alcohol, on the other hand, was viewed as beneficial to ones health in addition to being tasty. Distilleries certainly catered to the demand of the colonists; in 1792, there were 2,579 registered distilleries in the U.S[5]. The British, however, were able to exploit the colonist’s need of alcohol following the Revolutionary War. Taxes were levied on liquor as a mode of raising money. Farmers felt the biggest burden so they initiated a massive uprising in the late 1700s. The revolt, known as the Whiskey Rebellion, resulted in fifteen thousand soldiers travelling to Pennsylvania to put to an end the fighting between the tax collectors (British) and the whiskey farmers. Taxes couldn’t stop people from producing alcohol, though, as more than 12,000 distilleries registered between 1792 and 1810[6]. The rise of immigration in the early to mid 1800s normalized drinking even more. Many immigrants came from Europe, where drinking was considered a part of their culture. Once the Germans started migrating en masse to America following the Civil War, lager beer grew in popularity. Large companies and corporations started to specialize in the manufacturing and selling of beer to domestic and foreign markets. Many of the purchasers of beer were saloons.

Saloons and breweries had a very profitable relationship: breweries would provide saloons with unlimited beer, advertising, and loan money. Saloons quickly became associated with none other than their drinkers, who were often lower class men. Since there were more saloons than parks, churches, schools, and hospitals combined, competition was quite high. In order to lure in customers, saloon owners often gave away free lunches[7]. Multitudes fled to saloons to drink to forget about family or work problems. As the popularity of saloons soared, so did the amount of detractors. Anti-saloon propaganda argued against saloons on the basis that men went there to support the saloonkeepers’ children instead of their own (by continually purchasing beverages)[8]. Anti-saloon groups, commonly plated as temperance organizations, advocated for lessening the consumption of alcoholic beverages. Many of them were deeply inspired by the First and Second Great Awakenings that swept the nation in the first half of the 19th century. Some fanatical temperance era physicians went as far as to argue that it wasn’t uncommon for drinkers to randomly explode. These kinds of myths along with the messages of temperance advocates helped sway heavy drinkers away from booze[9]. Groups like the Washingtonians were comprised of men who told others about their departure from alcohol in the hopes that others would stop. These groups were widespread at first in the 1840s, but they quickly diminished and were eventually wholly discontinued. A short time later in the 1850s, the first significant precursor to National Prohibition came.

Maine, in 1851, passed a law which forbade the sale and manufacture of intoxicating liquors. For prohibitionists, this was a great triumph to a longstanding cause. Eleven years later in 1862, President Lincoln signed the Internal Revenue Act which taxed the manufacture of liquor as well as charged saloons an operating fee. State activism for prohibition quickly expanded into the national scene as the National Prohibition Party was founded in 1869. It had two goals: women’s suffrage and prohibition. Women not only wanted rights for themselves, but they also wanted their family life to improve. Husbands wasted invaluable sums of money on drinks and this often had an adverse effect on their jobs and their support of families. Groups like the Women’s Christian Temperance Union and the Women’s Crusade were faith based groups that vocally stressed that taverns and saloons were directly correlated to the separation of men and women in terms of rights. There was a fine line between politely campaigning for prohibition and going too far. Exemplifying the latter was a radical WCTU member named Carry Nation. Nation paraded around Kansas raiding saloons to no end. By the early 1900s, and most especially during World War 1, the issue of prohibition was regularly debated. Prohibitionists reasoned that since many brewers were of German descent, Prohibition and boycott of industry could help win the war on the home front. Despite the overwhelming opposition, the Eighteenth Amendment, which outlawed alcohol, was easily passed in 1919. The early architects of Prohibition did not even begin to contemplate the thought of the movement not working or much worse failing. As soon as the wineries and breweries were shut down and forced to flush out all of their alcohol, the adverse effects of national Prohibition were felt among the masses.

