You reap what you sow (Gal. 6:18)
why are you surprised when
you are lukewarm
apathetic
bitter
…

Others reap what you sow (Jn. 4:37)
why are you surprised when
they are lukewarm
apathetic
bitter
…

————————

READING: Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs by Chuck Klosterman
LISTENING TO: Absence by Paper Route

Lately, I’ve been on a Chuck Klosterman kick.  I first found out about him thru listening to the Sportsguy Bill Simmons’ Podcast B.S. Report.  He seemed funny and I contemplated reading a book of essays Klosterman pimped on the podcast – Eating the Dinosaur.  I’m generally not inclined to read a book of essays.  I generally prefer to think about shit on my own and could care less what other people think (or so I like to think).  The exception to this is if the writer is funny or interesting.  Klosterman is both.  Still, this would not be enough to get me to buy the book since I know myself.  I would have great difficulty finishing a book of essays because there are too many opportunities to put the book down.  It is for this same reason I don’t think I’ve ever finished a book of short stories. (Franny and Zooey doesn’t count as it has 2 short stories.  Or is that Raise the Roofbeam high carpenters? or is that not even the name of the book? or both books collection of 2 short stories? I plan to write a novella. it’s gonna be EPIC (not really.))

Then my wife got me a Kindle 2 for xmas which I opened in November and suddenly I was looking for some Kindle book to buy.  I already own a Kindle book – Infinite Jest.  That book is not exactly light reading. What would be a good second purchase? To me, perfect Kindle books are long, large books that I can put down easily but with the Kindle pick up just as easily.  Also, said book should not be available in the Library (I’m cheap).  Eating the Dinosaur seemed perfect.  Turns out I really like his writing.  Still haven’t finished Eating the Dinosaur but I will soon.

Anyways, here are some of his podcasts:

• Chuck Klosterman | Killing Yourself to Live: 85% of a True Story

Recorded 7/26/2005 Free Library Podcast In this podcast, I learned that Klosterman is pronounced “Close”sterman, like how Simmons pronounces it. So far this is the best of the podcasts I’ve listened to so far.  (I tried to cut and paste this in wordpress but somehow I failed. Oh wait, what if I switch to html mode? SUCCESS!)

• In Part 1, Bill Simmons and Chuck Klosterman discuss their new books, the Beatles, Michael Jordan’s Hall of Fame speech, the JFK assassination and more. B.S. Report 10/21 Part 1
• In Part 2, Bill Simmons and Chuck Klosterman talk about book tours and dissect “The Ruins” and Balloon Boy. Plus, the guys offer their advice on weddings and more. B.S. Report 10/21 Part 2
• CK on The Sound of Young America pimping Killing Yourself to Live
• Klosterman reads from and discusses his debut novel Downtown Owl on Authors on Tour
• The Bookcast #2 – Chuck Klosterman and Queens of the Stone Age Bookcast #2 features an interview with Chuck Klosterman (“Killing Yourself to Live”) and themusic of Queens of the Stone Age, recorded live at Powell’s. Plus, six reviews in sixty seconds, a caller’s greatest family mystery, and a chance to win a $1,000 shopping spree at Powells.com.Listen (10.3MB MP3; 11:18)
• WGN  Nick talks with Chuck Klosterman about his book Eating the Dinosaur. [Sun-Mon show 12/14/09]
• Matt Interviews Chuck Klosterman
• We introduce our new weekly segment where we pose a question asked by writer Chuck Klosterman from his book “Sex, Drugs and Coco Puffs” and open it up for discussion. This weeks question “You meet a magician. He can do 5 simple tricks–pull a rabbit out of a hat, make a coin disappear, turn an [...] link to The Revolving Door Klosterman Question search results
• All ESPN B.S. Reports featuring Chuck Klosterman here.  I tried to find direct links but it wouldn’t work.
• The B.S. Report: 5/21
  Bill tries to figure out why writer Chuck Klosterman is in Germany. Plus, the guys discuss all the NBA action Chuck is missing while overseas…
  The B.S. Report: 1/20

  Bill and Chuck Klosterman cover a wide spectrum of topics, including President Obama’s playoff push and the two reasons…

  The B.S. Report: 3/12

  Bill Simmons and Chuck Klosterman discuss whether the best basketball is played in college or the pros. Plus, Chuck explains the…

  The B.S. Report: 3/13

  In part two of their epic podcast, Bill Simmons and Chuck Klosterman drop the gloves as they discuss sportswriting, newspapers and the Internet

  The B.S. Report: 6/29 Part 1

  In Part 1 of another epic podcast with Chuck Klosterman, Bill Simmons talks about the death of Michael Jackson, Twitter and Clippers coach Mike Dunleavy

  The B.S. Report: 6/29 Part 2

  In Part 2 of the podcast, Chuck Klosterman and Bill Simmons discuss their upcoming books, speaking tours, celebrity, reality television and encounters with fans…

I’ll update with more as I find more.

Le temps est complètement pourri outside, alors j’achète un nouvel ebook à lire sur mon Kindle et je reste bien au chaud avec pour lecture Inventory, pur produit de l’A.V. Club. Petite plongée dans la culture populaire avec ce livre bourré de listes plus incongrues les unes que les autres, les mêmes que celles publiées chaque semaine sur le site et qui ont pour but de faire débat sur tout et n’importe quoi. On y parle de livres, de films, de musiques de films, d’actualités, de people, … Exemples : 24 great films too painful to watch twice, 14 tragic movie-masturbation scenes, 18 songs about crappy cities, …
La préface est signée Klosterman (this guy is everywhere). Et pour ceux qui voudraient un aperçu, voici quelques nouvelles listes qui ne figurent pas dans le livre.

Le Kindle for PC d’Amazon me fait penser à Itunes mais pour les livres. Tant que j’y suis je prends aussi The Big Rewind – A memoir brought to you by pop culture, de Nathan Rabin.

I have successfully navigated through my sixth (6th) book by Chuck Klosterman. Five of which were collections of pop culture essays and/or loosely based gonzo non-fiction based around his experiences with rock and roll. One of his books was a work of fiction (Downtown Owl) – and a fine book it was.

But I’m here to discuss the merits, relevance and entertainment value of Eating the Dinosaur, his latest piece.

From the back cover:

“Chuck Klosterman has chronicled rock music, film, and sports for almost fifteen years. He’s covered extreme metal, extreme nostalgia, disposable art, disposable heroes, life on the road, life through the television, urban uncertainty and small-town weirdness. Through a variety of mediums and with a multitude of motives, he’s written about everything he can think of (and a lot that he’s forgotten). The world keeps accelerating, but the pop ideas keep coming.

In Eating the Dinosaur, Klosterman is more entertaining and incisive than ever. Whether he’s dissecting the boredom of voyeurism, the reason why music fan’s inevitably hate their favorite band’s latest album, or why we love watching can’t-miss superstars fail spectacularly, Klosterman remains obsessed with the relationship between expectation, reality, and living history. It’s amateur anthropology for the present tense, and sometimes it’s incredibly funny.

Q: What is this book about?

A: Well, that’s difficult to say. I haven’t read it yet – I’ve just clicked on it and casually glanced at this webpage. There clearly isn’t a plot. I’ve heard there’s a lot of stuff about time travel in this book*, and quite a bit about violence and Garth Brooks** and why Germans don’t laugh when they’re inside grocery stores. Ralph Nader and Ralph Sampson play significant roles***. I think there are several pages about Rear Window and football and Mad Men and why Rivers Cuomo prefers having sex with Asian women†. Supposedly there’s a chapter outlining all the things the Unabomber was right about‡, but perhaps I’m misinformed.

Q: Is there a larger theme?

A: Oh, something about reality. “What is reality,” maybe? No, that’s not it. Not exactly. I get the sense that most of the core questions dwell on the way media perception constructs a fake reality that ends up becoming more meaningful than whatever actually happened.

Q: Should I read this book?

