reply to ninguem

 I was delighted to find a post from the past few years that had started thinking in the direction I was going.  Here was my "original"* comment:

I have been thinking of this since reading Adam Becker's What is Real?

My thought is this: What if it is the exact same specific flaw (or oddity) in Human Consciousness that doesn't allow us to perceive time as 'just another dimension' (as the math of General Relativity demands) as a very similar [or related] flaw in Human Consciousness that doesn't allow us to perceive the multiverse as a similar [fifth] dimension?

what if human consciousness is limited by sense of time (NOW) one spot on the timeline, always moving steadily in one direction (the fourth dimension)

same with (HERE) in multiverse (not to be confused with (here) in our regular space, which is just where you are now) where it's one point on a line, but we are perpetually stuck in place (unlike time, where we are perpetually moving)

(that's the end of the comment... i was going to cut & paste it here and continue expanding it... but then i realized i'd LOST IT!!!! @*#&^@*&#^%*& when I cut & paste my own blog address into the comment questionnaire and tried to recreate it above with I think moderate success... ((@#%(&@%*(#^&)

Lesson Learned: "Don't Be Greedy!  Share your Thoughts"

[some more thoughts SOME MORE THOUGHTS some more thoughts]

- one directional) 

dark matter indeed

{Warning: Spoilers ahead!}

I 'just' finished Dark Matter, Season 1 on Apple TV+* and I think it might be my strongest television recommendation possibly since Lost (!?).  I will say that this show is not for the faint of heart.  It's not scary, precisely, but the philosophical implications of this particular theory of multiverse are somewhat harrowing.  

The show (and evidently Blake Crouch's novel from which it was adapted) seems largely based upon^ my own personal theory of the multiverse, which was initially a bit surprising, but as the season progressed, made it comforting.  The wrinkle I hadn't anticipated (and what I found most disturbing about the show) was the extent to which navigation of the multiverse is dependent upon Mind.  

I'm not sure I find the science too compelling (a bit too human-centric {self-centric} for my taste), but for the sake of storytelling, the plot mechanic is inspired.  Jason Dessen (the protagonist, played by a very good Joel - Joel Edgerton) is a physicist in Chicago who has invented The Box, a giant version of a box several versions of him have invented that allows particles to exist in superposition (in this case existing within multiple iterations of the multiverse simultaneously).

The big Box allows not just a particle to exist in superposition but a whole thing - a person, say or even a couple of people - to enter the box and navigate through the multiverse.  The tricky bit is that the way that you determine which of the infinite realities you are going to emerge into when you once again open the box is based on your mind - not just your conscious thoughts, but your unconscious and subconscious state of mind when you open it (plus all of the same of those who you might be traveling with!).

Source: https://tinyurl.com/564drzcz

There's a bunch more plotty bits that happen that make for a really great season of television, but what struck me hardest was the moment when Jason emerges into a Chicago in a world that has been ravaged by plague.  He makes his way back to his house to find his wife, visibly ill, shocked to see him (because this world's him succumbed), and she is wrecked.  It's a very realistic glimpse into what a truly catastrophic outbreak might look like at the street level in America...

I'm most of the way through Plagues upon the Earth: Disease and the Course of Human History, a sweeping chronicle by Kyle Harper of how all of human history has been shaped by (or guided by) the micro-organisms that have made us sick.  Alternately it's a history of how human civilization has created and caused the uniquely massive variety of tiny little things designed to (and actively getting better at) kill us because we've gotten so good at existing... The book is really a constant questioning of which of those definitive interpretations is more true at any given time in human history, and emphasizes the degree to which our collective Thrownness operates not just on an individual level, but also at a biological level (and also at a cosmic level, naturally).

The version of you that you get to inhabit is inherently arbitrary, but certainly doesn't feel that way to us.  Choice - Action - Self... These are the things from which we build our narrative - our lives, right?  The idea that it is chance and circumstance where we find ourselves runs contrary to our modern American sensibility.  We work harder and harder to get further and further away from The Uncomfortable Truth** by filling our attention with screens and faiths and mantras, but the reason that the uncomfortable truth is truth... well, it's because it is, right?  

But I think it's easy to interpret The Uncomfortable Truth as something akin to Nietzschean nihilism, but the comfort (!!) of Humanism is its clear antidote.  We may not be much, us, here toiling away at living on this small out of the way planet - but our over-arching trend, tending toward progress for more of us - and constructing our grand Civilization, which endures and attempts and evolves - that is the thing that we're all here for.  What is a civilization but a narrative - a collection of all of the little narratives, most forgotten (heck, most of them were side quests to begin with!). 

So I suggest that you enjoy your story - if it's not exactly the version of it you were hoping for, rest easy in the knowledge that there very might well be another one where it's that, but you can soak up what you can here... maybe strive for a bit more of that other preferred one, but as Jason/Joel learns when he gets in the Box, you may like the look of another version, but you were made (or perhaps you made yourself) ready for this one right here, and no other.

Enjoy it (and by it, i also mean Dark Matter... it's really good).

 

* It seems to me that Apple TV+ produces nothing but bangers - like they just aren't interested in getting content out for the sake of content, but everything is really quality.  (That's not to say that I have seen all of it, nor that all if it is necessarily my thing, but I just went through a list of their productions, and everything on it that I've seen some or all of is really quite very good!).  In this era of lapsing quality in all things, that is really quite remarkable, but I'm going to put a pin in it for the moment, and move back to my starting point.

^ keen observers will note that Crouch's novel hails from 2016 whereas my own theory wasn't articulated fully on Roman Numeral J until early 2018.  

** I've been reading around a bit as well in the self-help and satirical self-help genres (it's often hard to tell those apart) in Mark Manson's Everything is F*cked: A Book About Hope, and The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck and reading Lead it Like Lasso earlier this year as well as a bit of Stephen Covey's 7 Habits.  Generally these are not my types of books - but I've been on a bit of kick on the concept of "Getting Comfortable with Being Uncomfortable" and working on a project, for now it's just a PowerPoint presentation, and I'm figuring out if it's enough to be even that, or maybe something more - a blog post, perchance a little book (!?)...

a work in progress...

There was once a place on the erstwhile internet called "Seen Reading" (which seems now to have become a book, because, sure, I guess, let's print off the whole internet!).  The premise was a brief observation of a person, usually on public transit, who was reading a book, noticing what page they were on in that book, and then quoting on that page.

This premise of seeing where a person was - both in their reading journey of a particular book and in transit - I suppose it's a bit fanciful, but it feels like we might gain some insight (imperfect and incomplete to be sure into a person who we see where they are in their journey.