Wild parties roared on throughout the country on the last day of legal drinking, January 16. Before the clock struck 12:00 AM, trucks were well ready for what lay ahead of them as they were filled with bootleg liquor[10]. Not surprisingly, a few of these trucks were snatched by the seizure motivated government. As a result, a black market for alcohol opened up. Millions were without their favorite beverage and millions more wanted to continue drinking independent of how they would get their alcohol in the first place.

Smuggling was not only popular; it was a successful business. Approximately 75% of contraband liquor came via a route from Canada. Short “rum runs” ran from Ontario, more often than not Quebec, to Detroit and neighborhood cities and towns. The Quebecois, by law, were permitted to buy an unlimited supply of alcohol for personal use. At first, harmless fisherman ran the trade, but it wasn’t long until organized criminal organizations took over. These organized gangs had quite a lot of money and paid off bribes to corrupt local officials, who in turn let them run. Way down south in the Caribbean, illegal alcoholic transactions ran rampant. Runners could simply load up their ships from islands like the Bahamas and then sail to New York City without being caught. This all changed when the government diplomatically mandated seizures in foreign islands and commissioned Coast Guard patrol craft[11].

One foible in the Volstead Act was the granting of alcohol prescriptions to patients. A clever exploitation system was set up by George Remus, an infamous bootlegger during the Prohibition Era. Remus was able to purchase thousands of whiskey certificates which granted him quite a surplus of whiskey. He was then able to set up the largest distillery business in America at the time. He then sold whiskey to drug companies under the caveat that they be used for medicinal purposes only. Most drug companies did not follow (Doctor) Remus’ orders; phony prescriptions were given to even the healthiest of men[12].

When the government started to seriously crack down on distilleries and stills (17,000 seized by 1925), bootleggers started to experiment with self-made methods of producing alcohol. Liquid poison wasn’t entirely uncommon as more than 10,000 people perished by 1927. Alcohol was taken from hazardous products such as fabric and antifreeze and used in the distillation process. It is no kidding that alcohol poisoning was likened to “deliberate suicide.” A less painful, less alcoholic “near beer” was produced by creative bootleggers who figured they could manipulate the Eighteenth Amendment provision which allowed for beverages to be sold as long as they contained less than 0.5 percent alcohol. “Near beer” was often closer to real beer than just barely beer. Replacing “near” with real was readily accomplished and barely noticed. Another sly trick was injecting a needle of alcohol into drinks to give it more of a kick. At any rate, these ventures were ostensibly successful. Even beer with a high content of alcohol proved profitable: a bootlegger could make profits of up to $2.50 for each galloon of booze sold[13]. The lower the quality of the alcohol, the higher the revenue was albeit due to counterfeit labels tricking drinkers into thinking that their beverage was a higher proof than it really was. High prices again did not lessen consumer demand.

The heralded stories of underground and illegal drinking have been prevalent, but the numbers and percentages of consumption are relatively unknown. Wet organizations (ones that advocated against Prohibition) often claim that drinking increased significantly while temperance and Prohibition advocates assert that drinking was far less common in the Prohibition era. Such a debate continues today, but no consumption numbers are indicators of the presence of illegal drinking in the 1920s. The 1920s, commonly called The Roaring ‘20s, was a period of rebellion and economic prosperity. Drinking was oft-associated with money and status in society. From the rich to the poor, many made their presence felt at illegal bars known as speakeasies. The number of speakeasies increased by at least six times in New York City alone in the period from 1922 to 1929[14]. From low class shacks to higher end brownstone houses, speakeasies served those who literally “spoke easy”; customers with the right spoken password were allowed in while others were forced to find less popular open door ‘easies. The more expensive speakeasy often featured entertainment, which ranged from relaxing jazz music to recreational table tennis. Saloons formerly consisted of primary men, but speakeasies were populated and, in some cases, maintained by women. Enforcing Prohibition and stopping the spread of speakeasies was not at all easy. Congressman Fiorello La Guardia acknowledged the corrupted nature of speakeasies when he said “In order to enforce prohibition [in New York City], it will require a force of 250,000 men and a force of 250,000 men to police the police.”