A: Probably. Do you see a clear relationship between the Branch Davidian disaster and the recording of Nirvana’s In Utero‡‡? Does Barack Obama make you want to drink Pepsi††? Does ABBA remind you of AC/DC? If so, you probably don’t need to read this book. You probably wrote this book. But I suspect everybody else will totally love it, except for the ones who absolutely hate it.”

*Klosterman’s essay on time travel is probably all stuff you’ve already read. Particularly if you frequent cracked.com (not that what he writes is unoriginal – but I feel that everything that can be written about time travel already has been penned – for now.) It is entertaining nonetheless. Time travel, much like black holes and UFOs, will always be relevant (and at the very least, semi-entertaining fodder for your plane flight.) I was amused by his reference to a reference ( the urban legend that a team from Florida was predicted to win the World Series in 1997 by the film Back to the Future four years before the State of Florida had its own professional baseball team.) Indeed. The Marlins. Sadly, as Klosterman points out, this is not exactly accurate, and more precisely, it was meant as a jab to the (ongoing) futility of the Chicago Cubs.

ps) Fuck the Yankees, and the Red Sox (but not in any necessary order.)

**He doesn’t write about Garth Brooks so much as he does Chris Gains (Mr. Brook’s failed 1999 alter-ego who released a dubiously successful – see: 2 million records sold) attempt at notoriety. Also, Klosterman estimated that by 2009’s standards, 2 million records sold roughly translates to 180,000 records sold in today’s terms (when adjusted for illegal downloads and iTunes singles purchases.) Also, I should note that much like another favorite author of mine (who has featured Klosterman on his podcast several times), Bill Simmons – his “pop culture” references are slightly dated and hard to relate to if you were born after 1988.

***Again, Ralph Sampson is probably someone that most people under the age of, say, 25 would not be able to relate to. Also, if you’re not a die-hard NBA fan (which I am), this is a tough analogy to relate to. Even I (who follows the sports world, and the NBA religiously) was vaguely familiar and unable to completely relate to his essay and analogies on the man. Perhaps a better analogy would have been a more recent (see: 1990’s) bust or perhaps even a bust that occurred in the “aughts” (perhaps the Los Angeles Clippers’ Michael Olawakandi?) Just a thought. However, I will say that his essay on the National Football League (NFL) was superb.

†Rivers Cuomo’s (alleged) obsession with having sex with Asian women is exaggerated. It’s not as big a theme as the book’s jacket suggests. However, fans of Mad Men will probably enjoy Klosterman and his slightly entertaining lamenting of laugh tracks (and their uselessness.) While we’re on the topic of laugh tracks, I want to point out that the man is correct in his assertion that they are utterly ridiculous and unnecessary. Think about it. One of the compelling arguments of why TV is ruining America (which we will get to later) is the concept of canned laughter. It’s insulting, frankly, and I (much like Klosterman) cannot wait for this moribund trend to eventually kick the (proverbial) bucket.

††Barack Obama are both widely popular. However, Pepsi is inferior to Coca Cola, and Obama is (probably) inferior to a lot of other politicians (and former Presidents.) The analogous line Klosterman draws between the two is that they are both readily available, enjoyed by “youth”, and are (somewhat) products of advertisement more than, say, substance. An interesting chapter in my assessment.

‡Theodore “Ted” Kazcinksi (the UNAbomber – UNiversities and Airlines bomber) was quite the genius. Much like Stalin, however, he was a criminally insane murderer. He began studying (and going insane) at Harvard at age 16, and was a professor of Mathematics at Cal before his 25th birthday. However, his disgust with “Californication” and the bastardization of contemporary society (namely: pop culture, television, the development of land for futile purposes) led him to resort to violence in order to get his manifesto (Industrial Society and Its Future) published in the Washington Post and New York Times. It should be noted (to those who are unaware) that the UNAbomber would probably have never been caught had his own brother not recognized his writing style (at this insistence of his wife) and turned him in to the FBI (for $1 million dollars.) It should be further noted that the money his brother received from information leading to the UNAbomber’s arrest was distributed to his brother’s countless victims and their families. Klosterman points out that in 300 years, the UNAbomber’s Manifesto will ultimately become a well-respected an influential look at the genesis (or exodus) of the erosion contemporary western thought. I do not disagree.

‡‡In the two reviews of the book I read (one prior to purchase, and one after completing the book), the individuals criticizing the book disagreed with Klosterman’s comparison of David Koresh and Kurt Cobain. I do not know enough about either man (even through new insights presented by Klosterman) to form an opinion. Again, I was too young to appreciate Nirvana when they were “big”, and likewise too young to understand what the government was doing in Waco and Ruby Ridge (which eventually led to the Oklahoma City bombing.) Conversely, Cobain’s influence led to Pearl Jam (which is slightly less atrocious than what happened at the hands of Timothy McVeigh and his accomplices.) It is interesting to note that I finally understand Cobain, however. I now understand what led to his (alleged) suicide. You see, (according to Klosterman), Cobain could not grasp why people loved his music, and he actively engaged in activities to make people hate him (which actually made them like him more.) Furthermore, he was loved by people he hated (which alienated him) and eventually drove him mad. There are some outstanding quotes from Cobain in the book that lend further insight to the matter. I suggest picking it up and reading about it further. It’s worth it for those of you who ever wondered why the hell Nirvana was so popular (I always thought it was because America was sick of hair metal in 1990 like America was sick of boy bands in 2000.) I was (slightly) off target.

To wrap things up, I mentioned that I’d discuss why television is ruining society. Klosterman goes as far as to quote a book released in 1977 (before the advent of the internet or HBO) titled Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television, which argued:

“[T]elevision is not a neutral, benign instrument or tool. The book’s author argues that in varied technologies and institutions such as militaries, automobiles, nuclear power plants, mass production, and advertising, the basic form of the institution and the technology determines its interaction with the world, the way it will be used, the kind of people who use it, and to what ends.

The author argues that far from being “neutral,” television predetermines who shall use it, how they will use it, what effects it will have on individual lives, and, if it continues to be widely used, what sorts of political forms will inevitably emerge.

The author’s first argument is that while television may seem useful, interesting, and worthwhile, at the same time it further boxes people into a physical and mental condition appropriate for the emergence of autocratic control.

The second argument concerns the emergence of the controllers. That television would be used and expanded by the present powers-that-be was inevitable, and should have been predictable at the outset. The technology permits of no other controllers.

The third argument concerns the effects of television upon individual human bodies and minds, effects which fit the purposes of the people who control the medium.

The fourth argument demonstrates that television has no democratic potential. The technology itself places absolute limits on what may pass through it. The medium, in effect, chooses its own content from a very narrow field of possibilities. The effect is to drastically confine all human understanding within a rigid channel. What binds the four arguments together is that they deal with aspects of television that are not reformable.“

I agree that (outside of sports programming) television is a universally BAD thing for society. However, I do not agree for the above reasons. Perhaps this is because I fail to grasp the depth of the above arguments. In any matter, I agree with Klosterman, Koresh, Kazcinski and Cobain more than I do with Jerry Mander (the author of the book) about the merits of destroying television. I suppose the philosophical question at hand is: If television was destroyed universally tomorrow, would you be able to live a continued existence of happiness. Insert the word “internet” where I typed television and ask yourself the same question. Then think about the damage television has done (and is doing to our society.) Very thought-provoking in my opinion. Well done, Chuck.

Overall, I give the book four stars, and strongly recommend it. It’s his best pop culture reading since Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs (but not as good as his novel Downtown Owl.) It should still be purchased. And much unlike music, you really cannot steal it with ease (although I did.) That being said – you should buy this book (and at the very least – borrow it from someone who did, in fact, purchase it.)