When Tim asked me (a bunch of us really) a month or so ago what we were currently reading, I answered him a list of 7 books - a sort of typical number that I'm usually in the middle of.  So I thought a current reckoning - not only of books, but of shows (and perhaps any movies too) that I'm in the midst of completing.

I've been on goodreads quite a bit more in 2025 than ever before, because I'm planning on writing a short review of each book I finish this year, not just cataloging them.  They have a feature of the "currently reading" list called 'tabled', so I'll go through my active reads and watches, and then see if I can complete a catalog of tabled texts as well:

Books (Updated 7/7/25)

[I thought it might be fun to occasionally revisit this list from time to time... and indeed it now seems an opportune moment, half a year later, and having just finished the last of the original five books just this weekend...]

1. The Handmaid's Tale, by Margaret Atwood
2. The Final Girl Support Group, by Grady Hendrix
3. American Like Me: Reflections on Life Between Cultures, by America Ferrera
4. The Hunger Games, by Suzanne Collins
5. The Quest For Tanelorn, by Michael Moorcock
6. Life on the Mississippi, by Mark Twain
7. Swan Song, by Robert McCammon
8. Syllabus: Notes from an Accidental Professor, by Lynda Barry

[It may be that I just revisit this list with books going forward... I did manage to finish both How I Met Your Mother & Dark Matter from the previous "tabled" section, and at least a few of the shows & both movies, but I feel like the "tabled" section overall grew, and maybe that it and the books bit is the only relevant part to come back to]

tabled (still or now...)

[I'm not sure if I intend to finish some of these, or most of these or what, but l started them all with that in mind, I'm sure.]

Wallace & Gromit: Murder Most Fowl

Time Bandits

Franklin

What If, Season 3

Northern Exposure

The Sticky

Castle Rock, Season 2

Pop Culture Jeopardy

The Magic Island, by William Seabrook

An Island Away, by Daniel Putkowski

The Journey of Natty Gann

Dune: Prophecy, Season 1
Star Trek: Prodigy, Season 2
No Good Deed, starring Ray Romano & Lisa Kudrow
mr. & mrs. smith, Season 1
The New Yorker Presents, Season 1

Books (Original Posting)

[This feels like a fairly low number of active books for me, but in part, I don't have any of my typical encyclopedic works that I am working through, of which there is usually one or two]

1. Light in August, by William Faulkner
2. Frank Talk: The Inside Stories of Zappa's Other People, by Andrew Greenaway
3. I Cheerfully Refuse, by Leif Enger
4. The Hunting Party, by Lucy Foley
5. Plagues Upon the Earth: Diseases and the Course of Human History, by Kyle Harper

Shows 

[of course there are many shows that I am between seasons for - I've watched 3 seasons of Barry, but not the 4th again.  I watched The Bear, Season 1, but not the rest,,, yet]

1. Dune: Prophecy, Season 1
2. Laid, Season 1
3. Fast Friends, hosted by Whitney Cummings
4. Star Trek: Prodigy, Season 2
5. The Decameron, created by Kathleen Jordan
6. No Good Deed, starring Ray Romano & Lisa Kudrow
7. mr. & mrs. smith, Season 1
8. The New Yorker Presents, Season 1

Movies 

[I may actually adjust this list before I hit "Publish", as I'm working my way through one of them now]

1. The Raven, starring John Cusack
2. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, starring the BeeGees!

tabled 

[I'm not sure if I intend to finish some of these, or most of these or what, but l started them all with that in mind, I'm sure.]

Wallace & Gromit: Murder Most Fowl

Time Bandits

Franklin

What If, Season 3

Northern Exposure

Dark Matter

The Sticky

Castle Rock, Season 2

Pop Culture Jeopardy

The Magic Island, by William Seabrook

How I Met Your Mother

An Island Away, by Daniel Putkowski

The Journey of Natty Gann

The Lingering: Skulldiggery Book 3, by DM Gritzmacher (book review)

Probably your favorite bartender / real estate magnate returns (The Quarry, 2023) in an interweaving blend of eras and narratives.

Almost 44 years ago, Russell Stander found something.  Spending summers of his adolescence away from home and friends in Michigan, and instead a season-long visit to his idiosyncratic, elderly aunt in Western Illinois, Rusty is understandably in search of adventure.  As it turns out, he and his cadre of summer friends find more than they bargain for, discovering a mysterious, abandoned graveyard full of dark secrets. 

Stephen King and Peter Straub described the “dreamlike and slightly unnatural… characteristic of borderlands” in their novel Black House, and DM Gritzmacher’s third installment of the Skulldiggery series takes place just a short way down that most awesome (and awful!) of all American borders – The Mississippi River.  The story hops between the present day, the early 1980s, and the turn of the 19^th into the early 20^th Century, with each of the three eras meandering toward each other as the narrative unfolds.  In our modern moment, we find middle-aged bar owner Rusty returning to the small community of Almore, Illinois with his friend and employee, Tom Secrist, a retired police officer.  In the early 80s, we find the same Rusty, 10 years old (give or take), and a group of four friends wandering through the countryside in search of some fun and some adventure.  And eighty years prior to that, a mysterious figure on either side of the border that is The Mississippi (and the turn of that century on either side of 1900) also wandering that same countryside where the boys find themselves we are witness to a sequence of grisly murders told from the perspective of the perpetrator.

It's part Stand By Me and part In Cold Blood, with a dash of co
smic horror, and a world of related stories swirling all around the edges.

Engaging, leaving you hungry for more.

Pub Date: Oct. 10, 2023

ISBN: 9798986638751

Page Count: 259

Publisher: Piqued

Not quite sure what to call it…

 

As I was finishing with the last of Walter Benjamin’s 1933 writings (the last was “Experience and Poverty”, which is about, among other things, the poverty of experience that we are/were enduring in our/his modern times), a buttered piece of raisin wheat bread from Mary’s Market and an as yet untitled Irish Coffee variation (unfortunately some bar in the Pacific Northwest has already coined another of their cocktails as Spanish Coffee, which was my first thought).  This one was made with the wonderfully sharp Empress 1908 Elderflower Rose Gin, but I imagine that any gin would sharp up your morning coffee to make for an enjoyable day of leisure.

Next week I start full-time work for the first time in some time, but today I’ll enjoy a bit of the life Ibiza… Afternoons, and coffee spoons. Maybe some T.S. Elliott...

What is it That Must Be Said?

 I've just finished an obscure essay of Walter Benjamin's about art history, and approaches to the study of art (but also the study of literature and also history and even, somehow, botany) that may turn out to be among the most profound, and, at our current moment in history, among the most important of all of his writings.