The hiring practices of law enforcement agencies such as the Prohibition Bureau were considered highly lenient. Prohibition Administrator admitted so himself when he said in 1927 that “three quarters of the 2500 dry agents are ward heelers [political machine workers] and sycophants named by the politicians.” The enforcers worked for an incredibly low wage, but it is safe to presume that they could accept a year of wages in the form of bribery. “Looking the other way” as it was called gave enforcement officers the chance to gain quite a bit of wealth. On the other hand, there were brutally honest officers who wouldn’t confide to bootleggers and other crooks[15]. The famous couplet of “Izzy” Einstein and Moe Smith often dressed up in a variety of different outfits with the intention searching speakeasies and making arrests. In his hey day, Einstein apprehended close to 5,000 people. They were viewed as good guys in the eyes of the general public, but there were still some who accused them of being dishonest. Some of the most stringent officers used guns and other such weaponry to dismantle bootleggers, gangs, and other such criminals[16]. Their labors were not effectual as many of the criminals had access to far greater weapons and machinery such as machine guns and explosive devices. Overall, a near universal ere amongst the states was that enforcing Prohibition wasn’t something worth doing. By the late 1920s, enforcement was a ridiculously small percentage of state budgets. The ramifications of enforcement were anything but prosperous: nobody wanted to pay enforcers more money, nobody wanted to invest more money into the judicial system for Prohibition, and most of all nobody wanted to increase taxes or take money out of other industries to maintain Prohibition. Thusly, criminal activity reached its peak in the 1920s.

Mobsters had a reputation of specializing in distilling alcohol at this time. Various gangs such as the North Side Gang and the Terrible Gennas surfaced as rivals. Al Capone, the relentless ringleader of the Gennas, was relentless in his attack; hundreds died in gang related activity. Capone used to terror tactics to control the political sphere of Chicago. He was directly responsible for the election of the mayor of Chicago and the state attorney of Illinois. His boss power in Chicago did not last for a long time, however, as he was banished from the public spotlight following the Valentine’s Day Massacre of 1929. Two years later in 1931 was Capone sentenced to eleven years behind bars. His influence and legacy lived on and resonated in other major cities like New York, where a younger generation of mob bosses controlled the illegal alcohol trade.

The unemployment rate started soaring in the 1930s causing many people to question whether Prohibition really worked. An end to Prohibition, in the form of a repeal to the Eighteenth Amendment, was seen as a potential benefit to an otherwise wretched situation. People were beginning to feel the ill aftermaths of the Stock Market Crash and the Great Depression. They argued that legalizing alcohol once again would create (legal) jobs in that industry. The 1932 election was just around the corner and saw two candidates who both denounced Prohibition. Franklin D. Roosevelt and his Democratic Party won the race to the White House and took up ending Prohibition as their first priority. Roosevelt immediately cut funding as well as raised the limit on the percentage of alcohol allowed in beer. Within months, the Twenty-First Amendment was ratified by the necessary thirty-six states.

Prohibition was a national issue which looked to solve the problems of every state in one highly confusing piece of legislature. The American people were forced to live in a supposed structured society that did not include alcohol for thirteen years too many. The issue was not settled in a democratic way and consequently nobody could be entirely appeased. The temperance movement wanted to establish a moral foundation for the country that would bind together the family all whilst wiping out drunkenness. This moral foundation was significantly based upon religion – an integral part of many American’s daily lives. They had a feeling that too much alcohol would spin everything out of control. They did not want to see their children to be ruined by the licentious leech called alcohol. While their efforts were onerous and long, they did not leave much room for discussion. For them, drunkenness was a sin that could not be negotiated in any way shape or form. They were equating drunkenness with sin for nearly three centuries, but to no clear avail until Prohibition. The opposition, those who were against Prohibition, was often comprised of drinkers themselves or activists who believed that morality could not be legislated. They wanted to keep the status quo, which was alcoholic clemency. It wasn’t even that anti-Prohibitionists were anti-religious or anti-moral absolutism. They simply didn’t see the point in banning something that millions upon millions engaged in. For what is certain, both sides of the debate didn’t foresee the disasters of organized crime and corruption that came with the passing of the Prohibition Amendment. Neither side envisioned thousands of speakeasies opening up across the country, neither side envisioned lucrative bootlegging and rum running businesses dominating the country’s economy, and finally neither side envisioned hundreds of deaths due to alcohol poisoning.