- Matt Damon and Josh Brolin in talks to join The Coen Bros. next movie, an adaptation of the novel True Grit

- A quick interview with Bill Simmons

- Interview with Eating the Dinosaur author and frequent Bill Simmons podcast guest Chuck Klosterman about his greatest fears

- A Q&A with Ricky Gervais from this week’s NY Mag

Louis C.K. does the best stand-up in America. I discovered him on YouTube and immediately cast him in The Invention of Lying. He’s honest and brave, he’s audacious, but he’s fucking bald, so I win. I’ve got hair.

- And in related and awesome news, Ricky Gervais to host the upcoming Golden Globes

- I decided not to look, but here’s a photo of Neil Patrick Harris in a fat suit from an upcoming “How I Met Your Mother” episode

- A premature evaluation of Julian Casablancas‘ upcoming solo album

- WTF: The final season of “Lost” will be interrupted by the Winter Olympics…on another network

- The Life Feed’s 5-week fall report card for each major network; CBS tops the other networks thus far

- “Top Chef Masters” gets a second go-round

- The Hold Steady’s Craig Finn and a Letterman writer are adapting Chuck Klosterman’s Fargo Rock City into a movie

- Speaking of Chuck Klosterman, Bill Simmons posted a two-part podcast featuring Chuck earlier this week that featured a lot of varied discussion on sports and pop culture (right sidebar)

- The apparently awful Miss March just shot up my Netflix queue, thanks to AV Club’s latest “I Watched This on Purpose” feature

- A couple of Tracy Morgan interviews: excerpts from Playboy and a segment from NPR’s “Fresh Air”

On his hobbies: “These days I’m into bike riding and breaking water. I like breaking women’s water. If you’re pregnant and you need your water broken, you need your labor induced, give me a call and I’ll ride my bike over and take care of it.”

- Hilarious: Happy One Week Anniversary, Bubble Boy

It is funny how Richard Heene was an avid storm chaser and now he has found himself in a MEDIA STORM! (Sorry.) But seriously, what a week, huh Heenes? Your family is basically ruined, you know. That’s sad. Although it’s probably for the best. You guys were too nuts! Nuts always finds its level. Level = jail. Nuts always finds its jail. I’m saying: go to jail. You’re driving us all crazy.

Listened to a podcast (check iTunes, it’s free – I won’t distract you with a link) today that I really enjoyed.  Bill Simmons, aka ESPN’s Sports Guy, and Chuck Klosterman, a writer, satirist and all-around interesting guy I’ve started to read (he’s got a new book on Amazon.com – not free, but again, no distraction with a link.)

What I think I liked most was the fact that the two of them a had a wide ranging conversation covering a number of topics, both recent and from the past.  It’s the kind of conversation you used to have with your college roommate late at night, or with a group of buddies at a bar.  The kind I so rarely have the time to enjoy in the world I’ve made for myself.  (Nothing wrong with that world, but between work & family, I just don’t find a lot of free time to let my mind wander.)

Give it a listen – if you like sports, entertainment, or need another take on the Balloon Boy, I highly recommend it.

Klosterman’s non-fiction is great, as so many of his fans know, but he has stuck with the same authorial voice for his first attempt at a novel, and it doesn’t really work. It doesn’t work, but still the novel manages to entertain. It grabs you, though you never get sucked in enough to ignore the clunky writing.

The characters are all relatively flat, but that’s on purpose, and it kind of endears you to them. Kind of. The story floats along, following these three people in the typical format of all stories that follow a set of strangers whose stories become slowly intertwined. But in this case, strangely, they don’t really become connected. The three people, all residents of Owl but strangers to one another, never really cross paths until the final chapter, and even then, they don’t meet; they just meet similar fates.

The way I see it, the problem with the novel isn’t in plot or characters. Unfortunately, it’s in the writing (which is a shame because one common criticism of some big classics is that the plot or characters are boring, but the outstanding writing saves the book, here it’s the opposite). And the writing isn’t bad, it’s just bland, and it’s because Klosterman has not shifted his voice at all for the new venue of fiction.

There are two distinct categories of mistakes Klosterman makes in the book repeatedly. They are errors of style; again, I mean nonfictiony, opiniony, gimmicky self-referential writing that is in the tradition of an album review.

First is the issue of writing that is cutesy/gimmicky. It happens when Klosterman decides it’ll be fun to pick a colloquialism and weave it throughout a paragraph. It’s a recurring issue. Here’s one spot: “And this (of course) made him seem like the only attractive man in the entire town. And that (of course) is a romantic cliché, which (of course) only serves to illustrate Julia’s damaged self-perception. It was all (of course) too predictable to believe.” Of course, this is not fabulous writing. The reader tires of that parenthetical quickly. Here’s a passage that essentially uses the same trick, simply with a new phrase: “Edgar Camaro was Lucifer. Or at least an idiot. Or at least he was when he rolled dice, or at least that’s how it seemed to Horace.” Come on, Chuck. This isn’t too imaginative. It’s not cute, either.

Finally, here is the granddaddy of all gimmicky passages from Downtown Owl. I challenge anyone to say that the below is a smooth and artful literary technique.

“You are going to pay for what you did,” the brother (allegedly) said. “Serpico is gonna make you bleed, fuckwad.” Upon that (alleged) declaration, the brother released Serpico’s leash. The hound jumped for the jugular, which was his (alleged) nature. But Serpico didn’t make it. Cubby (allegedly) caught the dog by the throat, and smashed its snout into the pavement. He (allegedly) squeezed its windpipe with his left hand; he (allegedly) hit Serpico until Serpico (allegedly) stopping twitching.

The second flawed element here is writing that contains knowing references or allusions. They are almost always music-related or film-related, and they are all relatively obscure and old, as though Klosterman is trying to impress. Again, it feels as though he’s forgotten it’s a novel, and is writing an album review for Spin. Here’s one such line: “There were multiple conversations happening at the same time; it was like an Altman film, although nobody inside the car had ever seen an Altman film (and four of them never would, mostly by choice).” The author is directly addressing the reader. Some might like this strategy; I don’t. If the characters haven’t seen an Altman movie, then Altman movies shouldn’t be mentioned. Another example, really the same thing: “Inside her skull, words and sentences sounded like side three of Metal Machine Music, an album she had never heard of.” Again, this silly, self-aware detail. All this serves to do is remind us of Klosterman’s presence. If this were visual, like a documentary, he’d be there, in the corner of the screen, addressing us and narrating the action. In a novel that shouldn’t happen.

Finally, there is one other major section of poor writing, and it’s when Klosterman spends two pages giving a category of townies who have earned nicknames, and providing a history of the origin of these nicknames. It’s exhausting, and most of the characters do not appear again anyway. They are barflies, and we don’t need the info. It’s like some mock attempt at a Homeric “Catalogue of heroes.” Here’s one of ten bios provided: Here’s a couple of the ten bios provided: “Derrick Decker. He was ‘Bull Calf.’ [because when he once pulled his groin he moaned like a baby bull, though how people in town knew what a baby bull sounded like is beyond me]… Brian Pintar. He was known as ‘the Drelf,’ which was an abbreviation for the Drunken Elf.” Gee, okay.

There is, however, good writing here. In small pieces. Occasionally, Klosterman can really turn a phrase. These bits are wonderful, but rare hits among a collection of misses. Phrases like: “The air was damp wool,” (so good, right?) and, when a kid thinks about his football coach: “He was an upright Gila monster wearing a polo shirt.” That’s dead on, imaginative, solid writing.

I also love this moment, when one of the main three, Julia, daydreams a scene that could maybe (but never does) occur between her and a guy she likes:

“We need to buy a bigger bed,” he would suggest sardonically, and they would lie on the mattress and laugh and laugh.

That’s a terrific image, and very plausible fiction because, indeed, it’s just the sort of moment someone with a crush would create and enjoy picturing. Here’s one more cogent moment of realistic character psychology: Mitch is asleep, in that dream world, that wonderful, cozy state of sleep, but then his alarm goes off for school, and Klosterman writes, “And then he was not in space. He was in the world, and it existed.” Exactly.

