Russell T. Davies

I have seen the last episode of the third season of Doctor Who and I am close to vomiting. I didn’t know how much I cared about the series until now and I sincerely hope that the rumors are true — that Davies has decided to leave Doctor Who and will never return again. I’ve had enough. For all that any long-time Who fan complained about John Nathan-Turner, the cheesy crap under Nathan-Turner was fucking Masterpiece Theatre compared to this flamboyant tripe. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, see this clip, in which Doctor Who has been cheapened beyond any rudimentary level of dramatic redemption. It’s a pity, because John Simm is a promising Master. Russell T. Davies appears to have sabotaged a science fiction staple. This is, in many ways, worse than the Six Feet Under episode, “That’s My Dog,” in which another great series was hijacked. To dwell on the subject further is to unleash a mad torrent of violence upon an inanimate object that I will only call “Russell,” only to injure my hand and pay an expensive hospital bill.

Russell T. Davies, you fucking wanker. How could you do this? How could you destroy a sizable chunk of the human population in the present day? How could you write scenes in which characters effortlessly infiltrate major executive scenarios? How could you write something so adverse to the show’s quirkiness, wit, intelligence, and charm?

Christ, it’s only a television show, I know. I have only late-night Dirty Harry impulses to go on. But this two-part finale is the work of a talentless megalomaniac and I wish that justice of some sort could be effected. But it can’t.

Guess it’s time to read James Joyce instead.

Is the Value Now in the Performance?

Prospect Magazine: “Groups used to tour, often at a loss, to stimulate sales of their latest album. Now it’s the other way around. Hence the widely reported decision earlier this year by the Crimea, a band previously signed to Warner Bros, to release their new album as a free download. The band explained this not as an anarcho-hippie gesture in support of the principle that music ought to be free, but as a sensible promotional tactic. Their hope is that by disseminating their music online, they will expand their fan base and increase their returns from touring. Having seen the small size of the cheques they got from Warner, they know where not to look for their future income.”

Sam Tanenhaus: The Architect of Decay

This week’s New York Times Book Review includes a potentially promising meditation on ideology by Stephen Metcalf, who writes about a recent essay anthology, Why I Turned Right: Leading Baby Boom Conservatives Chronicle Their Political Journey. Ensconced within this essay is Metcalf attempting to come to terms with his personal ideology, with a surprisingly uncharacteristic use of the first-person — surprisingly uncharacteristic, at least, for the Tanenhaus crew, who have continually operated as if writing in first-person was akin to shaking hands with a leper or eating an entree with a salad fork. But I must agree with Levi that Metcalf misses a significant opportunity with this revelation:

In short, I am white, privileged, middle-aged and boring. But one thing I am not, and never will be, is a conservative.

Never will be? Countless individuals have written statements like this over human history, only to live against the promise. While I commend Metcalf for copping to his alleged “privileged” and “boring” status (would Rachel Donadio ever confess anything like this?), it is a great misstep to remain so convinced that one will not change over the course of time — particularly in unexpected ways — while also closely examining a collection with contributors likely to adopt a similar position from the other side (“I own a home. I make good money. I never will be a liberal.”). This could have been a more compelling essay if Metcalf had stopped to examine the plausibilities of conservatism influencing him and others, the rhetorical similarities behind any ideology left or right, or if he had kept up his daring personal perspective throughout the piece’s entirety. Instead, we get this overly tidy generalization:

Because these conservatives were, by and large, low-status males (or the feminism-disdaining women who loved them) in high school and college, they know instinctively how to connect with the culturally dispossessed.

Whether this specific sentence came during the writing or the editing process is difficult to say, but it does fit in with the NYTBR‘s current m.o. Never let the audience contemplate a position outside of a rigid dichotomy. Ironically, this is the very position that Metcalf objects to in the anthology.

I have enjoyed some of Metcalf’s work for Slate, which often has him adopting the contrarian position, only to gradually work against this initial summation over the course of a piece. (See, for example, this essay on Bruce Springsteen.) It’s a nice approach that allows Metcalf to drift eventually to the more interesting gray areas. But I’m wondering if the NYTBR‘s rigid orthodoxy allows Metcalf to take the same intellectual liberties.

Chuck Nevius: The Cancer of the San Francisco Chronicle

Forget the horrors of The Family Circus. Do you really think your biggest concern when reading the daily paper is yawning over a comics section that takes no chances?

Frankly, if you’re a newspaper devoting column inches to a far from magnificent man in his flying machine, a far greater danger is that you, your child, or your pets will somehow believe in the xenophobic and thoughtless doggerel that the op-ed columnist in question considers a well-informed take by a responsible citizen for responsible citizens. Step off the paths into ruminative territory, and you’ll have less knee-jerk views on a highly complex situation that won’t go away anytime soon.

I’m not suggesting that the homeless situation shouldn’t be looked at through a critical prism, with criticisms extending to the homeless and municipal failings alike.

