Kudos to all my friends who are working each month to put together this e-zine. Check it out!
September 10, 2009
September 3, 2009
Reading and such.
I’ve been doing quite a bit of reading, but not as much writing about it. Recently, though, I finished a book that offered some food for thought, so I thought I’d repost my review of it from goodreads.com:
A story of classic gothic suspense, complete with creepy twins, a burnt house and incestuous love, à la Henry James, Daphne du Maurier and Charlotte Bronte. Not just a pastiche of gothic devices though, Diane Setterfield crafts an original story, one that’s compelling and enjoyable in its own right. I haven’t enjoyed another book so much in some time. (Though I would have wished for darker, rainier, chillier evenings to accompany it.) But I do find myself wondering whether it “meant” something.
As I read, I was reminded of Richard Kearney’s On Stories, where he examines whether history is more ethical than story and to what extent truth and fiction can and should intersect. Similarly, at the beginning of the novel Vida Winter explains to her soon-to-be biographer, Margaret Lea, why she has never given anyone a true account of her biography:
My gripe is not with lovers of the truth, but with truth herself. What succor, what consolation is there in truth, compared to a story? When fear and cold make a statue of you in your bed . . . What you need are the plump comforts of a story. The soothing, rocking safety of a lie.
Given the absoluteness of this claim and Ms. Winter’s own life spent devoted to evading and obscuring her past, I expected the author to address this truth-fiction conundrum. But while the concepts of “storytelling and honesty” do figure prominently, the novel seems to champion two very distinct and ultimately incompatible notions, with the greater part of the story spent celebrating the anodynic comfort of fiction even as the entire plot moves towards the superiority of the “true story.”
Setterfield’s treatment of both Ms. Winter’s story as dictated to Margaret—the story within the story and the bulk of the novel’s length—is sumptuous, compelling and fascinating. Margaret’s own fascination with Ms. Winter’s story testifies to this, as Setterfield celebrates the act of storytelling and the story’s ability to consume the listener. And when it becomes apparent that Ms. Winter’s is not telling the whole truth, there is no repercussion or condemnation. Rather, this evasion sets up the story’s secondary arc of suspense as Margaret must herself unravel the “true story.”
In fact, Ms. Winter’s story is not the only history that needs to be retold as true. In the frame story, Margaret also learns her own history about her twin’s death and how it affected her parents, and Aurelius, friend to Margaret and whose own history is tied to Ms. Winter’s, is also on a quest to uncover his orphan past.
It seems then, that Setterfield has it both ways. By savoring and emphasizing Ms. Winter’s fascinating but ultimately false stories she praises the consoling refuge of story. But this is then undercut when each narrative thread ends in its respective “true story.” As if to reinforce the point, Margaret tells Aurelius at the novel’s end that her mother, who intentionally kept Margaret’s twin a secret, “thinks a weightless story is better than one that’s too heavy.” The implication, of course, is that she and Aurelius know better. So in the end, a conundrum: truth wins out, but the best parts of the novel are when the narrative lies.
March 26, 2009
Our life is no dream.
Yesterday, Mar. 25, was Novalis’ death date, a German Romantic philosopher whose thought I stumbled upon while researching my thesis on George MacDonald.
My love for Novalis’ thought is similar to my love of MacDonald’s. Both recognized the limits of language and rationality when it comes to expressing truth and the universal. Both rejected what they deemed to be the artificial distinctions between the natural and the supernatural and the internal and the external. “Poetry heals the wounds inflicted by reason.” Death for both of them was nothing to be feared—it was just a portal to more life.
Last weekend I finished The Book of Dead Philosophers (Simon Critchley’s lively meditations on the significance of nearly 200 philosophers’ deaths.) and was pleased to find an entry on Novalis:
After a period of deteriorating health and having suffered a stroke, Novalis sent for his friends. On 25 March 1801 he fell asleep as Friedrich Schlegel sat beside him, listening to his brother Karl playing the piano. He never woke up.
Not mentioned in the entry is the uncanny intersection of his death with something Novalis wrote (and one of MacDonald’s favorite quotations from him):
“Our life is no dream; but it ought to become one, and perhaps will.”