So there are problems, deep flaws with Klosterman’s fiction. And for a second novel he’ll have to work a lot harder to adapt his style for fiction. He can’t just do the same thing he does in his columns for Esquire, clearly. That being said, somehow, inexplicably, it’s a nice read. It doesn’t pull any punches with the ending, either—it’s actually kind of brutal. But it works, and you’ll enjoy reading it, if you can stay calm and overlook the winking in-jokes about obscure 80s music. So, with major reservations, I think I actually would recommend it.

By the way, I must add that I do love the cover art. I’m talking about the hardcover version, with the eye hole and the quiet street scene of a small town. The paperback version is more busy, with a jukebox and eighties-style font, and I don’t love it as much.

I didn’t post yesterday due to band practice from 6 – 9 PM and then falling asleep on the couch.

But it’s okay since nothing much happened! I saw the movie Ponyo which was really interesting. It was cute and unique.

Speaking of marching band though, I really like it. It’s a weird concept – playing music while making shapes on a field but it’s just a passion we all share.

I walked into the band room and immediately smelt valve oil. I enjoyed that but realized how strange that is.

I’m on fall break so there isn’t really much happening. I have started reading a number of different books. Ann Coulter put my to sleep today but that’s okay since I think my brain and body just wanted to sleep regardless of exciting or unexciting events happening.

I played the french horn today and sounded like a dying dog.

In the book, Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs by Chuck Klosterman I learned about Solipsism and also how the Sims is a much deeper game then we are all lead to believe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

It’s a great book!

- Chuck Klosterman reviews the new Beatles box set

- Expect a bunch of high scores as Pitchfork reviews Please Please Me, With the Beatles, Beatles for Sale, A Hard Day’s Night

- Michael Ausiello has a cheat sheet of when fall tv shows start

- Speaking of which, TV Club’s fall tv schedule; their recaps are highly recommended if they do a show you happen to watch

- The latest Kid Cudi jam “Pursuit of Happiness” features Ratatat production and MGMT vox

- Profile of Jonathan Ames, author and creator of the upcoming HBO series “Bored to Death” starring Jason Schwarzman and Zach Galifianakis

The first time I met Ames, I had not yet read about his genital wart, nor the time he smoked crack with a transsexual on Christmas Day, nor the time he spanked a German tourist outside the Holocaust memorial in Battery Park while she sucked on his thumb, nor the time he shit his pants in the south of France (as chronicled in the essay “I Shit My Pants in the South of France”). The difficulty of interviewing Ames, I soon learn, is that there are few things you can ask him that he hasn’t already answered, in print. His first time? “My first sexual experience with a woman was rather old-fashioned: It was with a prostitute” (“The Playboys of Northern New Jersey”). His sexual prowess as a callow youth? “What I would do back then is string together three or four premature ejaculations and hope that it added up to a satisfying session for the young lady” (“I Called Myself El Cid”).

- Thom Yorke confirms new 12″

layers upon layers here today. a post from EoTAW yesterday brought up a 2007 article by Chuck Klosterman, “Things We Think We Know,” which basically argues that Europeans vastly overestimate how much the average American actually cares about cowboy culture:

And it slowly dawned on me that the creators of “I Like America” had made one critical error: While they had not necessarily misunderstood the historical relationship between Americans and cowboy iconography, they totally misinterpreted its magnitude. With the possible exception of Jon Bon Jovi, I can’t think of any modern American who gives a shit about cowboys, even metaphorically. Dramatic op-ed writers are wont to criticize warhawk politicians by comparing them to John Wayne, but no one really believes thatHondoaffects policy; it’s just a shorthand way to describe something we already understand. But European intellectuals use cowboy culture to understand American sociology, and that’s a specious relationship (even during moments when it almost makes sense). As it turns out, Germans care about cowboys way more than we do.

EoTAW was highly critical of this argument, and the post reminded me that i, too, had taken issue with this article back in the day. i made some stupid comment on the blog, but then at home i managed to find where i had actually written down my thoughts on the piece, which are much smarter. i present them here for your enjoyment (updated, of course, because it is no longer 2007 and a lot has changed):

Europeans don’t overestimate the magnitude of cowboy mythology in American culture. If anything, I think Klosterman underestimated it. The frontier experience, the American West, and the image of the cowboy are all deeply ingrained in American culture; they’re a huge part of the national myths we root our culture in. Naturally, we don’t all make John Wayne references or think that western films have some deep, important impact on contemporary culture; to be perfectly honest, I’m not sure if most people of my generation or those behind me could even tell you who, precisely, John Wayne was. But I think you could stop anybody on the street and get a fairly standard description of what a cowboy is, and these descriptions wouldn’t just be “a guy who rides a horse and works on a ranch.” I believe that the average person would give a response that revealed the ways in which Americans associate the idealized cowboy with the idealized United States. Over the years, various public figures have used this image to their own advantage. In particular, savvy politicians (and/or their handlers and speech writers) play on this association to craft their own images. 

 It has been successfully argued for the past century that, to some extent, Americans root their sense of identity in the frontier experience. It’s the great battle against the wilderness that turns Europeans into Americans. Europe may be old and decadent, but America is fresh, new, tough, and democratic. This identity has various representations, but the small yeoman farmer and the cowboy are two of the most enduring. The cowboy is manly and self-sufficient. Basically, he’s the guy from “Mamas, Don’t Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be Cowboys”: a natural loner, but kind to children and dogs and a defender of the little guy. If you carry these ideas out to political theory, the cowboy is your typical libertarian. He’s definitely a believer in small government.[1]

 Up until 2008, Kennedy was the last elected president from a state outside the South or West (Ford was from Michigan, but he wasn’t elected).[2] The post-war economic rise of the Sunbelt states has influenced the way politics play out in this country. Both Reagan and George W. Bush played on the image of the cowboy to convey a certain image to the public. And they both succeeded. When Reagan and Bush were filmed on their ranches, in western shirts and hats, the image was that of the common man, a guy just like you or me. They’re consciously counteracting the fact that they’re rich. These might be massive, expensive ranches that are primarily for show, but the imagery still conveys essential American qualities and ideals. By playing at being cowboys, these politicians were setting themselves up as trustworthy guys, the kinds of public officials that would stand for the common man, never back down from a fight, and hold to their own deeply held sense of honor.

 The image of the cowboy holds a special place in American culture; it somehow even manages to overcome the boundaries of class. Bush could play on the fact that he comes from oil money and studied at Yale, but he’d lose a connection to the “common people.” And yet, when he selected an image that would connect to the average American, he didn’t play at being a construction worker or a cop. There’s something peculiar about the nature of cowboy mythology that allows it to maintain its appeal whether the person manipulating it portrays himself as a rancher or a cowhand. The spirit of independence and liberty remains. 

 As for Europeans, well, they have their own connection to American mythology themselves, primarily based on the works of Karl May. One of the best things I’ve seen on this topic is a Canadian documentary called If Only I Were an Indian. The filmmakers take some Cree people to the Czech Republic and Germany to meet people who intensely study native culture (including language) in order to spend their weekends dressing up as natives and camping in tipis. During the Soviet era, this kind of playacting functioned as a form of resistance to the state culture. It’s weird and kind of hilarious to watch this as an American, but utterly fascinating. It’s sadly only available in Canada (and only on VHS), so I can’t really tell you to go out and Netflix it or something. But should you ever come across it, I highly recommend watching it.

[1] There’s a whole weird paradox about the relationship between people and the federal government in the West: the federal government is the largest landholder west of the Mississippi, and Westerners resent this. At the same time, life in the arid West is made possible through huge government subsidies and work projects. Also, I just want to clarify here that when I say “the cowboy,” I mean “the idealized cowboy,” not necessarily actual guys out working on ranches.

[2] We can debate whether Illinois is “West” or not (Bill Cronon would say yes), but for the sake of argument let’s say it’s not. My point still stands: 1960 to 2008 is a long damn time, and the Northeast has been pretty much excluded from offering up presidential candidates (one of the many reasons I found the 2008 Democratic race utterly fascinating; a frontrunner from Chicago and another from New York).