But, on a recent Sunday afternoon, I examined the newspaper in my former hometown and found — without trying too hard — a heartless and complacent yuppie writing very much in the thoughtless and vacant manner I used to find in that reactionary cad of a columnist, Ken Garcia. I saw the smiling visage of a man cast lovingly in a blue-toned circle — a smug and self-satisfied man who probably wouldn’t last twenty seconds in a bar brawl, and who certainly wouldn’t attempt to understand those people who were “beneath” him, who were possibly “more common,” and who didn’t sign their columns or their checks with pretentious initials like “C.W.” (If Chuck Nevius thinks he’s some kind of bullshit aristocrat with this preposterous handle, then I’m a small rhesus with a commodious shard of banana up his sphincter.)

Here was a man who was entirely uninterested in coming to terms with the homeless in Golden Gate Park for his piece. (Note how Nevius, like a well-trained corporate bitch, weighs the quotes of city officials and residents over the people who camp in the park.) I saw a man who witnessed needles and ran away and didn’t stop to think that maybe one of the guys he talked to, Christopher Ash, was troubled and didn’t have another place to go. I saw a “journalist” who didn’t have the balls to ask hard questions about where the homeless in San Francisco will sleep or how they will be fed or how they will be cared for. These were questions I asked myself when I lived on the edge of the Park and when I tried to pass along food and a few bucks and when I went out of my way to talk with people and understand a horrible problem. In this wicked web, these were uncertain questions with no immediate answers that sometimes brought tears to my eyes. San Francisco was, in many ways, very cruel in the manner that they threw the homeless to the wolves — now, the coyotes apparently — and in the manner in which they denied organizations like Food Not Bombs the means to disseminate food or help those in need.

With this column, I saw a “journalist” who was more concerned with banging out a piece instead of examining these harder issues, who described “the jewel of a public park” but didn’t consider that the people who slept there simply had no other spot and were just as human as the upper middle-class people who this journalist likewise spoke to.

Inevitably when we write a story like this, there are complaints that we are unsympathetic to the homeless. But this isn’t a homeless issue.

Is Nevius really this fucking daft? Here is a story that involves people camping out in the park and shooting up. If that isn’t a homeless issue, then tell me what is. An unexpected conflagration taking out the many expensive homes above Lake Street and causing San Francisco’s precious aristocrats to check into a hotel? (“Oh dear! I’ve become homeless! Thank goodness I have my driver and valet!”)

In the Nevius world, bravery is attached not to the everyday people who are trying to find a new place to sleep every night and live with their drug addictions, but to those volunteers who work to clean up the neighborhood and who pay $8,500 a year in property taxes. And if Nevius is gullible enough to think that Central Park is devoid of the homeless, he might want to consider this Wall Street Journal item from last month that reported how New York City was undercounting the homeless. Just because Gavin Newsom didn’t see them doesn’t mean that they aren’t there.

Consider Nevius’s nonsense when compared against the Chron‘s detailed series of articles in February that examined the homeless problem in depth, hitting it from numerous angles. In writing this sham of a column, Chuck Nevius has demonstrated that he is a hack who defames journalism and who defames what is, for the most part, a pretty good paper.

I may have had my quibbles with William T. Vollmann’s Poor People, but if you want real journalism, you’ll find more honesty on this subject in one highly reflective chapter that begins with the line “I am sometimes afraid of poor people,” and that proceeds to explore the problem of maintaining a neighborhood while contending with the equally necessary quality of human compassion.

Walking Person & Upraised Hand, Part One

fig-4e1_lg.gifI’ve long wondered why the hand and man symbols — resembling some vaguely international semiotics — replaced the WALK and DON’T WALK blinking signs on crosswalks. This 2003 New Yorker article by Nick Paumgarten covers the switch — at least, as it went down in New York. At some point around 2000, it was decreed that all 85,000 signs — at the cost of $28.2 million — would be replaced. And while Section 4A.02 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices outlines the specifics, nobody has thought to ask why the bright red hand (known officially as the UPRAISED HAND) and the white man (known officially as the WALKING PERSON) were settled upon. Were there boardroom battles? Were there numerous drafts? Were there competing designs? Was there one brave revolutionary who defied the pencilnecks in the Federal Highway Administration and had greater ideas than the hand and the man?

Here’s why I’m so obsessed by what we now all accept as real. This morning, while walking home from breakfast, I examined the white pixels located where the WALKING PERSON’s elbows should be. Even accounting for the optical liberties of pointillism, there was no elbow!

Now you may find this to be somewhat pedantic. But when most people walk, they generally use their elbows in some sense, because of this crazy little thing called gravity. And this WALKING PERSON — presumably named PERSON to avoid any controversies on the gender front — that I observed did not — repeat, not — appear to have any discernible elbows! Thus, if the PERSON was truly WALKING, would it not be strutting in representative form like a dutiful mack daddy, thus conveying to pedestrians that now was the time to get down and perambulate against the traffic?

Given that the UPRAISED HAND is a strong visual approximation of what a hand looks like, one wonders why Brooklyn thought that it should skimp out on the WALKING PERSON component of a universally mandated symbol.

But observe the diagram on the right. We see a clear elbow! And not only that, but observe the notable gap between the ring finger and the pinkie in the UPRAISED HAND! This graphic was culled from an Oklahoma site which freely disseminates an HTML version of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition with Revision No. 1 Incorporated.