At first glance, he seems just to be in the weeds of an argument about whether a new 'modern' interpretation of how to do art history has replaced the 'classical approach' of antiquity in the early 20th Century, but I think he is more gesturing toward his eventual theories of conceptualizing history and the great potential of the fragment, which are already in his mind, but he hasn't clearly articulated in 1932 when he's writing this essay.

"So began a train of thought that I am no longer able to pursue.  But its last link was certainly much less banal than its first..."

"..., and led on perhaps to images of animals." (is perhaps less than the conclusion for the pull quote that I was hoping for, but there it is).  This quote is actually not from the essay I was talking about, rather from the subsequent one in the collection I'm reading, "Hashish in Marseilles", but it hits on (or is at least adjacent to) what I am finding here (here in this post, and all around the whole blog generally).  That is, that when I start to write a post that is trying to get across an idea (rather than one that's just a response to something or a compilation), I begin a train of thought that turns in to a (compelling) black hole of ideas that starts to connect to and pull in whole bunches of texts and ideas that I'm reading now or have done in the distant or recent past, and the connections and rhymes and implications become bigger (and yes, less banal), and better, but begin bouncing beyond my basis from back at the beginning of the post.  And so I pull up short in all of these begun, and possibly one day done posts, which I occasionally open up, and ask myself, "what was this one going to be about again, really?"

But maybe not this time - if I just decided to say what I meant to say, instead of going back and being sure I was saying the best way I could or should - 

And so, Walter Benjamin was writing in the early days of an era of crisis, 1932 in Germany, and he was of a generation of artists (and of Artists, if you subscribe to the Strauss-Howe generational theory, which I do for the moment, having recently finished The Fourth Turning is Here, by Neil Howe) who had thought to shake up and change the world with their avant-garde art and politics and thoughts only to watch it all seem to begin to unravel as they were entering middle age and the crisis era was ramping up and threatening to destroy the whole world. 

That generation of, not just artists, but all walks of life, came of age just in time to witness (and largely participate in) the horrors of World War I, and then bask in the wonders of the Roaring Twenties, and seemed to be living through a time that would see things on the upswing and a world forever changed (in this case, cured of war) while at the same time harboring deep divisions and animosities that were being largely glossed over (rural poverty versus Flapper culture; Teetotalers getting Prohibition passed in America... versus Flapper culture {and mobster culture!}; race stuff...).

That era of the 1930s is having a moment, not just because it's the Nazis and World War II, and it's always what our stories turn to.  Rather, Neil Howe would suggest that we are in a parallel historical moment of crisis now, starting with the 2008 Great Recession (he marks that previous crisis era starting with the 1929 Wall Street Crash, and through to the Great Depression, and through the conclusion of WWII).  As Benjamin, a Jew writing in 1932 Germany, he's in the midst of the crisis, but seemingly doesn't know it yet.  So too we, here in 2024, can't tell what the nature of the real disaster we are about to experience will be.

We feel like we know who some of the main characters of the coming disaster might be: Vlad Putin seems a good candidate for a villain on that side of the pond, and we have our own possible seat filler over here, oranger and dumber to be sure, but not that much less menacing.  But we don't have any idea, yet, how this one turns out over the next decade or so... whether it's another world war, like (and very much unlike) the last one that ended the last crisis cycle (for the record, Star Trek future history records World War III {or 3, as we may have progressed beyond a time when we can rely on most people to be able to read Roman Numerals...} as starting in 2026, and 2024 is among the most tumultuous years in all of Star Trek history), or perhaps this cycle will end in another American Civil War of some kind, like the one that ended the cycle prior.  Or perhaps it's something wholly new, that we haven't even considered before that results from improved AI or Quantum Computing or ____________.

But we're here for it, and if history rhyming (or repeating itself) is indeed a thing, better days are ahead (but after a big terrible thing first... sorry.) 

Here's What Happened...

 For the past 45 years (or so - no reason to take a specific measurement on it all...), we in America (and, because of the US's soft imperialism of the latter-20th Century, to a lesser extent, the world) have been in a state of civilizational decline.  It's easy to see now, looking back, that this has happened - and I think it's easy to look around our world today and see modern technologies and say "It's Tik-Tok / FaceBook / CRT" or "It's cancel culture / hyper - wokeness / Trump" and these are all, of course, symptoms of the decline, but to think that the symptom is the root cause and the thing to be treated is - well, is essentially modern American medicine under late capitalism, really.

And - i know i know - virtually anyone reading this is now saying, "wait a minute, you can't lump ______ in there with _______", and that's sort of also the point (see my point about writing things from a few weeks ago), but I would say in response that if you find yourself within a civilization in decline, all aspects of it are symptoms of it, not just 'the good ones' or 'the bad ones'.  Decline isn't necessarily a negative thing (I mean, for the civilization or whatever thing it is that is in decline, sure, it's probably not great, but), rather it is always also making space for whatever might simultaneously be arising or entering the emptying space...

But this, here, post is a look back rather than a look forward.

I finished Dan Carlin's book, The End is Always Near, "a couple months ago", and while Carlin's scope is (as always) much grander than my smaller [self]sample here, his take is that our current run as Western Civilization could be coming to a close here any day now...

We've had a pretty good run... whether you start to measure from, say, 1066, and we've been on a roll now for the last 960 or so years, or maybe 1776 and we're about to host our 'quarter of a millennium' party - or maybe the much more closely relevant to me, 1978, and it's halfway to 90!  And don't get me wrong, it's not over (hopefully) for all or most of us, but that word "Near" in Carlin's title has always been a bit squishy.  Nothing seems close, historically, except for the recent past.  A future shift always looks further away than it is.

That "our" moment of historical pre-eminence is at an end or in jeopardy or at least at a crucial moment has been widely accepted (or bemoaned or lauded depending on the perspective) for many and many a now.  From 'the end of the American Century' or the coming (stroke current) Chinese Century to Strauss-Howe's assurance that we're due for a Fourth Turning, there seems some agreement that 'we're due' for something.

It's often tempting, I think, to try reading history as 'tea'leaves' - learning from prior collapses just what might happen next.  We have a shorthand for this in the clichéd aphorism "those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it."  But I tend to think it's a lot more complicated than that - (more of a "history doesn't repeat itself, but it does often rhyme" or Marx's "first as tragedy, then as farce" situation).  

I just finished Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom (ikr!?), a book written during our last great Crisis Turning, and while I find Hayek's conclusions quite mystical, I think his read on the structures that are coming to an end and what they might look like coming out of World War II.  It's the difference between predicting 'what is going to happen' (which I don't think tends to turn out very well) and guessing 'what it might be like'.  

I've lived all of my life within an Unraveling and a Crisis Turning - starting with Watergate and Reaganomics and continuing through to 9/11, the Great Recession, Trump and then who knows what's next in the back half of this decade or so... If nothing else, I suspect the next 6 years won't be boring...