All of the aforementioned results of Prohibition would not have been if the Volstead Act was not passed decades ago. The various temperance organizations would still be active in politics today. Surely, their efforts would still go unrewarded; the American people are just beginning to realize the importance of states’ rights in democracy based affairs. Religious institutions to this day still insist that drinking is a sin if done to excess, but these views aren’t reflected in modern day legislation. Gang related activity is still closely connected to illicit behavior such as illegal drug and narcotics trade. If there was no Prohibition, there would be no Al Capone, and there would be no unprecedented rise in mob activity. There is no such thing as legal gang activity and the laws of causality affirm this: there needs to be a cause (Prohibition laws) for an effect (criminal behavior). Prior to 1919 racketeering, the owning of illegal businesses, was unheard of in America. Following the passage of Prohibition, racketeering increased drastically and has continued to over the years. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) wasn’t passed until 1970, long after many mafias and gangs established notability in the United States. With that said, no law or provision today has enough power to stop organized illegal activity from occurring. Men have long found ways of avoiding trouble with the law and this all started with Prohibition.

Many revisionist models of today look back to the 1920s when evaluating current drug policy. They see a link between the alcoholic use in teenagers in the 1920s and the marijuana use in teenagers at the present time. They can see how both were affected by drug prohibition laws. They read about the hundreds of innocent citizens arrested all for just having possession of an illegal substance. They look at the statistics and realize that the one of the highest periods of alcohol consumption in the U.S was from 1916 to 1922 – slightly before and after the passing of the Prohibition Amendment. The overall point is that Prohibition did more harm than good and set the groundwork for years of drug policy failure in the United States alone. Temperance organizations (today, anti-drug organizations) have proven that they can still have a positive effect on the general public (less consumption) without federal backing. Of course the government did not realize this before Prohibition began and still today they haven’t given legalization or decriminalization of drugs a chance.

Whenever ever something is made illegal, there exists an underground scene of illicit trading and smuggling. The Prohibition of alcohol was no different: rum runs were frequent and unproblematic until the government decided to condemn these illicit behaviors and even then corruption took over. The movement was out of control from its very beginning, but hardly anyone ever admitted to this. The most negative consequences of Prohibition still afflict America today. Many wonder why there are gang problems. More than eighty years later, they don’t realize the impact Prohibition had on gangs. With education of the effects of Prohibition, these people, often law makers and politicians, will realize what started it all. As Charles R. Swindoll one said, “We cannot change our past. We can not change the fact that people act in a certain way. We can not change the inevitable.”

[1] Suzanne Lieurance, The Prohibition Era 13-16

[2] The Prohibition Era 65-68

[3] Speakeasies; http://www.legendsofamerica.com/ah-prohibitionspeakeasy.html

[4] History of Alcohol Prohibition; http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/LIBRARY/studies/nc/nc2a.htm

[5] The Prohibition Era 21

[6] The Prohibition Era 23

[7] Saloons; http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/1110.html

[8] Jeff Hill Defining Moments of Prohibition 12-15 (The Business of Alcohol)

[9] The Prohibition Era 33

[10] Defining Moments in Prohibition 31

[11] Defining Moments in Prohibition 34-38 (Running the River; Rum Row)

[12] Edward Behr Prohibition: Thirteen Years That Changed America 121-128

[13] Defining Moments in Prohibition 41 (“Near Beer” and Real Beer)

[14] The Prohibition Era 76

[15] Digital History; http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=441

[16] Defining Moments in Prohibition 62-63

Resettlement

This is another poem from Sophomore year; i'm just blowing off the dust this morning! I'm not sure if this has any meaning, I forget. Well, you can be the judge.