Before I describe this latest read of mine, I would like the opportunity to recognize the contribution of social networking sites. All those priceless hours just whaling away while browsing on some ridiculous posts on random communities, most of which you are not even remotely interested in – Those hours do pay off. For me,after wasting my time of blissfully on internet for couple of long years, it paid off when I cam across quite a recommendation of books.
And who wouldn’t be curious to know about a book as flirtatiously titled as “Sex Drugs and Cocoa Puffs “

A little googling about the book would indeed inform you that its a conversational book. The whole book seems to be one long conversation with our funny, weird and creative author. Also this title seems to be great way to start a conversation or commit social suicide.
Please don’t pick up this book unless you a re fairly aware of most of the names listed in its Index, because almost all the chapters deal with quite a few pop(ular) culture references – so If everytime John Cusack or The X files or mixed tapes reference occurs and you need to google – the book might take a lot of your time
Being done with the unpleastery warnings, those who still are reading know the goodies are here. First of all this book is ridiculous funny, it is ridiculousl funny but what I insist is it is funny and ridiculous and hence forth addictive
You wonder how can a guy dedicate a whole chapter to philosopihy through a video game of SIMS, but then you read about a little manifesto against Soccer and you are ready to accept anything – its is fun indeed.

Here I strongly recommend this collection of 18 essays by Chuck Klosterman , your introduction to a low culture manifesto , to the like minded.

Ah yes, some excerpts:

It’s no one’s fault, really. Or maybe it’s everyone’s fault. It should be everyone’s fault, because it’s everyone’s problem. Well, okay…not everyone. Not boring people, and not the profoundly retarded. But whenever I meet dynamic, nonretarded Americans, I notice that they all seem to share a single unifying characteristic: the inability to experience the kind of mind-blowing, transcendent romantic relationship they perceive to be a normal part of living. And someone needs to take the fall for this. So instead of blaming no one for this (which is kind of cowardly) or blaming everyone (which is kind of meaningless), I’m going to blame John Cusack.

I once loved a girl who almost loved me, but not as much as she loved John Cusack. Under certain circumstances, this would have been fine; Cusack is relatively good-looking, he seems like a pretty cool guy (he likes the Clash and the Who, at least), and he undoubtedly has millions of bones in the bank. If Cusack and I were competing for the same woman, I could easily accept losing. However, I don’t really feel like John and I were “competing” for the girl I’m referring to, inasmuch as her relationship to Cusack was confined to watching him as a two-dimensional projection, pretending to be characters who don’t actually exist. Now, there was a time when I would have thought that detachment would have given me a huge advantage over Johnny C., inasmuch as my relationship with this woman included things like “talking on the phone” and “nuzzling under umbrellas” and “eating pancakes.” However, I have come to realize that I perceived this competition completely backward; it was definitely an unfair battle, but not in my favor. It was unfair in Cusack’s favor. I never had a chance.

Klosterman Bakery - Springfield, OH (taken by David Zak)

Klosterman and the “Our Ohio” show on public television

The Klosterman Bakery Company, a large Midwestern bakery with an operation in Springfield, OH, is being featured this week in an episode of Our Ohio, an Ohio Farm Bureau (OFB) produced TV show broadcast on public television.  “Our Ohio” is the communication brand for the OFB, the largest general farm organization in Ohio with over 230,000 members, and uses a TV series, magazine, and Web site to get the connect consumers and agricultural producers.  

Klosterman’s history and Springfield, OH bakery

The Klosterman Bakery Company established their Springfield operation in 1984, when they purchased the site at 508 W. Main St. in downtown Springfield for a reasonable half a million and built one of their now four key bakeries.  The over 100,000 sf facility is valued at over $1.6M and employs over 100.  Klosterman’s recipes date back to 1848 when Frau Klausterman was being given medals from the King of Prussia for her bread.  Still privately-owned by the fifth generation of Klostermans (the name was Americanized), the American company is headquartered in Cincinnati and continues to supply breads and rolls to restaurants and institutions as it started doing in the 1892 when it was founded.  The company operates four bakeries in the Midwest, including one in Morristown, Indiana; Cincinnati, Ohio; Springfield, Ohio; and the newest one–Springboro, Ohio—which was established in 2005 and received a $125,000 Job Creation Tax Credit from the State of Ohio.

Klosterman’s size and innovation

Klosterman is now a $48M company with over 600 employees, making it one of the largest family-owned bakeries in the midwest.  It produces more than 300 varieties of bread and buns, and in 2007 was the first bakery in the country to introduce the 12-ounce half loaf of bread.  Klosterman’s innovation is not unique.  It was the first in the region to produce a square loaf of bread, brown and serve rolls, and buns packaged in plastic wrap. 

Distribution and customers

Its business is evenly divided between restaurants and grocery stores.  Through distributors in Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Tennessee, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia such as Sysco, GFS, US Food Service, Mattingly Foods and others, it has supplied over 4,000 restaurants, groceries, hospitals and schools, including customers such as Applebee’s, Bob Evans, McDonald’s, Rally’s, TGI Friday’s, and Steak & Shake.  Given the tendency towards consolidation in the industry (ala Interstate Bakeries and Sara Lee), it is one of the few successful regional bakeries and a great success story.

 Company website: www.klostermanbakery.com
Clark County GIS property listing (Springfield, OH): http://tinyurl.com/lwew6p
Company profile on Indeed: http://tinyurl.com/lb2qbr
Company profile on monster.com: http://tinyurl.com/ledm6m
DBJ article on Springboro facility: http://tinyurl.com/mazl4n
ODOD press release on Springboro loan: http://tinyurl.com/kmtpke

Our Ohio: http://ourohio.org/
Ohio Farm Bureau: http://ofbf.org/

According to the previous post, I have the option of writing about my homegrown herbs, my disappointing and my better-than-real friends, or Chuck Klosterman’s foray into fiction writing. To avoid boring you, my faithful audience, or offending you, my disappointing friends, I’ll say a few words about CK. And being that I just finished the novel on today’s lunch break, it’s probably most relevant.

Though I did just water the parsley. No? Ok.

So let me establish validity. I purchased CK’s Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs on a whim in the summer of 2005, just before I took my summer campers on a sleep-away weekend. I remember getting completely absorbed into this guy’s insights and idiosyncrasies, and I was simultaneously obsessed with and insanely jealous of him. I spent the next few years acquiring everything he’s written – at least what can be bound and put on my shelf. And it’s not much, I realize. Four collections and one novel. And about a zillion articles I’ve perused in that time. Since that summer, I think about him constantly, always questioning “What would CK have to say about that?” when any inane pop culture reference is made. I think like him, in bullet points, sentence fragments and curse words; this infuriates me, because I think that sometimes if I would just get over myself and put my shit on paper, I could be a lot like him.

Now, I’d heard a great deal about Downtown Owl, the novel in question. As Chuck’s first fiction piece available to the masses, I was not so much curious as I was wary. This can’t add up, I thought. I waited to buy it – waited nearly a year after its release in fact – when I could pick it up free at Book Expo. And, as an added bonus, I’d get to say Hi to Chuck while he signed the book.

The story itself isn’t much of a big deal here; sort of like there’s not really ever a “big picture” in Klosterman’s books, but the premise is this: 1980s small town, lots of nicknamed drunks, high school athletes struggling with self identity, old men philosophizing. A small-town lover for the ages, I’m thrilled to find these things in a novel. So far, so good.

The style is his signature: bulleted lists, conversation outlines, myriad ‘80s pop culture references. This, I’m afraid, might be a little distracting. Now, for people familiar with CK, you pretty much know going in that you’re not going to catch or understand every reference. You blink, and you read on. But when he uses a relatively unknown Lou Reed album or a track from “Rock of Ages” to make a point, some drive-by Chuck-ers may find themselves Googling Velvet Underground discography or downloading Lita Ford instead of learning about Julia, the 23-year-old Social Studies teacher who likes gin, I daresay, more than I.