We have this narrative narrative desire to make history into something where decisions are made about 'what comes next', and to be sure I think the end of this next Crisis (if it isn't the end of all of it) will be a kind of tipping point - where history might lead us to one of several sorts of underlying superstructures: a new oligarchic royalty; or a next-gen AI authoritarianism (this one seems more likely if quantum computing gets discovered and then owned by one company) or perhaps a new new deal... (so, basically we're looking at Dune, or Terminator, or Star Trek... You Choose!)

Sometimes it seems like all sorts of pseudo-intellectuals are constantly bemoaning the imminent fall to come if ________________ is allowed to occur, but really it's only been that way for the last 45 years or so :(.  A real retrospective perspective will see that it's all just part of a cycle.  The end of this cycle might just end up being quite a bit bigger than the ones we've seen somewhat recently.

a books report

 Writing fiction is a thankless endeavor - I think - really any writing at all,,, putting words out there in the world for others to read and think about and judge.  To be a "best-selling" author, with hundreds and thousands of people buying (as Kai was told, "nicht geraucht, sonder gekauft!") and then judging your stuff... 

I recently have been reading fictional essais by a couple of former clients of mine (two who I genuinely enjoyed as humans and who I felt might actually have some insight and understanding as to what at least part of the human condition was all about^), while also reading a few parallel novels by more established writers (or at least more universally accepted books in the book and adaptation world...)

I have long been a student of literature (and I guess humanity?) - but my interest I think was always really about understanding the disparity between 1) Human Experience, which is (I think) an idiosyncratic, personal, and (possibly) unshareable experience [and a small aside here, but I think this is quite fundamental - I'm not saying that we as humans can't share our experience, but that the overall total version of our worldview may be different for each and every one of us {kind of like the what if when I see blue, other people are seeing red...} and this separation may in fact be the source of our larger inability to cohabitate on earth.] and that of 2) Human Expression, I'll admit, my initial bias here has always been through the written (and sorta spoken) word, but this is everyone's expression of musical, conversational, comedic, artistic(al?), filmic, poetical, historical, sociological, personal...

This may shock you, but I am a very judgmental reader - I think of things pretty harshly as very well written, not very well written, horribly written, etc..  I am simultaneously a voraciously omnivorous reader, willing to read not only across almost any genre, but also any quality.  I love bad writing almost as much as I like good writing - certainly I have learned a lot more from bad writing than good.  It's a lot easier to identify what exactly is bad in bad writing (and thereby try to excise it from your own writing) than it is to identify what exactly makes good writing good - it's all good or great, but what is it, exactly, that they just did there?  

In conversation with my wife about "needing a new book", I have tried to have her parse out a bit what it is she is looking for in a great reading experience, and she framed it this way:

"I don't like it when writers are writing obscurely, just for the sake of being obscure.  Neither do I like it, though (this isn't really how she talks), when writers just come out and say what they mean, like Stephen King (she's not a fan), he has a thought, and then he just writes it right out there for everyone to see.  I want a writer to couch (clearly, this is me, but I am summarizing her) their point within their prose a bit, but not to be too obscure."

A couple of recent examples of books that fit this bill that she (and subsequently I) both really enjoyed are Cloud Cuckoo Land, by Anthony Doerr and The Starless Sea by Erin Morgenstern.  Clearly she likes a little bit of magical realism too, and it certainly helps for a book to be about books, too...  In both of these example books, the reader feels a bit adrift in the early going, wondering just what is going on, and how the disparate chapters &* characters might fit together with one another, and what it all amounts to.   

Another book that we both recently read (this one my choice, rather than hers) was The 7½ Deaths of Evelyn Hardcastle (which I have just learned is also alternately titled The Seven Deaths of Evelyn Hardcastle, which is exceedingly strange to me).  This book, though not about books, was largely satisfactory to Brooke's books* criteria up until the very end, when the author, one Stuart Turton, comes out and tells us just precisely what's been going on here.  I still quite liked the book, and highly recommend it, although it did feel a bit M. Night Shylaman-y there at the end.

Another book I read recently that purports to be about a strange, scary phenomenon happening in the sewers (among other places) of a fictional small town near the coast was Phantoms, by Dean Koontz, and man-oh-man does he shit the bed whilst fully explaining the phenomenon that has been haunting the town with a "scientifically viable" (he assures us in the author's note afterward) account of what the characters discover.  And this is not remotely the worst part of this book.  While the similarly summarizable* novel, It, has seven kids at the center of it who we get to know and care about, there is exactly nobody in Koontz' novel to care about and so the story has no stakes.  I think this is because the characters, rather than acting like (or being) thinking, feeling humans, are more akin to walking talking resumes of humans (or maybe they're more like LinkedIn profiles).  So too in those novels by my clients, never, anywhere in them, do I get a sense that anyone remotely real is nearby the narratives.  

It Happens in the Hamptons is a (sometimes shockingly) tawdry novel of manners set within the Old Money / New Money / No Money world of the Hamptons, but despite the constant crashing together of characters from widely differing backgrounds nothing ever really feels at stake, I think because all of the characters really feel more like summaries of backgrounds, rather than anyone who resembles

anyone who might be real.  Contrast it with the similarly set Fleishman is in Trouble or even Diary, by Chuck Palahniuk.  In that last, none of the characters feel at all real, both because the novel is written all from one perspective - one voice, but mostly because we're in the midst of a nightmare fairy tale, but the stakes for everyone involved are such that we care about the characters in those books. 

The Last Ember is a (sometimes shockingly)* Jewish clone of The Da Vinci Code where every character who enters any scene is literally handing everyone else in the room their resume^^.

And, even after all that effort of putting words to page, you find my surely-soon-to-be-defunct blog that is drawing more attention to your prosal* efforts, never quite coming out and saying anything, just commenting on it all, generally negatively.

*sigh*^^^

^After several occasions meeting both of them it became eminently clear that neither of them in fact did, but it was also obvious that it was very important to both of their senses of self that I thought that they did (even though it was also obvious that in their account of the world what I thought mattered not at all).  In fact in all of my decade plus at MPS I only ever encountered one single client who seemed to have any insight into this at all).
* Then there's me, who uses an Ampersand just because the "ch" sounds in two neighboring words are different, and that's fun to draw them a bit closer, or uses unnecessary words in sentences to make fun rhymes (both literal and thematic) happen, or creating words that should be (but probably aren't).
^^No, they aren't.
^^^These asterisk brackets are unrelated to the previous footnote usage of the asterisks earlier in this post, and any similarities are incidental^^. 

baby please hang on...

