Whudda W.A.S.T.E.

"Tell them I said something important. You're supposed to say something important when you die." Last Words of Poncho Villa

 My Photo
Name: Monstro
Location: Northampton, Massachusetts, US

"Behind the intials was a metaphor, a delirium tremens, a trembling unfurrowing of the mind's plowshare. The saint whose water can light lamps, the clairovoyant whose lapse in recall is the breath of God, the true paranoid for whom all is organized in spheres joyful or threatening about the central pulse of himself, the dreamer whose puns probe ancient fetid shafts and tunnels of truth all act in the same special relevance to the word, or whatever it is the word is there, buffering, to protect us from." Pynchon, The Crying of Lot 49

Saturday, March 04, 2006

T.C. Boyle your hands

I remember a friend of mine once being displeased that his reading palate just wasn't refined enough. He was distraught that he never read a bad book. His argument was that he seemed to like everything he read. I assured him that this was because he could sense a bad book and therefore avoid it. In his case, this was probably true, though his tastes did run to the extraordinarily bleak. He was always recommending these books about getting cheated on and losing one's religious faith in Poland. I could never stomach some of his more extreme suggestions, though we agreed on enough volumes to be able to discuss the subject of literature with a certain expertise. God forbid, though, that I should read that much French poetry. For those who don't know, their poetry (and their novels) are like their food. Good for one course, but too rich for an entire meal.

Nonetheless, it is a sign, I think, of refined taste, that one has the good sense to put a book down when it is bad. Because of my advisor's belief that I haven't read enough, I've decided to prove otherwise, at least to myself, by recording the books that I read here. Unfortunately, this assertion came after I had just read a good number of books which I would have loved to record but they came a little too before the wire. There's no point mentioning them a month late, and so I won't.

Unfortunately, this means that the first book I should have mentioned would have been T.C. Boyle's, The Tortilla Curtain. By the way, when I say read, I include the concept of books on tape. I would perhaps make better use of the verb, digested, but that has too many gastro-intestinal connotations to leave it even the hint of savoriness, nor does it portray my own reverance for the narrative. But I digress, because I neither finished listening nor reading Pen Malumud award wining writer T.C. Boyle's novel which is recyclable as toilet paper.

Let's start. One of the main characters who gets fucked over by the system is named America. No accent mark over any of the vowels is going to dissemble the fact that the character is named AMERICA. Overwritten? The whole book is this bad.

The tension between Southern Californians and Mexican immigrants is painted in the broad strokes of a writer in his apprentice stage--where everyone is either good or bad. Sci fi writers are famous for this, making whole races despicable, only to be wiped out by more ethically responsible races--genocide being seen as the only sensible alternative to racial strife of this kind. No, this is not one of my anti-Bush blogs.

I guess Boyle could be commended for switching this relationship around a bit. Here it is the white lower Upper class that serve the function of Tolkien's orcs, but still it isn't like the innocent good haven't before been portrayed as suffering at the hands of a self aggrandize fake moral superior. Hell, that was the reality of the Holocaust, so... No credit for Boyle in any case.

Nonetheless, the portrayal is so pitifully bad. In one scene there's a Mexican who has only recently survived a near fatal car crash (in which the driver gave him $20, didn't call for help, and didn't even drive the guy to the hospital, because he was Mexican and didn't deserve any kindness). Anyway, there's the Mexican, limping, face covered in a scab, kidneys bleeding, etc., crawling through the parking lot of a supermarket looking for his lost wife, who he's afraid may have been deported. He can't speak the language, he has no money, and he's otherwise afraid that the whites will either deport him, beat him, or kill him--and for good reason. In this book, every white is just waiting for a Mexican to come along so that they can release all of their pent up aggression on a target who, by virtue of being an illegal immigrant, is without protection or petition.

So here he is, Candido--beaten, broken--looking for America (God it hurts just to write it), and he bumps into a trucker who takes one look at the broken shell of a man dressed in rags, and begins to publicly berate him and threaten him and it is only through absolute humbleness that Candido escapes. Certainly he can't expect any help from the crowds of whites that gather around to see what happens (presumably they are too busy wishing that it was they who were beating this Mexican senseless to offer any help).