So the question becomes far more compelling — predicated perhaps on a battle between city and state and federal government. Can the federal government live with the non-deployment of the gap or the non-deployment of the elbow? And why, in turn, does it bother me that the gap and the lack of elbow does not grace Brooklyn pedestrian signals? Does this mean that I am secretly some conformist pencilneck? Should I be the strapping young bureaucrat who demands better than a flashing red hand? Or does my visceral reaction come from being pushed around for so long by a government that purports to represent us? None of us certainly had any say when the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices was concocted. Was there some period of public comment when the WALKING PERSON and the UPRAISED HAND were unveiled?

Let it not be said, however, that the MUTCD is entirely without leeway. Did you know, for example, that the UPRAISED HAND can be flashed at a rate of no less than 50 and no more than 60 times per minute? I can imagine city supervisors getting into fierce arguments. “Dwayne, you heartless bastard! At this intersection, we’re going to need a greater sense of urgency! 59 or 60 times a minute! Not a flash less!”

Even more interesting, there’s this option:

An animated eyes symbol may be added to a pedestrian signal head in order to prompt pedestrians to look for vehicles in the intersection during the time that the WALK signal indication is displayed.

I have not, as of yet, seen these mysterious eyes. But there may, however, be a reason why the animated eyes remains underused:

If used, the animated eyes symbol shall consist of an outline of a pair of white steadily-illuminated eyes with white eyeballs that scan from side to side at a rate of approximately once per second. The animated eyes symbol shall be at least 300 mm (12 in) wide with each eye having a width of at least 125 mm (5 in) and a height of at least 62 mm (2.5 in). The animated eyes symbol shall be illuminated at the start of the walk interval and shall terminate at the end of the walk interval.

Of course, none of this gets to the main point I was trying to uncover. Why the UPRAISED HAND and the WALKING PERSON? Sure, accessibility and rampant illiteracy may have forced cities and counties to swap four-letter words for symbols. But how did they settle upon these two symbols?

This, alas, is a complicated answer that will require a zealot-like determination. And I hope to fully unravel this mystery in the near future.

Rupert Thomson Appearances in Boston, San Francisco, and Seattle

As Megan notes, New York isn’t the only East Coast venue for Rupert Thomson . He’ll also be appearing at the Harvard Book Store in Boston the night before — on Thursday, August 16, 2007 at 7:00 PM. At my old stomping grounds in the Bay Area, Thomson will also be appearing at Black Oak Books on August 13, 2007. There are also two appearances planned in the Seattle area.

BSS #126: Alternative Press Expo 2007, Part Three

segundo126.jpg

[This is the last of the three APE 2007 podcasts. All three podcasts will eventually be available on the main Segundo page. But for the moment, here are temporary links to Part One and Part Two]

CONDITION OF MR. SEGUNDO: Searching for surgical uses involving his tequila bottle.

GUESTS: Helen Parson, Ruben Fernandez, Bud Burgy, Mike Hampton, Suzanne Kleid, Shannon O’Leary, Jennifer Joseph, Brian Colma, an unqualified “lowly human,” various representatives of Kaiju Big Battel, John Schuler and William Binderup, Jose Lopez, Liz Baillie, Bob Self, Richard Ruane and Tim Trosky, Mikhaela Reid, Stephanie McMillan, Matt Bors, Masheka Wood, Robert Steven Rhine and Hollie Stevens, Corwin Gibson, Matt Bernier, Mel Smith and Steve Oliff

SUBJECTS DISCUSSED: The nutritional qualities of flavored ghosts, the trouble with comic book names, telemarketing poets, penny aphorisms, a search for a mean-spirited fan who may live in Wisconsin, marital modeling and zombies, a comparative discussion between zombies and corpses, pet noir anthologies, conducting poetry discussion at a comic book convention, how to make cartoons more respectable, using aggression for control of the universe, how to exploit and make money out of kaiju monsters, getting people hooked on poop jokes, conflict that attracts people, character design for Batman and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, working on secret projects for Google, how to riff on the sacrosanct world of Degrassi High, Gris Grimly, a pair of books by a pair of sisters, shy guys, moms and drugs, the distinct lack of attitude within Cartoonists with Attitude, love and anger, on having sharp opinions without being angry, the Reese’s peanut butter cup concoction of girls and corpses, clown porn and Mensa, unexpected enthusiasms for the Orange County Sheriff, Nacho Libre vs. luche libre, Jack Black, trying to eat a hot dog and selling comics at the same time, excluding the important sexual elements of a classic myth, how Bob Burden is giving the Gumby crew ulcers, on Mel Smith being the Henry Kissinger of Gumby, and Paul Reubens and Gumby.

EXCERPT FROM SHOW:

Correspondent: You seem very pleasant for someone who has attitude.

Reid: We all!

Correspondent: And someone else speaks for you here.

Bors: Nah, I’m pleasant in person. I don’t know. Uh I’m just chilling at a convention.

Reid: His strip is called Slut of Guantanamo Bay. He’s not that pleasant!

Correspondent: But he’s very pleasant about it right here.