I have undertaken A Song of Ice and Fire (now that I'm driving most nights I couldn't come up with any more excuses why not to start {except for the fact that the books [at least the first two!] are ridiculously popular on the library circuit with a typical wait time of several months}) and am attempting to watch along again the HBO adaptation as I'm reading along.

My understanding is that this is easy to do with the first season and first book of the series, and damn near impossible to accomplish thereafter.  I'll try to do it anyway - watching as much as I deem aligned from what I've read, and will try to comment along the way as I go.

But as I am approaching the end of the first book (and first season), I'll make some initial comments, and observations then add (either to this post or in the comments) as I make my way along.

Unlike some other recent takers on of this challenge, I watched all of Game of Thrones as it was airing, and highly enjoyed the series (and yes, even the deemed bad last season, which seemed in a damned hurry, but I thought was overall satisfying).  As it turns out, I may never watch through the entire series again, although all reports are that Mr. Martin is in acceptable enough health he still has two doorstops to write to round out the (planned) 7 book series.  After Stephen King's near death encounter with a van in 1999, I think I sort of made an agreement with myself to not risk an epic fantasy series again that hinges on an author's mortality.  Better to deal with authors who are either safely dead or series that are neatly wrapped up, 

But here we go again - and so far, I'm quite enjoying the ride.

A Game of Thrones (Book 1) / A Game of Thrones (Season 1)

My favorite surprise discovery so far has been the characterization of Tyrion, which I thought as I've been reading through the first book was quite different than the tv series.  I thought of all the casting and acting decisions made for the series that perhaps they had made with Tyrion one of their few mis-steps.  Not that casting Peter Dinklage was a mistake - he is magnificent in this role - but I thought as I was reading through that his take on Tyrion was more grand and epically heroic than the novel was making him out to be, but I realized as I watched the first few episodes that I was mistaken and my memories of Dinklage's take on the character must have been from later seasons.  In this early going, Tyrion is quite as small, in every sense, as he is made out to be in the novel.  Clever and cunning to be sure, but also petty and pitiful - a far cry from the "I drink, and I know things" hero he will grow in to.

The show and novel have some differences to be sure (e.g. in the novel it is Catelyn who insists that Ned Stark must take on the role of Hand of the King, whereas in the show it is Ned's own honor that compels him), but for the most part this is a one-to-one transliteration of the novel, both equally enjoyable and well executed. (7 January 2023)

A Clash of Kings (Book 2) / A Game of Thrones (Season 2)

By something of a fluke of schedule, I began this round by reading nearly a third of the book before even starting in on episode one.  When I did finally get back to the show and watched episode 1 (the only I've revisited up to this point) it felt a bit like a speed round of the book, quickly covering nearly everything I'd read up to that point.

As the season and book have moved along, it has been a fairly even split, and it seems like they may eventually catch up with each other.  There is a lot (as always) that has to be skipped or skimmed over for the filmic version, but what is shown is mostly shown as it was in the novels except for a few specific choices:

• when Arya is brought to Harrenhal, in the show she serves as cup bearer for Tywin Lannister because it makes for better for TV with her interacting with a primary character rather than the way she takes up the role once Roose Bolton and the north take back the castle.
• This difference is exacerbated when Arya asks Jaqen H'ghar to help them free the Northmen to take over Harrenhal in the book, but only asks him to help them escape (which totally is not nothing!) in the show
• So too where Jamie Lannister finds himself in the show in a war camp prison is not so nearly as horrible as the dungeon he is being held in at River Run when he is freed by Brianne of Tarth & Catelyn Stark.
• A fascinating conversation between Davos Seaworth and his son a few minutes into episode 9 of Season 2, where his son is blindly faithful to the Lord of Light and their imminent success, where in the novel Davos's sons are all on separate ships and far from him, but he worries for them as the battle for King's Landing is about to start.

in every iteration (so it seems) Tyrion turns out to be a hero of the night of Stanis' attack on King's Landing.  The Hound - it seems - might be a different case, where he is heroic in battle, but ultimately loses his position (but mostly, like all of us, because he deems himself unworthy rather than anyone else doing it for him...).

The TV show ties up most of the loose threads and aligns fairly well with where this second novel ends, with a few exceptions.  Bran's party remains together at the end of Season 2, whereas in A Clash of Kings, Osha takes Rickon while Bran & Hodor head off in another direction (to keep at least one of the boys safe, the hope is).  Robb Stark also marries a woman in the final episode who (I think) has not even been introduced in the novels as of yet... but mostly we are still aligned at this point. (7 March 2023) 

A Storm of Swords (Book 3) / A Game of Thrones (Season 2:10 - Season 3 - Season 4 - Season 5:1 - 6)

The opening chapter is the perspective of Jamie Lannister (his first of the entire series), and is almost entirely (although very differently)  portrayed in this book 3 while he travels south to King's Landing under the protection of Brienne of Tarth, which almost entirely occurs in the final episode of Season 2..  This final episode of Season 2 also seems to contain a lot of storyline that feels a ways off in the novelization (and the third novel's early chapters seem to have a lot of filling time that never made it to the show). 

As Season 3 of the show begins, the scene north of the wall seems to echo the prologue of Storm of Swords, but the Nights Watch who are far north of the wall are heading home rather than planning a stand against the Wildings - much of the other scenes in the first episode match up to the first 20% of the novel or so.

• Theon Greyjoy's narrative seems to moving forward more quickly in the show than the novel, but it's possible that this is just an illusion as he no longer has any chapters following his progress in the book.  It's possible that as he makes his transition to Reek, he may no longer get a perspective in the book, so his story is ended...
• In this novel - the Red Wedding happens just past the half way point, whereas I just started episode 5, and we won't see it on screen until the penultimate episode of this season.  In many ways, though, this season seems again a straight-up adaptation of this third book - some things are happening out of order from the other, but I think these versions of the same story are both unfolding at about the same pace.
• The Purple Wedding is just a short while after the Red one in book 3 (and in actual show time, I think ends up just being a few episodes after it), so it seems that Book 3 will be taking us well in to Season 4 of the show, without any major noticeable storylines that are far behind the novel.
• Gendry gets taken by Stanis' Red Woman in episode 6, and here's maybe the first point where the show is starting to conflate portions of the novels - Gendry and Robert's bastard from Storm's End whose blood the Red Woman uses get condensed into one character
• As I enter the final 10% of the third novel it has already blown past the end of the third season of the show, and further (I'll figure out exactly how far once I get there as I'm currently on episode 3:8).  The one aspect of the book that is much farther ahead of the show at the end of the third of each iterations is the Wildings and the Wall - the battles at Castle Black and trying to take the Wall have progressed much further in the book and seem to be leaving the show behind. 
• The "Mhysa" moment is a lot more affective in the show because it is the finale of Season 3, whereas its buried in the lost middle of Book 3.  However, Daenerys's story seems to occur in a different order in the books from a show, but hits all of the same notes. 