Oh my, this book is bad. I can imagine only two reasons that T.C. Boyle would write Tortilla Curtain. Either he himself ran over an illegal immigrant at some point in his life and left the poor soul for dead--in which case, the language of the book clearly demonstrates some sort of overcompensation. He writes to show the world how whites treat Mexicans, when what he really is showing is how he'd like to treat Mexicans. It's like the guy who tells you, "Sure we'd all like to have sex with children, but we know it's wrong so we don't." No. We don't all want to have sex with children. It's just you, you sick fuck. T.C. Boyle is saying, "sure we'd all like a sexy illegal immigrant from Mexico around who we could rape at our leisure knowing full well that she would never go to the police for fear of being deported, but we know its wrong, so we don't kidnap people from their various hovels."

Or, this book is a warning and should be read the way you read any sort of racist literature. In which case, I suppose it is more eloquent than KKK literature, but still...I mean, is that the point of this book, "hey Mexicans, if you come to America, you can expect this to happen to you."

I think T.C. Boyle may be incorrectly categorized as a writer of social awareness. It's probably safer to say that he's some sort of fascist nutjob. Anyway, his book is trash, and I did not finish it.

I did, however, read a collection of stories by Ray Bradbury, and they were very good. I recommend them highly, including especially "The Anthem Sprinters," which was very humorous.

Oscar fever, catch it!

True, Oscar likes a pet project. One might think that "Munich" will get some attention...that strong desire to seem racially sensitive. But this year it isn't racial sensitivity that's going to win out--except for in the category of short documentary, in which case, "God Sleeps In Rwanda." After past burns, I've learned never to vote against anything that's actually made in Africa, because as we all know, Oscar loves Africa even though its relationship with African Americans can be, at times, a bit tepid. Chris Rock did not heal this rift. But I digress.

March of the Penguins should win because it's a great documentary and those guys had to go through hell to make it, but let's face it--there are very few people to please in Antarctica, and Oscar is all about pleasing people these days. "Murderball" would be my second choice--it's really good, but question, where's "Grizzly Man?" Didn't that come out last year? I might be wrong. The point is: go see Grizzly Man.

What I'm saying is that racial sensitivity is yesterday's news, marked by a clear delineation when Oscar said, "forget it, I'd rather favor Australia and imaginary lands filled with crying midgets then sit through another Antwone Fisher," though it showed some signs of being fickle: "Ray."

But now those days are done: the Academy Awards Church Auxiliary Group has moved on to a much more topical social ill. With all those gays trying to get married, it's a shoe in that Hollywood wants to show their appreciation for the love that dare not speak its name and men's men everywhere. Hell, you don't have to be the producers of South Park to realize that Hollywood's just been itching to bring itself up to the reputation of Cannes with their own celebration of gay cowboys eating pudding.

And so, this year, though I haven't seen the movie, I have to vote for "Brokeback Mountain"--for everything. Clearly, it can't make the sweep of say, a Chicago or a Return of the King. Unlike Peter Jackson's monument to letting the camera keep going that won him an Oscar for..."Film Editing" (oh, that still kills me). Brokeback, in its infinitely derivable and derisable name, is only nominated for 8 academy awards. I predict that it will get all eight, including best supporting actress, which isn't actually ironic, though it really seems to be. By the way, I liked Chicago, but then I also liked Deuce Bigalow. Why did that movie deserve so many damn Oscars?

I have two major problems with the fact that I'm going to be right in regards to Brokeback. First of all, it will somehow vindicate Annie Proulx, which is actually one of the signs of the apocalypse. I believe the vindication of Annie Proulx is the sixth trump, just after a rain of frogs.

Second off, it lets Hollywood out of the fire, so to speak. After all, "Brokeback Mountain" is not the only movie about gay people on the ballots this year. Wasn't Capote gay? But he will win nothing if he is up against Brokeback. Why, you ask? Because Hollywood likes fictional gay people. Fictional gay people are romantic. They throw parades, get funny haircuts, and try to get married like straight couples. By the way, that's not a dig at lesbians. That's a dig at their hair, which is the contemporary and secular equivalent of the penitant's hair shirt and the minister's powdered wig. In a hundred years, people will look back at the photos and wonder why do they cut their hair like cub scouts?