Roundup

  • It is very possible that Kate Coe has penned the Theresa Duncan article to end all Theresa Duncan articles. Beyond the careful reporting, let us consider the important role of hyperlinks in the online version of this article. Had this been merely a print piece, would these references have been half as helpful? The hyperlink is here to stay. Embrace it. (via Michelle Richmond)
  • Tod Goldberg lays down his rules: “I don’t want to read your self-published novel. Ever. If you’re reading this and thinking, Hey, I see Tod sometimes reviews books places, I wonder if he’d like to review my book? The answer is that I’d rather sit through I Know Who Killed Me covered in fire ants.”
  • So folks, do you have Asperger’s? Who needs some perfunctory summation from an psychological rube when the Web can play this kind of ignoble Asperger’s card for you? Apparently, I’m an “average female scientist.” Which presumably means that I’ll need to work twice as hard to prove that I’m capable, because the world seems to consider me more of a stewardess who should be popping out kids from her uterus than a thinker. (via the Valve)
  • Charles Simic has been named the new U.S. poet laureate. But wait a minute, Simic was born in Yugoslavia! What the hell’s going on? I thought our government specialized in celebrating and maintaining a purebred America! This is hypocrisy! The last thing America needs is one of these goddam Yugoslavians taking away American cultural thunder. Why not simply give the title to a Madison Avenue copywriter? “Born in fire, blown by mouth and cut by hand with heart.” Sheer poetry that keeps this nation going!
  • After reading Julie Phillips’s James Triptree, Jr.: The Double Life of Alice B. Sheldon, I have many conclusions. But the one that sticks out the most (which indeed I still possessed even before picking up the Phillips book): Ursula K. Le Guin, hubba hubba! Yowzahs! Rowr! Considerable correspondence between Sheldon and various science fiction writers can be found within the book. But it is Le Guin’s volleys, laden with wit, intelligence, and an irresistable wordplay, that made me swoon. Letter writing may very well be a dying art — something abdicated to the “dats cool” one-sentence truncations of contemporary email. Because of this, I think it’s high time to remind readers that Le Guin is still around and still pumping out interesting books. It’s also high time to remind all emailers to up their game! (More recent news on the literary merits of email here.)
  • Terry Teachout vs. Dan Green.
  • Can I say again just how saddened I am to see Janet Maslin, who was once a sharp film critic, offering such asinine book reviews like this? One would think that after a few years of book reviewing, Maslin would understand that there are these things called legal clearances which often affect decisions in historical fiction and that the critic has to be very careful when dwelling upon authorial intention. But, no, this review saddens me so much with its idiocy that I must walk away, head hunkered down, hoping that the Janet Maslin I read in the ’90’s will return. For the love of letters, Gray Lady, get Maslin away from books and back into the movie theaters, pronto!
  • The funny side of Faulkner. (via Maud)
  • I have not yet written about Stephen Fry’s incredibly fun new book, The Ode Less Travelled, which I cracked open the other day. But see what Levi has to say about it.
  • Derik is now running some experiments on music in comics.
  • Also, I missed this a few weeks ago, but this Ralph Ellison overview is worth a look.

The Shauny Chronicles

To make up for the lack of content in the past twenty-four hours, what with birthday celebrations and concomitant activities, I have compiled a number of strange things that I wrote circa 2002 — on Shauny’s grand blog.

* * *

From what I understand from a solid source, the Melbourne Mad Hatters Recruiting Agency (the logo of which features a giant glove grabbing a billfold out of a backwards top hat) may just cater to your needs. For one thing, every recruiting agent that the Mad Hatters employ demands that the applicant not only pet a white rabbit (an animal who, because of a past experience, is fond of biting the hands of applicants who are wearing a watch that is wound five minutes slow or more) but also participate in an interview process that involves the sipping of tea and behavior that is considerably out-of-line in a staid corporate environment.

The Mad Hatters specialize in particularly vibrant or crazed souls. If a humorless applicant signs up with them, the applicant is generally subjected to cruel ridicule, asked to impersonate a Kimono dragon, or assigned tasks of an increasingly outre nature. Those that walk the fine line between normal and crazed have less of a risk (but still a considerable one) than the peripatetic accountant. But, ideally, the boisterous vociferator or the closet anarchist is welcome with the Mad Hatters. For corporations requiring the last nut in the Planters jar to run loose in a jungle of cubicles go to the Mad Hatters first. If a corporate position of unusual duties and obligations cannot be found, then there’s always the street performer route. The Mad Hatters also perform complimentary surgical procedures on anyone who aspires to spend the rest of their days touring with a circus freakshow.

In fact, if it hadn’t been for the Mad Hatters (who have been in business since around 1886 over roughly four continents, but are based in Melbourne), the midgets, Siamese Twins, bearded ladies and other souls tittered at by those who pay to enter a tent and be astounded would be considerably less populous than those which continue to work today.

In fact, in an early draft of the Alfred Hitchcock film “Saboteur,” Dorothy Parker attempted to include a reference to the Melbourne Mad Hatters. Unfortunately, since a war was on in Europe, Parker’s meticulous research into the connection between the Mad Hatters and the circus freaks had to be excised. We still get some sense of the connection in the film when the performers look at Robert Cummings with considerable suspicion. The line that was deleted (and, alas, no footage exists of what was cut) was “Are you from the Mad Hatters?” This dialogue would have cleared up what is already a confusing though fascinating scene. But the mystery of the Mad Hatters remains.