It would seem it did.
January 20, 2009
No better day.
This is it. The moment my computer widget has been counting down for about two years now—the final day of the Bush presidency and the beginning of the Obama one. (Of course, two years ago, my computer didn’t know that latter bit of information.)
Pundits and the cautionary are rightly calling attention to the fomented excitement and overblown expectations. No doubt expectations are too high. Obama is no superhero. Just a regular joe (though not “that one”).
But today, we are not only celebrating a new president, but new possibilities. It’s a chance to get away from the worrying headlines that have become part of our daily routine. Eventually, reality will settle in.
But it’s been a long time, and a hero can’t hurt. Even if its only for a day.
January 19, 2009
2008: A year in books.
It would appear that 2008 was a good year for my reading list. And it’s particularly gratifying to see them all organized with thanks to goodreads.com. You, yes, you, should log your own reading.
This year afforded me the luxury of being able to read more than a few books by a single author–which was an enjoyable way to get better acquainted with reoccurring themes and concerns of a given author. In addition to continuing my love affair with A.S. Byatt, I found a few new crushes: Don DeLillo, Zadie Smith and Miriam Toews.
November 5, 2008
November 3, 2008
October 16, 2008
My favorite photo. . .today.
Taken right after the debate when McCain caught himself exiting the wrong side of the stage. (From the Reuters newswire).
October 5, 2008
What I think. All two cents.
Someone recently asked me for specifics on why I’m voting for Obama. What I intended to be a relatively quick response turned into something a little longer. And after sending it, Zack encouraged me to post it here.
Dear __________,
Hmm. I got a little carried away . . .so I bucketed each rant/talking point.
A few words on why I’d vote for Obama even if I weren’t “for Obama.”
I guess the first place I would start is my dislike of what I truly believe the last eight years have wrought as a result of a Republican administration. We are more in debt than when Clinton was president, we are at war on two fronts, we are potentially poised for a depression and our international relations is at an all-time low.
Additionally, even if I did not believe in Obama’s policies (which I do) I would choose not to vote before I voted for McCain. From his equivocation on positions, his statements about deregulation, his stance on the war (not to mention his reckless decision-making record), McCain has all appearances of being a more extreme version of George W. Further, even if I believed in McCain’s positions, I would not vote for him because of his running mate. Palin is frighteningly inexperienced for being the running mate to what could be the second-oldest president to be nominated. Inexperienced in foreign policy, in domestic issues, in judicial matters. She is interested in pandering to the extreme religious views of Republican issues, and she is championing a notion that a presidential candidate should be “one of us.” Rather, we should be seeking informed candidates—who we may or may not be able to have a beer with (George W.’s “platform”)—who will intelligently run the country.
But why I like Obama?
The thing that’s consistently struck me about Obama was his apparent genuineness. When he talks about his policies and political issues I get the impression that he has actually done some thinking about them and his not merely giving his version of what he perceives to be the most politically prudent. But, even if I’m wrong about that, I agree with many of his policy stances.
So, specifically, in terms of Obama’s policy.
Iraq
I think one of the biggest issues this election is foreign policy. I believe that we need a president who can help end things in Iraq and bring stability to that region. We are pouring money into Iraq and have been for years, while our own economy has been steadily declining. We’ve made cuts in federal programs because we no longer have the money to fund them. We’re borrowing huge sums of money from China–engendering ourselves to a powerful, but potentially problematic world power.
From the beginning, Obama was against the Iraq war, saying when the vote was passed that it would be “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.” As a result, Obama is committed to ending our involvement in Iraq. Additionally, his willingness to meet with world leaders (something even the Republican superhero Reagan was willing to do) will go a long way in helping restore better relations with the rest of the world, which have been seriously harmed as a result of our last eight year’s of foreign policy.