Book 3 ends AMAZINGLY, and it did not make the show (might have made the Tom Savini version of the show).  I do appreciate that the show gives us the chance to see a lot more perspectives, not just the points of view of the primary characters.  We see the Wildings build-up to their attack on Castle Black and the Wall in a way that it only gets explained afterward when Jon goes to play diplomat / assassin after the attack.  And we get an insight into what Theon Greyjoy's transition to Reek has been like (although, I do sense that this storyline is moving faster in the show than in the book - just as Night's Watch {and particularly the White Walker's} storylines are further ahead in the book than in the show).

Now that I am well finished with the book, and just catching up on episodes it looks like I will reach the end of Season 4 before I run out of material from A Storm of Swards, and while that is undeniable, I am not sure that there is anything happening in the show that hasn't happened in the book yet.  It occurs to me that what is ahead in the show as I watch episode 4:4 seems to be Tommen & Margaery's story - in the book, Tommen is a boy of 8, and while all of the children in the show are older than in the novels (lest the show be banned!).  Jamie also sends Brienne out in search of the Stark girls (or at least Sansa) to bring them to safety in a way that never happens (yet) in the books, and we get the adventures Brienne & Podric!  Stannis and Davos also venture to Bravos in the show (to try to get a loan, exciting banking adventures)

Bran is also way ahead of schedule in the show - he is reaching the Children / (the big GodsWood) by the final episode of Season 4, but isn't anywhere near that in Book 3.  (The Three Eyed Raven seems a lot older and a bit more "Big Trouble in Little China" than I recall him being...).  Right on schedule as the Season 4 finale closes is Tyrion who is in a box on a ship leaving King's Landing with the aid of Varys (24 May 2023)

A Feast for Crows (Book 4) / A Game of Thrones (Season 4:10 - Season 5:1 - 10 - Season 6:6)

Season 5 of the show begins much as Book 4 does - in part - Tywin Lannister's funeral and power-brokering in King's Landing, but the other storylines feel a long way off (either back from Book 3 or things that seem a long way off).  Interestingly, there are no chapters in Book 4 for Jon Snow, Tyrion Lannister, Bran Stark, nor Daenerys Targaryen - whose stories are moving forward in Season 5, so it seems some of the storylines will be a long way off by the end of this book.

Book 4 has had a lot of storyline that mostly never made it in to the show for Brienne on the trail of Sansa Stark (a quite long storyline in the book that gets wrapped up neatly in about 11 minutes of screen time in Episode 2); Cersei recombobulating her power basis in the wake of her father's... wake; the politics of Dorne, and the fate of Princess Myrcella and her King's Guard protector (which seems to have gotten translated into Jamie Lannister heading southward to insert himself in their scene); Samwell's trip to Old Town, which is just a carriage ride in the show, I think (I haven't seen it again yet), but is an arduous boat trip in the book, where he runs in to Arya Stark!; and the Iron Born's sorting out of their new king.

• The religious fervor around the new, more lowly, High Septum and all of his Sparrows is evident in both the book and show, although in the book the church's army is explicitly rekindled by Cersei, whereas their power in the show is a bit more looming and lurking and softer power. (Oh, no, it turns out it's just as explicit on the show once we get a few episodes in to Season 5).
• The battling through this religious fervor is fought through Marjorie in the books, but Ser Loras takes the initial brunt in the show
• Sansa's story is far ahead of things in the show, getting married to Ramsey Bolton, and sending Brienne off.
• And now, after having just finished the book, frack!!, I know TV series (or movies) have to oversimplify plots and sometimes combine characters, but the TV show seems to mark any character with a Valerian Sword for the Last Battle (at least as I recall it now), but a lot has changed here...
• Also, Sansa's betrothal in the book, is all to do with the politics of The Vale (maybe the Boltons are off in her future, but for now), she is being promised to the future heir to Jon Arryn's domain...
• Jorah Mormont takes Tyrion captive to bring him where he's already going in the show, which is a delightful moment that hasn't happened in the book at all.
• Arya (aka Cat of the Canals) seems to actually be on track here in Season 5 / Book 4... she gets blind, and I haven't seen the results of that in either version yet...
• In the book, Jamie Lannister heads to take out the Blackfish (instead of rescuing his daughter from Dorne), and that happens in episode 6 of Season 6

This is the best guess of episodes (Season 5: 1-6 & Season 6:6) for this book, and I've honed and revised as I watch more and start in to the next book, but because A Feast For Crows and A Dance With Dragons happen concurrently, there is just too much happening in the show that hasn't been hinted at yet in the books, I am going to stop watching any more episodes for now, but I feel like episode 6 of Season 6 is worth watching (even if it's a big jump for some bits): 

• Sam is arriving home (in the last chapter of Book 4 he arrives at Old Town, with a plan to return to Horn Hill next) 
• Margaery is playing the devout prisoner, which she is also beginning to do just as Cersei is first imprisoned (not sure if that has happened in the show yet or not).  Margaery's crimes in the books are much more inflated and Ser Loras is the one who is truly accused in the show, rather than him being killed retaking Dragonstone
• Jamie gets sent off to Riverrun...
• Benjen Stark saves Bran & Meera (which may never happen, or is at least a long way off in the books), but it seems to fulfill his role that he had for Sam & Gilly in Book 3, I think (16 June 2023)

A Dance With Dragons (Book 5) / A Game of Thrones (Season 5:1 - 10)

It's funny, the first scene from Book 5 that happens (kind of) in Season 5 is Tyrion getting out of his box, and immediately finding some wine to drink, promptly vomiting that wine, and then drinking some more wine.  While this happens, Vaerys is explaining whose house they are in, and the large cabal that he is a part of (which becomes a huge part of Book 5 with a second Targaryen claimant to the throne, Griff, {aka Prince Aegon Targaryen} none of which will happen in the show).