At the same time, if you’re reading Downtown Owl and you aren’t already familiar with Chuck, then maybe that’s your own damn fault. Just an opinion. That’s all this is.

Now, I loved the story. I loved his references and I liked that it seemed to take his first book, Fargo Rock City, and just turn it into a story – Owl Rock City. At times it felt semi-autobiographical. It was completely relatable. I felt sad with Horace, the old man who possessed so much old-man wisdom that he shared most of with only the narrator.

And really, even if a reader doesn’t catch all the cultural references, Klosterman knows people. He knows how we think; he’s a writer. He includes supreme dialogue and inner conflict and makes the characters your friends – or that asshole you knew that one time. The most important thing about capturing small-town life is capturing the nature of the humans in that isolated universe. You see brilliant guys do it every now and then – check out Empire Falls. And then you have guys like Klosterman, who I don’t call brilliant, but I do call ingenious, and he’s fucking spot on with this. He nails the characters, he nails their thoughts and their behaviors and every flaw. He nails it so well I actually fear he overthought it in a few places. Because we are talking about Klosterman, the king of overthinking. Herein lies the book’s flaw.

CK has a big ol’ brain. I mean, personally, I have a zillion thoughts. I remember random details of most people I meet, even if it’s just once. I know insane amounts of random trivia. I’m an ideal journalist, because I have the stickiest, clearest memory and capacity for thought than most people I know. I’m not gloating; I sincerely believe this to be true. But Chuck’s mind? Damn. If my brain is the size of the Earth, then CK’s is the size of Jupiter, and can hold 1,400 of mine, or whatever it is.

So he thinks, and he thinks, and he puts all of these expansive thoughts about these vastly different characters in a span of 275 pages and it’s all these people can do not to collapse in on themselves. He’s fucking smart, guys. He just doesn’t need to use one solitary piece of fiction to prove it to us. And this swelling of information and overloaded pages may have led him to finish the book with the only outlet he could have imagined to attempt to cease all thought. Sorry, Chuck, but I think the ending was kind of a copout. But who knows? Maybe it still hasn’t processed enough for me.

Klosterman’s overthinking has never been an issue; it’s pretty much what makes him who he is – though I’m sure he calls it “analysis.” In the case of Downtown Owl, however, it tripped him up a few times. Despite all of this, I can never NOT recommend Klosterman. He’s got an enticing town, your friends at the bar, and your thoughts in every stage of your life. It’s worth taking a trip to Owl, North Dakota.

me: I am reading the wiki of Jeffrey Dahmer
Andy: this is what you do to kill time.

Well…yes.   Throughout the years, I would occasionally read the biographies of certain serial killers, then casually tell Andy about them.  And throughout the years, Andy seemed consistently unsurprised by this because apparently his friend April is prone to doing the exact same thing to him.  Evidently we both believe Andy is a little more uneducated than most about the nuances of serial killing history, and we feel compelled to help him rectify this.   Still, I wouldn’t say I’m terribly fascinated by serial killers, although once or twice I stumbled upon a particular killer’s bio only to realize that I’ve read it before.  This time around, I only wiki’d Dahmer because I just finished Klosterman’s essay about what it means to have casual brushes with people who turn out to secretly destroy human beings on a regular basis.

Last night, I had a longish conversation with Lukas about the Zodiac killer.  Because he has never been caught and no one knows of his identity, we started to wonder which of our friends could also plausibly be a serial killer (again, always willing to engage in hypotheticals).  I chose our friend Brendon, in part because he is much more aggressive than the average person and, in my opinion, much more emotionally capable of doing crazy shit.  But also, he is unnaturally meticulous about whatever task he is put on, to the point where I once asked if he was borderline autistic.  Brendon is the type to get away with murder because he properly cut off the fingernails of his victims after any ensuing struggle.  I wouldn’t say he was exactly ecstatic by my answer, but he wasn’t particularly upset either.  He simply seemed kind of pleased that I had called him meticulous–which I found a curious response after someone just accused you capable of murdering for psychological gratification–and then went on to most likely draft his fantasy baseball team.

Lukas, however, focused more on the actual logistics of serial killing, which could only mean he invariably chose Jason.   Who do we know that is capable of covering up any digital tracks (oddly enough, he always claims Jason would know how to do this not because he studied, say, computer science all throughout college, but exclusively because he was the dorm rescon)?  Who has the monetary means, not to mention an enormous house out in the desert?  Who has the free time to plot out his ideas?  And who is much more calculated so as not to end up a spree killer (Garrett) or a mass murderer (Jimmy)?  By these particular criteria, Jason was quite flattered by the designation.

I found it amusing that neither friend seemed offended by their alleged potential for serial killing;  likewise, Klosterman claims there is something innately profound in knowing someone who is unable–or at least unwilling–to adhere to discernible boundaries of wrong and right.  I suppose he’s right in a comic book kind of way; after all, they make for tremendous villains and also reassert how normal our own values are.  But his argument as it applies to real life is suspect, simply because I’m not sure how insightful it is to know someone who would be absurd enough to decapitate, then eat my head (Dahmer), sodomize me then shove my corpse under a crawlspace (Gacy), or attack me with a nail gun before cutting off my limbs (Bateman).  Whenever the idea of serial killers is brought up, I can’t help but think of two things,  the first being James Gandolfini’s resigned soliloquy to a bleeding and tortured Alabama about how he has grown so accustomed to killing that he only does it now to “watch their fucking expression change.” The second is the moment of Kovac’s rebirth into Rorschach, and his realization that there is no deeper meaning at hand when someone is awful enough to kill a little girl then feed her to his dogs:  collectively speaking, we are more than capable of doing fucked up things–it’s just a matter of scale of how fucked up and whether or not we are inevitably caught.

As far as I am concerned, there is nothing actually there to understand.

Our pal Chuck Klosterman asks you:

Let us assume a fully grown, completely healthy Clydesdale horse has his hooves shackled to the ground while his head is held in place with a thick rope.  He is conscious and standing upright, but completely immobile.  And let us assume that–for some reason–every political prisoner on earth (as cited by Amnesty International) will be released from captivity if you can kick this horse to death in less than twenty minutes.  You are allowed to wear steel-toed boots.  Would you attempt to do this?

I posed Klosterman’s moral dilemma the other day to Lukas, whose more endearing qualities include his willingness to discuss every far-fetched hypothetical as if they are legitimate situations.   For example, there is a conversation floating around somewhere that documents  him and Jason debating whether there were more chickens or illegal immigrants in California, taking into account chickens per square meter, the size of the average coop and the maximum number of chickens that can possibly be raised in said coops,  the average chicken yield per farm, the amount of Californian farmland, and the estimated number of illegal immigrants.  In comparison, our discussion about Klosterman’s horse-kicking was rather brief, partially because it was about 2 am, but mostly because I interrupted him and immediately posed another Klosterman gem (someone will break your soulmate’s collar bones with a crescent wrench every three years unless you take a pill that makes every song sound like it is by Alice in Chains; would you take the pill?!  IF I WOULD, COULD YOU!?).

That being said, we came to the conclusion that neither of us would attempt to kick a horse to death in under twenty minutes, mainly because there is no feasible way to do so.  It would not only leave you with the same full camps of mistreated prisoners of conscience, but now also ostensibly with a severely brain-damaged horse courtesy of your steel-toed boots.   Plus, how exactly does Amnesty International define political prisoners?  What if I inadvertently release the guys from Asian Dawn?  I thought about it a little more today.  As a political organization criticized for being Western-biased, how does Amnesty fact check its claims?  What about evidence from closed countries?  And what about those imprisoned before Amnesty started in 1961?  Or those imprisoned after you manage to kick this horse to death?  Would they too be included?