* * *

“Does anyone read the entries?”

The answer to this question, a notion constantly within a blogger’s mind, involves considering several facets. First off, it’s worth tallying that instant feedback to a personal piece of writing, discounting any feverish dissemination of a journal during the Victorian age and a quick rejoining epistle shot with dementia by a writer’s potentially psychotic peers, is only a recently technological development. Also, as Marybeth has noted, more often than not, a reader is either intimidated or altogether perplexed by whether or not s/he should reply.

In some cases, a reader replies when s/he often shouldn’t or, more often than not, to alleviate boredom. This is not necessarily an exclusive condition of a reader’s mind.

In still other cases, a comment is fired off in an effort to contribute to an impromptu discussion or to cheer up the blogger or the idea expressed.

In the case of this particular comment herein, the purpose is to inform one Shauny that yes, indeed, her blog is being read and yes, indeed, in one sense or another, the reader is weighing words in his/her mind. So please do not fret. Participation within a comment thread often involves the flimsiest and ridiculous of pretexts.

* * *

There’s a new kind of social contract with the blog. It’s considerably more dangerous than the already troublesome relationship between author and reader, in which reader demands new book pronto you son of a bitch, little realizing that author needs time to not only deliberate and hone up the tome but find a tenable way to publish the damned thing (i.e., can author logistically make next month’s rent? is this the same old hash?).

Now thanks to the Internet, the petty bleats of readers demanding instant gratification have sealed this Hobson’s choice. Update a lot and you’re damned. Update too little and you’re condemned. Diverge from the ha ha funny or the inline graphic and actually (aghast!) contemplate and you’re suddenly some Minnesota housewife’s number one fan, with the duct tape thoroughly constricted around your throat via fractious e-mails.

It’s a neverending circle, this little contract. And it’s probably one of many reasons my own hits are so sporadic. But if I was concerned about popularity, I’d lay off the political diatribes, attend every blogging social gathering with a hidden agenda and somehow find my way into an A-lister’s pants, presumably the online way of marrying into money.

Who gives a damn about the readers? Write when you goddam want to and about what you goddam want to. If your readers can’t understand that the hyperelectronic bypass is a hell of an advantage compared to the ritualistic wait for a letter or a magazine in the post, particularly when one considers the immediate contact with the author, then it is their loss.

* * *

No, the blogs of the future will involve lengthy clips of people standing in front of a camera, talking about “how cool Ron was on Saturday night” while simultaneously performing a striptease, with frequent clips of nudity involved and occasional obscene gestures.

* * *

Four day Easter weekend? You’ve got to be shitting me. We Americans get ignobly poked in the posterior with a heartles middle manager’s cudgel when it comes to time off. For my own part, I had to deduct tomorrow off from my own vacation time for a three-day mass exodus to Nevada with friends, where the imbibing of beverages, spins of the roulette wheel and the wafts of first and second-hand smoke would somehow equate to a defiance of Judeo-Christian celebrations over some bearded guy pulling a Houdini from the grave. A specious plan, at best, but that never prevented anyone from trying.

Of course, it still doesn’t address the problem. In nearly every other industrialized nation, a worker is prone to getting something like 20 days (if not a third of the year) off annually. Meanwhile, we jaded Americans must settle for 10 days because someone who laid down the rules decided that our entire lives were work-based. Is it any wonder why some of us Americans became so cynical?

The only guaranteed vacation that an American has is when he willingly gets himself fired or is somehow extricated after the words, “Please call security” are spoken into a speakerphone. In these cases, there is usually some kind of severance pay, which means two weeks of boozing it up and wild spending sprees. Of course, this method doesn’t exactly ensure any kind of return to employment. But if one is to become ensnared within this ritualistic act three times a year, it’s easily equal to about six weeks of work, a fair bargain compared to the lack of vacation time we normally encounter.

* * *

The inclusion of the song in Shrek didn’t help matters. “I’m a Believer,” much like another Diamond song thrown away to UB40 known in modern vernacular as “Red Red Wine,” now resides just outside the edge of the corpus callosum of nearly every person born since 1947. The song has not only aged well, but it has been utilized for commercials and has hit more Muzak circuits (perhaps unfairly) than Ohio Express’s “Yummy Yummy Yummy,” a song that came one year later and was used in a Monty Python sketch.

“I’m a Believer,” amongst many other songs is a testament to one tenable reality: Neil Diamond is a magnificent songwriter, but inevitably people forget his original versions. “I’m a Believer” is remembered as a song written by the Monkees. Urge Overkill gets hitched to “Girl, You’ll Be A Woman Soon.” And of course, there is the UB40 problem.

It doesn’t help matters for Diamond much when he sings. He has a silly angst-ridden voice which, while laudable in some kitschy capacity, is rendered positively ridiculous through such covers as his version of “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer.” Thus, the quandary. Diamond is somehow pinned down as a regular on the Vegas-Reno casinos when the songs he writes are considerably more than that. Someone save the man from his predicament before it’s too late.

* * *

One advantage of naming a vehicle “Manuel,” particularly if the car is a stickshift, is that, if you apply an embossed or machine printed appellation somewhere around the dashboard, then people may think that the car manufacturer deliberately misspelled the word “manual” when they were simply trying to inform a new driver that the car in question has a manual transmission.