Fictional gay people can be loved without having to invite them over for coffee or dinner. But real gay people, they demand actual consideration, God forbid. Capote is creepy. Whereas, when Gene Shallot even suggested that there was something creepy about Brokeback Mountain, he was castigated like he'd rained on a parade. The message was clear, "Don't talk badly about fake gay people!"

And again, Annie Proulx!!! It's like giving Yahoo Serious an Oscar, or Ed Wood--not the Johnny Depp version; Plan 9 From Outer Space!

Friday, March 03, 2006

Graduation day

My child has taken this chance to complain. Why? Because he is awake. Evidently, for the last two days he has done nothing but complain. Not loudly or anything but rather non-stop. This has illicited my desire to put him down for a nap at least 16 times a day. Unfortunately, he complains if you try and make him sleep that much. One day he will be a teenager and I will have the exact opposite problem.

The update on everything is, I suppose, this: the big man head of the graduate program in my department told me that barring natural disaster, I would get a teaching position next year. Of course, in Massachusetts the weather itself constitutes a natural disaster, but I'm attempting to remain optimistic.

He preceded to try to give me the heebie jeebies which is what these guys try to do. "We try," he states, "to give every one of our grad students a year of literature, but the rest of the time, they generally teach over in the writing program." What bullshit. I don't know anyone who's taught here for more than two years who's still teaching composition unless that's their gig. The other day, I was in aroom with all the "veteran" T.O.'s--I was the only one of about 40 that already has a Master's. Doesn't matter though, because I alert him to the fact that I only have a semester worth of course work left to do. Two classes. That's it. Better, I insinuate, give me that year of literature classes before I graduate.

"Well, you can expect to be here for about five years."

Huh? Let that sink in. He's saying that after I finish taking classes, they figure I'll still be here for two and a half years stinking up the place. Good God, NO!!! I attempt to reason with him. I tell him that his normal students, well, yeah sure, but not me; I'm like...better. He doesn't buy it. He tries to trick me into giving away my total ignorance. He doesn't like my answers though, they betray a certain element of knowing-what-fuck-you're-talking-about-itude. He attempts to trick me further. "Well, it seems to me that with that subject you're going to have to learn something about the American political system."

I stifle the urge to say, "quiz me." Oh well. I don't want to be here for three more years. Believe me, I really don't want to be here for three more years. I'm going to have to schedule vacations to supermarkets in other regions of the country just so that I can remember what people are like when they aren't robots.

I'll save my rant about my church for either another time or my second novel, whichever comes first. Let's just say, I watched a woman three weeks ago read non-stop a Clive Cussler novel throughout the service, pausing only long enough to drop a check into the collection plate. I was reminded of Baudelaire's "To The Reader" and so I went home and read aloud about a 1/3 of Flowers of Evil into my recorder. Drivler may talk of boycotting music, but I'm the real deal. Who else do you know is listening to the Man With The Blue Guitar on his daily commute?

So, that's the move. For the most part, the big man's main contention as to why getting a Ph.D. takes so long is that you have to get four people to coordinate and though they are being paid, they sometimes have trouble doing their job. I, on the other hand, have no trouble hanging out in front of their offices, sitting in on their classes, and calling them at all times of the day. I will NOT take three more years, that's for damn sure.

The problem is, though, that the big guy tells ME all this. What the hell does it matter to me? I'm here no matter what. Massachusetts is my penance for having been in college for too long. Send the info on to my parents and my in-laws; there the ones who need to hear this from a trained professional. Otherwise, there likely to wonder, as any rational person would, when the Hell I'm going to graduate.

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

The haps on the craps pt. 2

Let me start by saying this...I have three people responsible for advising me through my program. There's the big guy who gives out the jobs (or doesn't give them out as the case may be), the man in charge of my actual movement through the program (the guy who doesn't think I've read more than three books), and the guy in charge of my qualifying exam.