Resettlement

Walking peacefully through the desert
I was approached by a distraught Apache warrior who
convinced me to leave abruptly because a
storm was heading this way.
Naturally, I refused to heed his caveat
and I continued my arduous journey.
Unfortunately, as the day began to unwind
I grew lethargic and desperately needed water.
But there was nothing there to quench my thirst.
Out of the corner of my right eye
I caught a brief glimpse of the storm.
Countless malicious soldiers
stampeded in my direction.
Feeling smaller than ever before,
I had no place to flee to.
From out of nowhere, the Native American,
who previously warned me of the storm,
raced into action and retrieved me
from the bestial soldiers
and returned me to my home.

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

An Epic Find

Delving into a 3,000-year-old mystery using astronomical clues in Homer's "The Odyssey," researchers said Monday they have dated one of the most heralded events of Western literature: Odysseus' slaughter of his wife's suitors upon his return from the Trojan War.

According to the study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the wily hero who devised the Trojan Horse hefted his mighty bow on April 16, 1178 BC, and executed the unruly crowd who had taken over his home and was trying to force his wife into marriage.

The finding leaves many perennial questions unanswered, such as whether the events portrayed actually occurred or whether the blind poet Homer was the author of the tale.

But it casts a new sheen of veracity on a story that has existed in a hazy realm of fantasy and history since it was first composed 400 years after the Trojan War.

"They make a wonderfully persuasive case," said Scott Huler, author of a book about his efforts to follow Odysseus' journey. "I do find myself convinced that some of these events Homer described" are based on actual history. - Los Angeles Times

I hate Ancient Greece, but this is quite cool.

Monday, May 19, 2008

"Naked Quaker" author to speak in Wakefield

WAKEFIELD — Lawyer, historian, author, and columnist Diane Rapaport will deliver the second Lecture of the 2008 Wakefield's Sweetser Lecture Series. She will speak on "The Naked Quaker: True Crimes and Controversies from the Courts of Colonial New England."

BECAUSE IT IS MY NAME!

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Sci-Fi Writer Clarke Dies At 90

COLOMBO, Sri Lanka (AP) -- Arthur C. Clarke, a visionary science fiction writer who won worldwide acclaim with more than 100 books on space, science and the future, died Wednesday in his adopted home of Sri Lanka, an aide said. He was 90.
Clarke, who had battled debilitating post-polio syndrome since the 1960s and sometimes used a wheelchair, died at 1:30 a.m. after suffering breathing problems, aide Rohan De Silva said.
Co-author with Stanley Kubrick of Kubrick's film "2001: A Space Odyssey," Clarke was regarded as far more than a science fiction writer. - Boston Globe

I think that we can all agree that Clarke's Childhood's End is a great book.

Friday, January 25, 2008

One Funny Piece of Text

Courtesy: Our Dumb World

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Our Dumb World

Our Dumb World: The Onion's Atlas of The Planet Earth, 73rd Edition features incorrect statistics on all of the Earth's 168, 182, or 196 independent nations. It also features maps, including a fold-out world map at actual size. Readers will learn about every country from Afghanistan, 'Allah's Cat Box,' to the Ukraine, 'The Bridebasket of Europe.'

Today's news-parody consumer cannot possibly understand made-up current events without the context of fake world history and geography. That is why The Onion is publishing a world atlas: to help us.

OUR DUMB WORLD is an invaluable tool for any reader interested in overthrowing a weakened government in East Asia, exploiting a developing nation in Africa, or for directions to tonight's party at Erica's. It is a reference guide to 250,000 of the world's most important places, such as North Korea's Trench of Victory, the Great Human Pyramid of Egypt, and Saudi Arabia's superhighway, the Mohammedobahn. - Hachette Book Groups USA

This book is amazing. I have only read 60 pages so far and I can assure that you will be laughing constantly. Some references are a little hard to understand, but for the most part this satire is an easy read. And don't get me wrong, the book is outright offensive, stereotypical, sexist, and racist, but you have to take its humor at face value. I will be posting short excerpts from the book each week.