I imagine if I researched this route further, I would’ve gained some insight into the abuse of human rights and all the efforts in mitigating it.  But as it were, I went off a different tangent, which I suppose only serves to prove how profoundly unaware I can be.  Namely, I really just wanted to know if it is indeed possible to kick a horse to death in twenty minutes or less.

It is a well-circulated fact that I’m really into farm animals, specifically how to slaughter them.  I am aware that horses do not exclusively constitute as farm animals, but nor are they theoretically exempt from farm life either.  I am also aware that taken out of context,  “I’m really into farm animals, specifically how to slaughter them” makes me sound grossly barbaric and, generally speaking,  a really fucking awful human being.  Regardless, for a good month or so, I tried to educate myself in all the different primal cuts for cattle, then on the various captive bolt pistols used to euthanize livestock (to allow the animal to bleed out and prevent the meat from spoiling, obviously).  I’m also quite interested on how to de-wing/de-feather ducks and geese, which I’m told can be done under a minute.   I’ve insisted for quite some time that I would like to take up an apprenticeship at a slaughterhouse, which is usually dismissed as silly and impractical, especially coming from someone who barely clears 100 lbs and has no discernible skill in either taking care of or disposing animals.   I’m not terribly concerned about this, since it is still a substantially better response than, say, everyone worrying about any latent violent tendencies I may be harboring.  Mostly, my argument is that proper skills in sanitary and efficient butchery would have an obscene amount of utilitarian value.  It would also make me indispensable in the event of a post-apocalyptic situation, assuming that I would survive the initial fallout and that we are speaking of McCarthy’s or Atwood’s apocalypse and not James Cameron’s.

With absolutely no medical background and a total accumulation of one class  in biology in my life to account for, I eventually enlisted the help of my cousin Brian, who is a third-year veterinary student at Michigan State.  After patiently explaining to me that it takes time for blunt force trauma to eventually progress into a life-threatening hemorrhage, he then revealed this:

The money shot!  Congratulations, you just killed a horse to please Amnesty International, and/or are really into farm animals, specifically how to slaughter them.

Home from college for the weekend and being the broke college student that I currently am, I asked my dad earlier this evening if I could borrow $1.50 to pick up a copy of the New York Times at Barnes and Nobel before they closed for the night. He looked at me with a strange look and said “You don’t read the New York Times.” That statement is blatantly false. In fact, I love the New York Times and look forward to reading it in the bookstore when I come home on the weekends. At first, I was angry that my dad was denying a fact of my life and personality. As I thought about it later, though, I realized that my dad doesn’t know me at all, and that is entirely my fault. I tend to tell my best friend, Otis, everything about my life and tell nothing to anyone else. This upset me a bit, because I really do love my parents and are thankful for everything they have done and are doing to support me and make me the person who I am. However, they don’t really know who I am, which I can imagine might hurt or upset them. 

In sociology a few weeks ago, we were discussing social status and class. We talked about ascribed and attained statuses, which define who we are. We discussed our salacious status, or the one which primarily (at least on the surface) defines who we are. Currently, my salacious status is that of a student. However, our professor encouraged us to think about ourselves not just in terms of our salacious status but in terms of all the little quirks and personality features that really make us who we are. 

I think that getting to know yourself is very integral to your life. If you don’t know who you are, what you like and dislike, and what you are capable of doing, how can you market yourself to a potential employer, attract a future mate, or chose a valid career path? The process of “finding ourselves” is an ongoing process, lasting through our entire lives. It is often only in the last blink of an eye of our lives in which we come full circle in our process of self-discovery and find out who we really are. But finding yourself isn’t a burden. It’s a natural part of every day living, just like breathing or sleeping. Every day you learn something new about the world and about yourself. Sometimes, it is only necessary to sit down and think and write about who you are to figure it out and discover yourself. It’s all there. It’s just waiting to be found, brought to life, and embraced. 

For me, the process of finding myself and growing into my own skin seemed to have, in my memory, come suddenly and abruptly. Growing up in small Christian schools, conformity was taught and not only encouraged, but mandated. Being a unique individual with your own beliefs and values was not really seen as a valid option. There was one set of morals, one political stance, one religious belief, etc. At least that was how it seemed in my mind. However, I finally broke out of that and “found myself”, or at least began to find, my senior year of high school. I was 18 for the majority of that year, and my newfound adulthood caused me to think “Humm. Maybe I don’t have to believe all the lines I’m being fed. Maybe it’s okay for me to think for myself.” And so I did. I began forming my own interests, beliefs, and habits, most of which were inconsistent with those deemed “appropriate” by the school. And so in my rebellion from the conformity I was being taught, I began to discover who I really was. 

I spent the majority of my senior year and the time thereafter discovering who I was. Then, maybe half a year later, I fell in love. I lost part of who I was in this love, lost it to that other person. I imagine that typically happens; when you fall in love, you give part of yourself up for that other person. But in that other person, I found another part of me I never knew existed. I discovered strengths, interests, and weaknesses I never would have know otherwise. That love has lasted for a while now, and I am continuously finding parts of myself both inside that love and outside of it. Self-discovery is a beautiful thing. 

In this post, I do not wish to tell you my age or my occupation or my educational level and goals. I do not wish to share the most salacious of my statues. Rather, I wish to define myself as I see me. I want to tell you about the things that make me tick, my likes and dislikes, the things which make up the framework of my personality and my attitudes. I would like to dedicate this post to my Dad. Thanks for not knowing that I read the New York Times and spawning the idea for this blog post in my head. Hopefully my dad, and others who care, can get to know and understand me a bit more fully through the words and stories that follow this lengthy introduction. 

I.  ART.

I love art in all its myriad forms. I love writing, poetry, theatre, film, sculpturing, painting, drawing, animation, mime and pantomime, fashion, graphic design, singing, dancing, musicals, music, and any other form of art you can think of. I appreciate good art. I like things that are creative and subliminal, that do not directly shout their message at you, but subtly present it to you. I am fascinated by artists and deeply admire their work. My love and admiration for art is perhaps the largest component of my personality. Within this category come many of the things I love and feel define me. 

A. Literature  

1. Chuck Klosterman: a brilliant satirist of modern culture, Klosterman writes entertaining, witty, and highly personal pieces on everything from artists such as Madonna and U2 to fictitious accounts of men giving away zoot suits on street corners. Klosterman will undoubtably make you laugh, but will also make you step back and scratch your chin in thought as you reflect on what he has to say about our culture. Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs may be his most well read and beloved book, but everything he has written is well worth a thoughtful read. 

2. Ernest Hemingway: Papa Hemingway will forever remain my most beloved author and my primary idol and influence. I love his clear, simplistic narrative style. When I read his books, I am actually there. I am there with him on his African safari or by the bull rings with him in Cuba or Mexico. I stand by the ocean with him somedays and help him hunt down U-Boats on another. I am enthralled by his lifestyle and enchanted by his descriptions of it. I am moved by his insights into love and death. I am drawn in by his short and simple dialogue. I am fascinated with the never ending correlation between Hemingway the man and Hemingway the author. In short, I love him and would replicate his life exactly for myself if I could. I aspire to be just like him. 

A list of other favorite books includes, but is not limited to: 

1. Snow Crash. Neal Stephenson. 

2. The Stranger. Albert Camus. 

3. Things Fall Apart. Chinua Achebe. 

4. Gone with the Wind. Margaret Mitchell. 

5. Jude the Obscure. Thomas Hardy. 

6. Music for Chameleons. Truman Capote. 

7. The Kite Runner. Khaled Hosseini. 

8. Atonement. Ian McEwan. 

9. To Kill a Mockingbird. Harper Lee. 

B. Film 

1. Wes Anderson: Wes is an incredible storyteller through his medium of choice, film. His attention to detail is outstanding and unprecedented. Each tiny prop or set piece in his films are carefully planned, drawn, and brought to life. These microscopic details make his films into feasts for the eyes, true spectacles to observe. He excels in both screen writing and directing. His films portray life as it really is, in all its brokenness and imperfection. They are hauntingly beautiful and often tragically heartbreaking. Life is not a fairy tale, and Wes’ films show us this in a visually astounding and an emotionally moving way. 