In previous posts, you may have realized that, though I like the second guy as a human being, his advice can be, at times, sort of unhelpful. I am also still reeling from the fact that he handed me off to the third guy because I wanted my qualifying exam to be about ghost stories rather than African American Ghost Stories.

This is all sort of important as last week I went to school to make an appointment with guys 1 and 3. I went to 3 first, and as such did not have a chance to go to 1. The reason I wanted to talk to 1 is because I am the only American Studies student with a master's degree that hasn't gotten a job teaching literature outside of Winter session. In fact, even among those students who do not have an MA, the rate of getting lit jobs is positively too high for me to consider this a coincidence. There are people without any degree in English whatsoever who are getting literature teaching positions over me. Why? I don't know. I have noticed, however, that the head of our Graduate Employment Organization (GEO) as well as most of the department stewards seem to be routinely kept in lit jobs. But I'm bitter, and I'm digressing. Besides, everyone gets their turn through the system so maybe its just their turn (except for the fact that the graduate student president of GEO has gotten a lit teaching position every semester since I've been here, and I don't even know if the guy has a master's degree).

Regardless, I saw guy #3 first, so I haven't got a chance to talk to #1. I talk to him tomorrow. Wish me luck. I have had a total of 2 conversations with him so far.

What I did with #3 was this, I brought him my list of 15 "works" to be tested on for my Qualifying Exam (QE, for short). This is my fourth list of 15 works. That's funny on so many levels. If you're reading this--can you think of 15 ghost stories? You can use movies, literature, puppet shows, shit you've heard, it doesn't matter. Can you? Right, and I've been studying it for a year now, and I still can't get a list okay'd.

So, here's how the conversation goes:

me: I just feel like this is a specter hanging over me. I mean it's ludicrous. Fifteen sources. This should have been done last year.

#3: Well, I wouldn't want you to feel like this was some big thing that you had to get past.

me: I just get the idea that maybe I'm not getting lit jobs because of this?

#3: I don't know. I don't really even know how that works. But this is nothing big.

Note: no one except #1 will ever actually admit to knowing how the hiring practices work. If they did, they would have to confront the departmental nepotism towards the labor studies people.

me: Cool, cool. Well, it sounds like we're on the same page. Here's my list.

#3: Well, this third category--"19th century ghost stories" sounds fine. The first category though....

...here it comes

#3 (cont'd): it's not very interdisciplinary is it? You have this ghost story of New Orleans?

Me: Yeah, and a study of the Haunted Mansion from Disneyland, a ghost tour of New Orleans, interviews with my mother concerning the haunted house she lived in as a child in New Orleans.

#3: Yes, but New Orleans. Someone is apt to ask "why New Orleans?"

Me: Because its a city with a tourist industry based on ghost stories.

#3: Yes, I see that. I'm just wondering if there's some way to make that clear and to suggest a methodology of interdisciplinary scholarship.

Me (finally catching on): Well, what if I changed the title of that area from "New Orleans" to something like "The narrative situatedness in creating 'Place'"

#3: Yes, that would be good. Then you could situate it in theories of Landscape(...currently big at our school for no reason)

Me: Would I...would I have to add a theoretical book to give the section a framework.

#3: Hmmm....

Me: I mean, I think that I would prefer to talk about the work already situated in the framework, or else the QE becomes an exam about theoretical frameworks and not about ghosts, per se.

#3: No, I think this will be okay, I was just looking at your next section.

(note: remember, the QE is no big deal)

#3 (cont'd): "The Ghost Story in Context." Context is such a big word. A context could be anything.

Me: Sure. What about discursive formations of credibility for the ghost story.

#3: Yeah, I think that would be better.

So, here it is: in the end I changed two titles of sections and got the go ahead to type this up in order to find two more committee members to fight with. Of course, this thing is no big deal so it will probably only delay my graduation by a couple of years as I find ways to navigate the various needs of the committee(to the wife: that's an exaggeration, honey, relax). So, hurdle 1 jumped.

Now I just have to see if in this program that's attempting to teach me how to be a literature professor I will ever get the opportunity to stand in front of a live classroom and teach literature. I've been thinking about changing my degree to a Ph.D. in composition and rhetoric, but then I'm afraid I'll get classes in basket weaving to teach.