• Drogon shows up at the end of episode 5:2, which is being hinted at a lot by the book, but ever seems no nearer.  Given the title (ADWD) I suspect all 3 will be running wild, and protecting Dany's interests by the end of Book 5, and probably at least by the end of Season 5 
• There is a lot less religion in Book 5, at least a lot less of The Seven - maybe there's a bit more of the Lord of Light, and in the mid-going of Book 5, Bran Stark is learning a lot more about the Old Gods & the Godwood Trees than we ever learn in the show. 
• Sansa (the real Sansa) is the substitute in Season 5 for a fake Arya in Book 5 who is set to marry Ramsey Bolton.  In the books Sansa is disguised as Alayne, and Arya is actually Jane Poole.
• The death of Ser Janos Slynt in the show feels a lot more shocking having seen in on the show (Season 5:3) and the politics of The Wall are more complicated in the book, more factions and betrayals (and re-betrayals?)
• For Daenerys, it seems things happen a bit out of order - Ser Beresten dies in episode 4 (or just before episode 5) of Season 5, but he's still alive and kicking through nearly 90% of the book.  And Drogon shows up very excitingly in the book, whisking her away, which I remember now will happen in the show (but hasn't yet in episode 6).
• Tyrion, meanwhile has almost completely caught up to his narrative in episode 6, getting captured by Ser Jorah Mormont, and then sold into slavery with him (minus Penny, which is a whole other thing), and then blows right past the books in the show, taking up the role of advisor to Queen Daenerys.

I'm not sure how to follow the goings on in Dorne - with Jamie Lannister and Bronn there - a lot of the political machinations surrounding Myrcella seem to rhyme, and I expect they will both end similarly, but having Jamie there, when in the books he is up retaking Riverrun (and MEETING AN OLD FRIEND!!!) tends to muddy the adaptation a bit.  The Iron Born's story has also been almost entirely ignored in the show so far, except for Theon's suffering.  It seems to me that I need to watch at least as far into the show to see some of that.  Theon & Yara Greyjoy have just been reunited in the book with just a few chapters to go.

I've just about finished up the book this evening, with just the Epilogue to finish, and as I now begin my long wait, here is where things seem to stand:

• The trip to HardHome has been much talked about in Book 5, but has now happened in the show (Season 5: Episode 8)
• Stannis's camp is attacked in the night by Ramsey Bolton in the show (5:9), while in the book Ramsey sends a dire letter to Jon Snow, claiming to have killed Stannis, and ended his claim to the Iron Throne.  In the show, his attack on Winterfell fails, but his ultimate end comes from Brienne, who avenges Renly's death.
• So there's some stuff in the books that could never make it into a show, it's so horrible, but the one thing that isn't in the books (yet at least), but happens in "The Dance of Dragons" (5:9) is that King Stannis burns his daughter alive, as a 'blood of kings' sacrifice.
• While Tyrion did get to her a little early, Daenerys gets saved by Drogon in 5:9, too.
• Cersei makes her walk of atonement in episode 5:10.  Interestingly, in the Epilogue of Book 5, her uncle, Ser Kevin Lannister promises that his niece Cersei will get up to no more in the future.  Needless to say, in the show, she does, a lot, so we will see how that plays out in the Books to Come...
• John Snow is left for dead at the end of episode 5:10, he hasn't gotten up again in the books after he met the same fate in his final chapter, so if Season 6 ever sees him rise, I will perhaps pause, but there is more (I think more from Book 4 than 5) that is missing in the show from what has happened in the books, so I'll venture forward at least a bit, as I finish Book 5.

And so, the book has ended, and now my watch begins - the Epilogue (as several of them have been) was full of unexpected twists and turns.  Lord Varys makes an unexpected appearance (at the end of the show as well), but half a world away), and seems to be throwing King's Landing into chaos.  I will start Season 6, but feel like I won't get very far before almost everything gets ahead of things from the books. 

Potentialities, or Could Walter and Martin have been friends?

Earlier this year (about a month or so before squirrel* {BS}), I started again to read works by one of my top two "favorite"^ writers, Walter Benjamin, whose first volume of his collected writings in English I finished in toto last July.  To be sure, I've read a lot of these three collections that I own (I have Volumes 3, 2 & 1 in my collection the first {or the 3rd, depending on your perspective} of which I received as a "gift / bribe" from Malynne at the end of the first course I took with her "Cults of Personality: Hitler, Stalin Mao").  

This second volume has begun with quite a lot of short reviews and happenings-related short pieces rather than the deeper philosophical pieces that he's most known for (if Benjamin can be said to be well known in any capacity).  The reason for this is clear, with Benjamin as a young man in is mid-20s he was struggling post university to find work and publishing these short, timely works wherever he could.  Two such articles published just a couple weeks apart in a couple different newspapers were both clearly derived from one single meeting / conversation / interview with André Gide, and another couple were (very) short reviews of a book by Karl Gröber.  What's amazing to me is not the brilliant extent to which he so brazenly double dips (nor the fact that you used to just be able to do book reports and send them to a publication and get paid for it!), rather it's the way that all of it is dripping with intentionality, but so rarely concerns itself with execution.

Por ejemplo, in Benajmin's interview with André Gide, Gide repeatedly discusses the lecture that he had planned to given while he was visiting Berlin (his visit to Berlin being the occasion of Benjamin's meeting with him), but that he has been so distracted by such visits and because of the nature of Berlin life, "the leisure [he] had counted on never arrived," and he never got the chance to write the lecture. And so, instead of giving a lecture, he just vaguely outlines the ideas he had intended to cover to Benjamin, who dutifully laps them up and writes them up for two separate German newspapers, and his (Gide's) work is "complete". 

I love this concept of doing something just by saying it out loud.  Come to think of it, this is rather the same method of work employed by Peter from my time at MPS, a deep underlying faith that if you just talk about what you want to have happen it will come into being (although in this latter case it involved employing an entire staff of people who were basically there to just try and discern his wishes, and then carry out all of these whims as much as possible). In the earlier case of Benjamin and his contemporaries, the focus is much more on the potentiality of having had a great idea, and then thinking about how great it was, and not concerning yourself terribly with the fact that it never came to fruition.

Another thing that I find compelling about Walter Benjamin is that he is a near exact contemporary of my grandfather, Martinus Kvidt.  Born just 9 months apart, Benjamin on the pre-anniversary of my own wedding on 15 July 1892, and Martin on MKE day 14 April 1893, they were both part of The Lost Generation of their respective countries, and while my grandpa was off to Europe to fight in World War 1, Benjamin was a country or two away studying away at university.  

I'm not entirely sure why, but I have always been interested in synchronicities - the phenomenon of things things happening at the same time in different places (and in different worlds, even - fictional and historical and historical fictional or futural historical...).  For years, I have tried to find (or create) a calendar app that would allow for historical events to be created throughout the past (weirdly, google calendar seems to have an odd glitch {or maybe it's actually iCal that has the glitch} where you can create some events in the far distant past and they will sometimes reappear, so I sometimes am able to re-discover that George McFly was murdered on March 15, 1973 {or it possibly could have been early in the morning of the 16th; anyway the same week as when the Watergate break-in guy was being paid off...} while looking through my calendar, but other times not, as the event appears and disappears unpredictably on my Calendar app).