Of course, the big question that any astute passenger will ask is: Why is the car advertising the stick? Shauna’s clutch regularly goes out. There are only four gears and only two or three of those work, giving the car a top speed close to 34mph. What possible reason did the car company have for putting this notice, which glaringly illuminates the effort of a driver, on the dashboard? And why on earth did they bother to mess up the spelling?

The brilliant thing is that the passenger will in most cases be too polite to mention these angry and maddening internal thoughts to you.

So you have picked not only an admirable name with vestigial ties to the great John Cleese (and Andrew Sachs, the underrated actor who played Manuel), but one that will puzzle your passengers ad infinitum.

* * *

The problem with my own high school dreams is that I had more of them as an adolescent. For whatever reason, there were a few English teachers that turned me on as an impressionable youth. The dreams, which came from a fifteen year-old kid contending with both a developing imagination and a randiness rivaled only by a horny-as-hell squadron of virile soldiers returning from a war, involved teachers reading to me, seducing me and then allowing me to recreate the form of the book, using their legs and arms as metaphorical “pages” to turn over, in the bedroom. I would be disciplined by these older women, who were somehow more sinuous within my dirty mind, if I hadn’t read particular authors. For whatever reason, the book was the ultimate sexual high and the soiled sheets of many a wet dream contributed to furtive runs to the washer and dryer in the early morning, attempting to cover up dissemination (no pun intended) that I found I could control more effectively through quotidian mastrubation.

As a result, years later, when I saw the human body used as a book in Peter Greenaway’s Pillow Book, the film made a good deal of sense to me, more so than my friends, who looked at my admiration and immediate understanding as their own personal answer to a less rapacious but ultimately sick-minded de Sade.

Today, I am still turned on by brainy and playful women. But while my adolescent dreams were limited to the classroom and the bedroom, this newfound educator and I are gloriously free to roam the earth. And the tie-in between books and sex has possibly become considerably more intense now that I read and write more frequently than I did back in those days.

And why does this comment read like a really bad epistle sent into Penthouse Letters?

* * *

I’ve had a recurring dream lately that has essentially involved being smothered by breasts. Sure, you could interpret this as the typical quotidian fantasies of a heterosexual man who particularly admires that remarkable pair of soft and sinuous organs. But here’s the thing: the dream motif has been accompanied by a random lady asking me very politely if they can smother me with their breasts. And this always seems to happen first. Sometimes, there are options, as in, “Sir, would you care for one boob in your face or two?” and sometimes, money is somehow involved (“Mr. Champion, the meter is running.”).

The thing I don’t understand about these recurring dreams is how some remarkable lady with breasts is prepared to smother me no matter what the environment or nature of the dream. Just last week, as I found myself dreaming about storming the beaches of Normandy (the Nazis, strangely enough, were replaced by vicious accountants firing off fountain pens at my direction instead of bullets), as I was about to capture one of these Nazis/moneymen, one of them suddenly turned into a lady. Suddenly, this remarkably sized, newly appearing lady told me, “You’re going to need a Schedule 44D,” and then wouldn’t you know it — my head was once again joyously smothered between breasts with complete complaisance.

Of course, this had nothing to do with Normandy or Nazis (unless you count those Ilsa movies). But these recurring dreams have been happening for about two or three weeks. And I’m feverishly contemplating why the breasts feel the need to make these regular appearances, along with some prefatory sentence. Not that I mind, of course. I’m just wondering if I’m having a premature seven year itch or this is my mind’s way of saying, “Heya! Ed! Bedroom tango time!” If my brain is concentrated upon these two salient organs of desire, then I’m wondering whether I need to have more fun during my Friday and Saturday nights or I simply need to find the largest mammary gland (Woody Allen size?) possible. That essentially means smothering my face into one of the bovine’s six breasts. And that’s a hard way to find a solution to this for an urban dweller like me.

* * *

Okay, this is where you call in the Sanity Police, the gendarmes of childhood madness, the enforcers of juvenile escape. Basically, I had this tendency to create fictitious maps at an early age. What I used to do was lay out a whole town on an 8 1/2 x 11 paper. Bird’s eye Thomas Bros. view with clover leaves, winding roads and of course the rectilinear streets of downtown. Then I’d get a ream of paper and draw my car’s journey from the perspective of the windshield of this town. I’d label each sheet sequentially and then follow the car’s journey on the map. These pictures were pretty straightforward and crude. I was never much of a drawer, but all of this stuff was in my head and the minimalist stuff that I could reproduce was filled in by what I saw within my noggin.

But where it got pretty disturbing was in the signs I devised. Like any imaginative person, I too was fascinated by the SLIPPERY WHEN WET sign. But here in California, the sign had two absolutely identical curlicues that trailed from the car. This led me to believe that somehow the car, should it slip, would skid in precisely the pattern dictated the sign. After all, since some government official had put the sign up, my five year old head is thinking that they know the precise trajectory of the car’s skid, should the road ever become wet and, thus, slippery.

In mulling this dilemma over, I eventually came to the conclusion that the government simply wasn’t doing its job properly. Because it didn’t account for every potential disaster. But in the towns that I created on paper, I considered nearly every warning, while taking into account that the visual information on the signs that needed to be conveyed had to follow the certain house style set by the SLIPPERY WHEN WET sign.