Sunday, December 23, 2007

James Joyce

James Joyce was born on February 2^nd, 1882 in Rathgar, a suburb of Dublin, Ireland. His father was laid off of a job, but did end up having a significant amount of property due to pensions. But through bad habits, John Joyce eventually went broke. Despite this, James was able to learn how to play the piano and sing opera.

At age six, Joyce was sent to Clongowes Wood College, a Jesuit boarding school in the countryside. He later went on to attend Belvedere College from 1893 to 1898 in Dublin, where he achieved several accomplishments. And finally from 1898 to 1902, Joyce went to University College where he was well-known for his hatred towards religion, and refusal to join the nationalist movement in Ireland.

While in school, Joyce published a few interesting articles such as one which directly attacked parochialism in Ireland. One year after earning his degree, Joyce’s mother died. Soon after this sad time, James went on to write his first autobiographical novel titled A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. Aside from writing novels, Joyce wrote poems. He had his own assortment known as epiphanies – sketches intended to reproduce external scenes in their crudeness. At that time, James immediately knew what his future profession was – literature.

Joyce’s love life sparked in 1904, when he met Nora Barnacle, an unemployed lady from Galway, Ireland. Joyce and Barnacle together ended up in the city of Pula in present day Yugoslavia. Joyce stayed in Pula for a few months until he was transferred as an English teacher to Trieste in Italy. Barnacle and he had two children, a son George (born 1905) and a daughter Lucia (born 1907). They remained in Trieste until 1915.

Joyce was a non-stop worker, but did face a terrible challenge in not having a publisher for his works. A break through came through in 1913 when American poet Ezra Pound agreed to publish a few of Joyce’s book including A Portrait, Dubliners, and the Egoist.

From the l915 to 1919, Joyce resided in Zurich, Switzerland. Joyce received financial support from the editor of the Egoist. This woman, Harriett Shaw Weaver wound up playing a large role in Joyce’s life as a longtime friend.

Joyce’s biggest transformation from semi-popular novelist to immensely famous author occurred in 1922 when American book store owner Sylvia Beach agreed to publish Ulysses, a modernization of the Odyssey by Homer. For the next 17 years, Joyce dedicated his time and effort to his final work Finnegans Wake. Delaying the novel’s release were many obstacles. Among the top obstructions were Joyce’s painfully lacking eyesight and his daughter’s signs of schizophrenia. His daughter’s schizophrenia was especially harmful to Joyce, he worried about it frantically and refused to acknowledge that there was no cure the illness. Finnegans Wake was finally published in 1939, the beginning of World War II. Instead of gaining more success during wartime, Joyce was faced with the task of moving to times (first from Paris to Vichy, France and then lastly to Zurich in 1939).

Unfortunately for Joyce, he was unable to begin any more novels; he was hospitalized with severe stomach pains and later died in 1941 of peritonitis. Joyce was buried in Fluntern Cemetery overlooking the city of Zurich.

Through Joyce’s own narratives, the literature genre was changed from an old fashion style to new methods of original writing. Joyce used a variety of techniques such as an external and internal narrative, the unreliable narrator (a style that focuses mainly on the persons and events described) and promoted the idea that reality could be combined with fictional ideals. Modern literature would be extremely dull and ancient if Joyce had not introduced these revolutionary techniques. Many famous and non-famous writers alike would not write as well as they do had Joyce never introduced these types of systems.

Friday, November 23, 2007

Musicians, Read this Book!

Title: Our Band Could Be Your Life: Scenes from the American Indie Underground 1981-1991

Author: Michael Azerrad

Year: 2001

Pages: 522

OBCBYL is a study of 13 independent, underground rock bands that stampeded the music industry during the Reagan Conservative decade we call the 80's. These are the bands that grew right under the nose of mainstream America; these self- made musicians took the musical influence of their punk predecessors and said "Fuck It! I'm not playing New Wave, Who cares if we never make any money or appear on MTV, let's just Jam!" And so they hopped in the van with their companions and toured the nation non stop, founded their own independent labels, and began issuing fanzines. This was music run by kids (teens- early twenties), played by kids, and for kids; existing entirely outside the music industry. DIY (Do It Yourself) at its finest!
First off, this book details some of the greatest artists in the history of music. Despite the fact that few of these bands broke into the mainstream, their influence is immense. Without Sonic Youth there's no Nirvana, without Black Flag there's no hardcore, and so on. Okay, here's the bands:

Black Flag
Minutemen
Mission of Burma
Minor Threat
Husker DU
The Replacements
Sonic Youth
Butthole Surfers
Big Black
Dinosaur Jr
Fugazi
Mudhoney
Beat Happening

Of these bands, Sonic Youth is definitely my favorite, with Black Flag being a close second. If I were you I would go out and buy a SY album immediately! I highly recommend Goo (1990). If you don't feel like spending dough, then download their shit, they have a huge, plethora of works. For those of you Étudiant Radio listeners, which should be all of you! you will hear at some point or another all of these artists, in fact Glen and I already played Fugazi and Beat Happening.
Warning!: If you plan to read this book (Do It Now, it's at Newbury Comics, Barnes and Noble, hell you can order it online, you won't even have to get off your ass!) please do not read this criticism section and rather go into the novel with an open mind, you will discover an insightful analysis of underground culture and possibly the greatest chronicle of music in history.
Though this book is amazing, it is not 100% free of foibles. My main criticism is its lack of numerous, other, troubadours from that era, chief amongst these artists are: The Pixies, Bad Brains, Dead Kennedys, Misfits, Daniel Johnston, Descendants, Melvins, Meat Puppets, Bad Religion, Social Distortion, and who could forget The Smiths? Now of course the biggest flaw in my complaint is the fact that if Azerrad had included all these artists it would have been over a thousand pages (I would read em'!) and also it's most likely he tried to contact these artists, but they wanted nothing to do with the novel. Who Knows? Maybe we'll see a Volume 2, hopefully! Another criticism is the author's gratuitous use of the word "indie." I showed one chapter to Glen and he pointed this out, without even my mention of it. A final criticism is the way the author leaves out certain info or uses his opinion as if it is fact to build a story, for example in the Mudhoney chapter, he makes it sound like "Touch Me I'm Sick" was the only great song the band recorded... my favorite album of theirs is My Brother The Cow (1995) , where the song does not appear, and in fact there is no mention of this album or any other album by them on Reprise (major label) records. Sorry Azerrad.

My Rating: 4 and a half out of 5 stars. A must for those who think punk stopped in 1978 and then resurfaced with Nirvana in 1991.

Here are some (but certainly not all) other works I recommend you check out if you like this novel:

American Hardcore: A Tribal History by Steven Blush

Get In The Van by Henry Rollins

American Hardcore (film, 2006)

We Jam Econo: The Story of the Minutemen (film, 2005)

P.S. that was not a knock at Nirvana above.

Monday, November 19, 2007

Kids Don't Read

We know what young people are doing more of: watching television, surfing the Web, listening to their iPods, talking on cellphones, and instant-messaging their friends. But a new report released today by the National Endowment for the Arts makes clear what they're doing a lot less of: reading.
The report - a 99-page compendium of more than 40 studies by universities, foundations, business groups, and government agencies since 2004 - paints a dire picture of plummeting levels of reading among young people over the past two decades. Source: Boston.com

Why is this not surprising?

Sunday, March 29, 2009

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Monday, December 22, 2008

Thursday, December 11, 2008

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Friday, November 7, 2008

Monday, August 4, 2008

Friday, July 4, 2008

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Monday, May 19, 2008

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Friday, January 25, 2008

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Sunday, December 23, 2007

Friday, November 23, 2007

Monday, November 19, 2007

Jump To Category...

Voltedh Studios

Writers on the Storm

Read These First

School News

Local News

National News

World News

Étudiant Music

Étudiant Playlist

Étudiant Politics

ÉSPN

ÉtudiRant

Étudiant Science

Blog Archive

Blogs/Websites We Like

Followers