2. Quentin Tarantino: Quentin is a genius of a film maker who often comes under criticism for the graphic violence and especially strong language of his films. Again, however, I love Quentin’s work because it is real. It is life, in its most raw and uncut form. Even with the violence, plot lines and characters are well developed and moral lessons arise from the blood and destruction. Characters learn about themselves and in turn teach us about ourselves. 

3. Charlie Kaufman: Some might call Kaufman crazy. His films warp reality and distort your sense of time. However, Kaufman isn’t crazy. He’s simply artistic. Again, his attention to detail is painstakingly beautiful. His story lines are very complex, so complex that they become difficult to follow at times. There are plots within plots and then plots within those plots. Kaufman has  a lot to say about life and can’t fit it all into one traditional plot line. Therefore, he layers them and plays with the concept of time to fit more in to each and every film he produces. He is, quite simply, a genius. 

4. Alfred Hitchcock: I appreciate old films, and Hitchcock is by far my favorite director of classic movies. His sense of good and bad, his blonde bombshell heroines, his use of cinematography and special effects, his style of filming, his intense chase scenes, and his terror elements all amount to great film making. No one can deny the longevity and cultural ubiquity of his great films such as Vertigo, Psycho, The Birds, and North by Northwest. Hitchcock made films that span generations and set a foundation in great film making that has lasted and been built upon throughout the ages. 

Other films I love: 

1. Magnolia. P.T. Anderson. 

2. Gran Torino. Clint Eastwood. 

3. Letters from Iwo Jima. Clint Eastwood. 

4. Big Fish. Tim Burton. 

5. Everything is Illuminated. Liev Schreiber. 

6. The Godfather series. Francis Ford Coppola. 

7. The Untouchables. Brian De Palma. 

8. Thank You for Smoking. Jason Reitman. 

9. Casablanca. Michael Curtiz. 

II. POLITICS.

 Perhaps the second defining aspect of my personality and life is my love for and interest in politics. Up until this point, my political views have been under construction. However, at this time, I feel that my feet are solidly planted in my political beliefs and that I am educated enough to share those beliefs with others. I did not, though, want to turn this blog into a place for my political convictions. Therefore, I have set up a new blog, Athena On Politics, at athenaonpolitics.wordpress.com.   As of right now, I have nothing posted there yet, but within the next few days expect to see a steady flow of blog posts describing my political views on major current issues. Yes, this interest is what drives me to enjoy reading the New York Times. 

1. I support President Obama because I feel like he was the best choice on election day to get our country out of the mess it is in. 

2. If I had to give my political views a name, they would most closely resemble those of a Libertarian. 

3. In practice, though, I tend to support democratic decisions because I am generally more liberal than conservative. 

4. The only major beef I have with the Democratic party is this: I believe in a very small, limited government. Democrats are, of course, notorious for their big government and big budget plans. 

III. TRAVEL. 

1. Travel is certainly another of my defining passions. I love traveling and exploring new places. I have a special love for the beach and clear ocean water. When someone asks what I want to do with my life, my answer is typically “I want to travel.” It is the one concrete thing I know I will always want to do, no matter what the circumstance, and will never tire of. 

IV. Food and Drink. 

1. A few other things  I will never cease to enjoy are eating, drinking, and cooking. I enjoy cooking myself for just me or for my friends and family, but I also very much enjoy dining out and trying new places and cuisines. I also love wine and beer. I am trying to learn more about wine and food pairings so that I can chose wine to go with main dishes on my own, instead of always having Otis do it. I prefer white or rose wines, though I occasionally drink red wine as well. As for beers, I generally prefer imports to domestics. America isn’t that great at producing quality alcohol. Corona (Mexico), Guinness (Ireland), and Heineken ( Holland) are a few of my favorites. Italian is my favorite cuisine. I also love seafood and fish of all types. 

V. Bookstores and Coffee Shops 

1. No definition of me would be complete without mentioning my love for coffee, bookstores, and the “coffee shop atmosphere”.  I spend most of my free time in coffee shops and bookstores and could literally spend all day there. Sure, going to bars is fun, but on many Friday and Saturday nights, I prefer to curl up at Barnes and Nobel with a cup of coffee and a stack of good books, newspapers, and magazines. I like to have my laptop or a notebook nearby so that I can jot down ideas and interesting facts or begin writing if the inspiration strikes. Most every good idea I have ever had has been the brainchild of excessive amounts of time spent in a bookstore or coffee shop. They are my thinking spots and my havens. I also enjoy patronizing small, locally owned coffee shops and appreciate the people who put their time and efforts into running them. A favorite local Pittsburgh chain of coffee shops is Crazy Mocha, with my favorite location being the one on the end of East Carson. It’s great for people watching, another of my favorite past times. If I know Otis is busy on a Friday or Saturday night and that I will be spending it alone, I generally drive down to the South Side. I park at the beginning of East Carson sometime in the evening, maybe around 7. My first stop is Dave’s Music Mine, my favorite place to buy new CD’s and hear about upcoming local concerts. After that, I walk down Carson, window shopping and people watching. When I reach the opposite end of East Carson, I do some actual shopping, checking out Urban Outfitters, Forever 21, etc. Then I head to Crazy Mocha to grab some coffee and a snack and write for a while. Usually around 10, I walk to the movie theatre and use my student ID to get a discounted ticket. After the movie, it’s about 12:30, prime time for Carson on a weekend night. The walk back to my car is fun and entertaining as I watch all the happy people bar hopping, laughing, and talking. Sometimes, if it’s early enough, I stop in Charlie Murdoch’s, the dueling piano bar and one of my favorite spots for entertainment. My car is usually parked by it anyways, so its just a few steps away. That’s my recipe for a perfect night spent by myself. Of course, I’m generally with Otis, which is more entertaining, but sometimes it is nice to have one of those nights to myself. It’s one thing I will miss whenever I don’t live in Pittsburgh anymore. 

Well, folks, that’s me in a nutshell. I like the arts, politics, travel, food and drink, and coffee and bookstores. These things all help to define my personality and who I am and I hope they give you, the reader, a better understanding of me.

I like Eller’s idea to review every book he reads this year and am going to steal it, if only to keep track of what I’m reading with the copious amounts of free time I’ve had lately.

1. Downtown Owl by Chuck Klosterman (2008, 288pp) – Klosterman’s first novel, and he largely sticks to writing what he knows – namely growing up in a small town in South Dakota. He alternates and weaves the narratives of three main characters – a backup football quarterback, a new teacher at the high school fresh out of college, a 73-year old man who spends his days drinking coffee and gossiping – whose lives are intertwined simply by living in a small town of less than 1000. I still enjoy Klosterman’s style of writing and found it to be a pretty quick read, albeit with a somewhat unsatisfying ending.

2. The Lovely Bones by Alice Sebold (2002, 336pp) – I only knew of this book because of the forthcoming Peter Jackson film later this year. The book starts off in a gripping fashion, detailing the murder of Susie Salmon, the protaganist, but lulls a little in spots as Susie observes her friends and family from heaven. While there are other gripping moments sprinkled throughout the book, one fantastical moment towards the end lost me. Otherwise, not a bad read if a little long.

3. How Soccer Explains the World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization by Franklin Foer (2005, 272 pp) – A book of stories which “examines soccer’s role in various cultures as a means of examining the reach of globalization.” Each chapter focuses on a specific country and topic, such as the racism behind the Rangers-Celtic rivalry, the role of the Red Star Belgrade’s hooligans in Slobodan Milosevic’s regime and AC Milan’s president who eventually became prime minister of Italy. I read this quite quickly during my plane ride to Ireland, partly because of my interest in the subject matter and partly because the pages have large margins. Recommended for soccer fans.

Currently reading: Blink by Malcom Gladwell