So what you had for a pothole in the road was a sign very much like the “SLIPPERY WHEN WET” sign, complete with the car jumping into the air, labeled “BUMPY WHEN HOLED.” I even created signs that predicted the car mowing down a random pedestrian trying to cross the street. If I recall, it was something like “BLOODY WHEN CROSSED.”

I was a terrible little boy.

* * *

Let me tell you a thing or two about e-mail, concentrating at length upon its rsults upon the human psyche, and singling out strange illnesses that involves spontaneously combusting heads (a veritable Cronenberg compost of nothing above the neck and brainmatter, natch!), three villainous itises (itii?) that insufferably reside beneath the deepest recesses of the three nails (isn’t 15% always the hardest?) that you think about the least, and how the specific beeps of certain e-mail clients have a way of triggering epileptic seizures if someone is confused enough to mistake the pleasant Eudora beep for the harsh simpering words of Mary Hart (or, considerably worse, Ann Coulter, a bona-fide maven who will make any sensible person’s brain hurt).

First off, with e-mail, there is lots of it. Thousands of e-mails are fired off into mail servers every minute. Several hundred of these will bounce, frenetically bumping into the gridlock of mistyped addresses or faux spam addresses that spam victims, angered and exhausted by the “PAY $2.99 A MINUTE FOR A HOT FAT FUCK WITH A MARSUPIAL! CLICK HERE!” epistles, perplexed that they of all people would be singled out in such a manner and rejoining appropriately. But most of these e-mails will meet their intended addresses.

This is where the finer struggle of getting your recepient to read the damned thing comes into play or, for that matter, to respond to it. If, like me, you have a tendency to write longass e-mails and leave longass comments on blogs based in Canberra, then it’s quite likely you will receive no response from your intended suitor. Indeed, this often forces those three daemons to come from beneath the fingernails, waltz with the bamboo shoots that affix themselves into the mail daemon, flipflop mental Post-It notes written in Unix and other strange commands that involve a prompt and then finally effectuate the brain into making a firm disease-ridden resolve.

In Shauny’s case, the unfortunate aftermath is mailache. But it could be considerably worse. You could be quitting smoking right now. You could be lying in a ditch, doomed to a lifetime of transcribing Pantera lyrics from the one tape you have managed to salvage from your former abode and that you now have playing on your Walkman.

But since Shauny is above rebuke in expressing her feelings here, since her postings give us all such joy, I would gauge her current status on the same level as the current Kashmir crisis.

There are only one of two solutions. Send in Jimmy Carter to negotiate between the two sides or send loving e-mails to our dearest Shauny. The choice is yours.

Beware the Literary Eds of New York

Today is Ed Park’s birthday. A very happy birthday to him. Good Man Park may seem to be an altogether different person from me, but, at long last, the truth must come out. Mr. Park killed off Ingmar Bergman by talking about him the night before his death. I killed off Tom Snyder by writing a post about him the night before his death. And what’s more, the two of us share the same birthday. I leave readers to opine just what this all means and why this all happened before we celebrated our birthdays. Is there really an Other Ed? Or are we the same person? And since Jennifer Jordan likewise shares the same birthday, is she one of our agents? Or possibly the designated Overseer of Eds? Is this a Brian Azzarello-style conspiracy?

Your speculations are, of course, entirely welcome. But be very careful. For the Eds may likewise rub you out with casual discourse!

Wal-Mart’s New Economic Model

Newsweek: “Wal-Mart is Mexico’s largest private-sector employer in the nation today, with nearly 150,000 local residents on its payroll. An additional 19,000 youngsters between the ages of 14 and 16 work after school in hundreds of Wal-Mart stores, mostly as grocery baggers, throughout Mexico—and none of them receives a red cent in wages or fringe benefits. The company doesn’t try to conceal this practice: its 62 Superama supermarkets display blue signs with white letters that tell shoppers: OUR VOLUNTEER PACKERS COLLECT NO SALARY, ONLY THE GRATUITY THAT YOU GIVE THEM. SUPERAMA THANKS YOU FOR YOUR UNDERSTANDING. The use of unsalaried youths is legal in Mexico because the kids are said to be “volunteering” their services to Wal-Mart and are therefore not subject to the requirements and regulations that would otherwise apply under the country’s labor laws.”

Well, if Wal-Mart is going to “employ” “volunteer packers,” I think it’s high time that those who frequent Mexican Wal-Mart outlets become “volunteer consumers.” After all, if a corporation as rapacious as Wal-Mart prefers not to pay their packers, perhaps consumers can prefer not to pay Wal-Mart for the goods they acquire from their stores. Who says that Wal-Mart holds all the cards in establishing a new economy?

So here’s the deal, Mexico Wal-Mart shoppers: the next time you enter a Wal-Mart, wear a sign that reads I AM A VOLUNTEER CONSUMER WHO WILL OFFER NO MONEY FOR THESE GOODS, BECAUSE YOU’D RATHER EXPLOIT KIDS THAN PRACTICE BASIC ETHICAL PRINCIPLES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR UNDERSTANDING.