Health Care
The second biggest issue in my opinion is health care. We are one of the few remaining countries who does not provide health care for all of its citizens. And I truly believe that a country that is willing to call itself a “Christian nation” is one that should provide for the widow, the orphan and the “least of these.” We are not doing that. The people who die from treatable diseases is appalling. And the rebuttal is, “How much it will cost?”. Well, despite Palin’s claim that McCain’s plan is cost-free, the Urban Brookings Tax Policy estimates that McCain’s plan, which would only cover 5 million uninsured, would increase the deficit by $1.3 trillion. Obama’s plan would cost just a little more (at 1.6 trillion), but would cover 34 million.
Economy
Obama’s emphasis on tax cuts for middle class and his overall approach is, in my opinion, far more robust than McCain’s. And in light of the current economic issues we are facing—nationally, we are seeing the increased need for oversight and regulation, something Obama and Biden are for. And while McCain is now calling for regulation, he has a long, well-documented history for advocating deregulation (e.g.“I think the deregulation was probably helpful to the growth of our economy.”) of the financial market and even compared his health care program approach of private competition to the success of deregulation in Wall Street.
Energy
I agree with Obama’s energy proposals, but I will admit that this is one area where his equivocation has disappointed me. He was initially against off shore drilling, citing it as a political ploy since it would not lower gas prices for close to 10 years and that it was putting more money into an infrastructure that we are trying to reduce our dependence on. Overall, however, I agree with his call for increased funding for alternative sources of fuel, reducing our dependence on foreign oil (which is connected both to national security issue and foreign policy) and capping gas emissions. His current plan also includes the creation of jobs in tandem with creating cleaner energy.
A word about abortion.
I’ve heard more than a few people from both the “D” and “R” persuasions, explain to me that there’s no way I could be/vote Democrat if one were Christian, specifically because of abortion. I completely disagree. If one who is against abortion self defines as “pro-life”—then it should be all life that they should champion. And current U.S policies are not “pro-life.” We are not pro-life in Iraq. We are not pro-life in regards to our health care. We are not pro-life in our use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” (i.e torture). We were/are not pro-life in our treatment of Katrina victims. We are not pro-life by suspending habeas corpus.
If we’re talking definitions here, which I’m not sure how helpful those really are, I would say I’m “pro-choice, anti-abortion.” I don’t think the answer to abortion lies in legislating away Roe v. Wade. Frankly, I don’t think the Republican party would/could ever overturn Roe v. Wade, and even if they were able, there would still be abortions, illegal ones at that. So, I think making abortion a key pivot issue on whether you vote D or R is distracting and irrelevant.
These are my thoughts, and I welcome discussion.
**UPDATE: So much for intentions. What I intended to be an argument for why I’m voting for Obama has turned into a discussion about abortion. So, I’m adding to my previous comment:
I do believe there should be restrictions on abortion. And I will repeat: I am against abortion. But my point here was NOT to talk about my position on abortion, so much as my position on how Roe v. Wade and other related political legislation fits into one’s political choices. This was not my attempt at an all-inclusive presentation of my full beliefs on abortion. Something that I’m not sure I could even do now or in this forum. I will repeat, though, I do not believe in abortion.
I think my underlying belief in the fact that nothing gets truly done without being done on the micro level informs what I’m trying to express–there are more effective ways to address abortion than by voting R on a ballot every few years.
I knew a family growing up that renovated a portion of their house to make room for pregnant women to live there, providing options for women who had no family or money to turn to in their crisis. I think they were effective.
My personal conviction against abortion is informing my rather pragmatic position of being “pro-choice.” [Again, I’ll also reiterate: I don’t think this definition is helpful or even necessarily accurate, but it’s my way of working within an issue that’s been binary to the exclusion of actually talking about how it pertains to our vote]. Because, while the abortion rate has fallen somewhat in the past few years, the trend line overall has been steadily increasing. And the U.S. still has one of the highest teen-pregnancy rates in the developed world with teen birth rates on the rise.
Which, to me, suggests a bigger problem than legislation can fix.
September 22, 2008
On this first day of autumn, 2008.
I watched a few leaves fall, the clouds give way to afternoon sun and a little sparrow take a celebratory bath in a puddle.
“. . . there is a harmony
in autumn, and a lustre in its sky.”
– Percy Bysshe Shellye, “Hymn to Intellectual Beauty”