Melville House Sale

In the past few years, I’ve observed Melville House grow from a mom-and-pop imprint to an independent press keeping the work of Stephen Dixon, Tao Lin, the last interview of Jacques Derrida, and numerous other volumes in bookstores. Now Melville House is now having a summer sale. The MH website doesn’t specify whether or not this sale is being conducted because of the distribution nightmares now facing nearly every indie press working hard to offer alternative material. But if this is indeed the case, then you may want to throw a few bucks Melville House’s way for their backlist. And if you purchase two books, you get a copy of Lewis Lapham’s With the Beatles. Support your indie presses!

Happy Web Birthdays

A very happy eighth birthday to Speedy Snail. Rory Ewins has been maintaining a grand arsenal of academic writing, cartoons, computer advice columns (Dr. Komputor) — in short, a variegated life preserved in web form reflecting the great possibilities of the personal web. I met Rory once — a good seven years ago at Fray Day 4. I was then posting a good deal of sophomoric personal material to the Web. But to my great shock, Rory recognized me and introduced himself. Not being among the cool kids, Rory and I both performed our material late in the night in front of a crowd. I recall capacious plumes of marijuana smoke drifting over the heads of disinterested twentysomethings sitting on the front couches at Cellspace. It was an audience that grew distressingly less interested with the fine folks who dared to share their stories. Thankfully, a German friend and I were there, sober, laughing hysterically at Rory’s grand delivery of a Madagascar tale. (You can find the audio here. Oddly enough, my own performance, which chronicled the history of a love seat, appears to have been dropped and unreferenced by those who have deemed me not part of history.)

Incidentally, Speedy Snail’s birthday reminds me that edrants celebrated seven years on the Web back in May.

Roundup

  • At the the Litblog Co-Op, they’re cha-cha-chatting about the next round’s lineup. Discussion, guest blogging, and podcasts will be forthcoming — along with a scoop of vanilla ice cream on the side. Stay tuned!
  • In addition to composing blustering and martial music, John Philip Sousa wrote novels, which were also presumably blustering and martial. More from Paul Collins.
  • So what excites the publishing industry these days (or purports to)? “Forrest Gump wins Powerball.” No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, and no.
  • Hey, folks, quit picking on Richard Grayson or you’ll have to contend with me.
  • A fantastic piece in the Globe on African-American science fiction writers.
  • Hemingway’s typewriter has sold for $2,750.
  • Nan! Nan! Self-serving Nan! She’ll bray about Oprah because she can! Nan! Nan! Ignoble Nan! She doesn’t know Frey is a flash in the pan.
  • Christ, the corporate magpie has done it again. Instead of focusing on such blogs as Book Covers, which has been quite around for some time and often includes interviews with book cover designers, Foreword, a book design blog that’s been operating since 2003, or the more recent Judge a Book By Its Cover, Dwight “Pilfering Pettifogger” Garner acts as if these seminal blogs have never happened, devoting his attentions to The Book Design Review — presumably because “nytimes” is in Joseph Sullivan’s URL. No doubt that Garner will claim ignorance on these three other blogs, just as he acted as if Largeheartedboy’s Book Notes had never happened. But in an age where finding blog antecedents is just a Google search away, this is not a reasonable excuse. Any blog — corporate or independent — has a duty to know what’s been set down before and to innovate without absconding, Mencia-like, from what others have done.
  • She blinded Ian McEwan with science.
  • RIP Makoto Oda.
  • Maud notes that indie film shoots could become a rarity — thanks to draconian measures and overbroad legislative terms instituted by Mayor Bloomberg, which would involve slapping indie filmmakers with obtaining a permit and $1 million in liability insurance. (As I’ve learned more about Bloomberg, I’ve been scratching my head over how this fine city elected such a colossal asshole for mayor.) Public feedback ends on Friday and there is this petition set up by Picture New York. If you don’t want to see cultural depiction of New York transform into a needless plutocracy, voice your opinion today!
  • Orthofer, by dint of a dutiful reader, has located this helpful PDF file. Since the publisher hasn’t sent the dutiful Mr. Orthofer his copy, I suppose we’ll have to contend with this TLS review in the meantime.
  • Despite Robert Ludlum’s death six years ago, it would appear that he remains a prolific author. Apparently, the Ludlum executors are taking a page out of the V.C. Andrews playbook, having ghost writers expand upon story ideas that Ludlum had lying about. As much as I don’t care for Ludlum’s work, I still find this tantamount to sodomizing a writer’s dead corpse. If an uncredited writer riffs off a story idea, can it be sufficiently called a Robert Ludlum book? Ludlum’s agent, Henry Morrison, claims that Ludlum told him, “I don’t want my name to disappear. I’ve spent 30 years writing books and building an audience.” But does flooding the marketplace with faux Ludlum books really a fair way to preserve an author’s legacy? Why couldn’t Ludlum or his followers accept that all good things come to an end? Oh yeah. I keep forgetting about these green slips of paper that seduce people so easily. (via Jenny D)
  • I have a mad crush on Danica McKellar. (via Bookshelves of Doom)
  • Hunter S. Thompson’s The Rum Diary is hitting the big screen. (via Bookninja)
  • Has genre become irrelevant?