I like to think about contemporaries in history, art, cinema (like, for instance what was going on in 1999 cinema that made it such a spectacular sampling of content while the history of that moment wasn't especially exciting - although we were on the brink of a lot that would happen in just the next few years and ultimately set up much of what we find around us today...), literature and also to consider the generations looking back at their influences from prior generations (a process that I would have thought I could have generalized as a faster and faster process, with TikTokkers citing Taylor Swift as major influence {some 10 years earlier}, whereas Benjamin and many thinkers of his era largely looked back Centuries, and in particular 150 years give or take to the Romantic Era of German literature {your Goethes & your Schillers, etc.}, but I think this tends to over-generalizing the history of cultural influencers {ikr!?}.

Perhaps the greatest of these Influencers of the 19th Century (don't worry, I'm bringing this in for a landing) is the Kurt Cobain or Jim Morrison of his era, John Keats, who died at 25 and then suddenly thereafter became a famous and great poet.  Keats is of course most famous for writing the poem that you read in high school, "Ode to a Grecian Urn" and for aggrandizing the concept of Negative Capability.

 Negative Capability, Keats called when one is “capable of being in uncertainties, Mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after facts and reason.” 

More than anything, this concept seems like the philosophical equivalent of the thinking without necessarily doing life philosophy we were talking about before (rather like the "Harold Hill Think Method" of marching band instruction!, "la-di-da-di-da-di-daaa").

*We had a moment this past spring, where we encountered a full-on squirrel nest in the engine block of our erstwhile Ford Edge, a vehicle that had had (before and after) A LOT of other issues once it was rapidly wandering out of warranty.  It took some help, but we have finally found our way out of that Capitalist death trap, and are generally on to lower and worse things, but at least out of that! 

Synchronicity (or the Baader-Meinhoff Principal)

 I am fairly confident in saying that I am the only human in the universe to be reading (now or ever) "The House on Maple Street" & Chelsea Handler's Life Will Be the Death of Me: ...and you too! simultaneously, and this is the stuff that feels like it's not whatever this is....

Allow me to explain.  There is a phenomenon that all of us have experienced (although you may not be aware that you have experienced it - and if that is the case, once you read this post, you will notice very soon that you have just experienced this again, which will surprise you).  It is the phenomenon of acausual meaningful coincidence.  Let's say you learn a new word (or rediscover a word into your vocabulary that you don't hear used very often, but newly firmly understand the definition of).  Within a very short time of this (re)learning, you will come across this same word again in a completely different context.  This will surprise you somewhat, but then you will stumble upon that same word in yet another way (say, the solution to next Wednesday's Wordle), and you are going to be like, "whoa. This is too weird.  Like it can't be a coincidence, something is going on here."  And yes, what is going on is the Baader-Meinhoff Phenomenon.

Don't believe me?  Do you know what the word "craic" means?  No?  Go look it up, and then get on living your life and come back once you do believe me.  And then I'll finish the post...

In both the (nonfiction) book and the (fiction) short story that I'm reading, we have the matter of siblingicity - a large set (6 & 4, respectively) of brothers and sisters that are all relatively close in age who demonstrate a kind of pack mentality (with various children taking on various roles {protector, confidant, foil} depending on who they may be paired with at the moment, and those roles shifting in time).  Although the two works are working toward completely different with Chelsea Handler on a personal journey toward accessing vulnerability and improving her mental health while Stephen King is exploring a house that has a growing alien presence in it,* the depictions of the sets of siblings not only rhymes, but feels like these two sets create something almost archetypal that might be classified as The Modern American Balanced Gendered Large Set of Siblings type.  I consider 4 to be a lot of siblings (probably because it's one more than we had, so "whoa, over-do it much?", right?) and ages being that they're likely not at more than 2 different schools.  

Myself, my brothers and I are each 7 years apart, so while we are close we never had the kind of pack mentality that I felt in each of these two works.  So too families like my Campbell Cousins who were 4, but all boys and also 3 in a cluster then the much younger Michael don't quite mesh with what I saw in these works.  The other examples I come up with from literature are the kids in The Chronicles of Narnia who are aged and gendered correctly for this match-up, but from a different era and geography (I'm not sure whether it's their old-timiness or their British-ness, but the set of Peter through Lucy are highly hierarchical with roles defined in a way that is actively worked against in both of the depictions by Handler and King).  The only other example I could come up with is David Sedaris's family dynamic, but even though I know of them almost entirely** from one single perspective who is mostly playing it off for laughs, I think that what I do know more often matches up with the other two families considered here than goes off course.

I'm not sure what this all adds up to - maybe I'm just warning us all to be aware of any larger packs of kids as they may well be up to something and because of this unique dynamic have the wherewithal to pull it off.  In any cases, my brothers and sisters and all human siblings, this has been a synchronistic reading of a couple of (seemingly) random things that I was just reading.

* my goodness look at the work that this lowly comma is doing - it's absurd really, sitting there trying to balance the gargantuan dependent and independent clauses sitting there on either side of it.  Well done, little comma, keep up the good work.

** Amy Sedaris tends not to talk or write much about her family, but has done so over the years occasionally in interviews and live performances I've seen of her, and it helps to give a fuller perspective (although still another very strange and skewed one!) on the overall Sedaris brood.

A steady diet of red round things...

 

A pre-lunch snack (or perhaps it's elevensies), I have started in on Rage, which I am not sure I have ever read after first reading The Running Man a couple of weeks ago (again, a first for me, I think) so I could listen to the corresponding episode of my new favorite podcast, The Kingcast: A Stephen King Podcast for Stephen King Obsessives (their patreon page).  I've listened to half a dozen of the episodes so far, and really enjoy the fact that I may have found a couple of people who are as deeply enmeshed in King's oeuvre (and especially The Dark Tower stuff) as I am...  Almost.

Overall, not terribly inspiring... some radishes from Sendik's and some not-so-thrilling cherry tomatoes from the South Shore Farmer's Market.  Filtered Milwaukee tap water and a few chapters of Richard Bachman.

I've actually been on something of a Stephen King bender as of late (these are different than SK's benders from the old days), having finished his latest book of novellas, If It Bleeds, just this morning.  (This is actually how I usually read Stephen King, all at once for a few weeks or months, and then I leave it alone for a couple years while he builds up a new arsenal).

It got me wondering about his "Books of Four" habit (collections of 4 long short stories and/or 4 short novels/novellas/novelettes), but he really only has 3 of them now (or 4 if you count The Bachman Books), so perhaps it's not actually a pattern... Yet.

Pre-prequel

Anticipatory plagiarism is a concept I used to struggle with - coming up with a brilliant idea only to come to realize that someone else had thought of it and published it decades or even centuries earlier than you had the opportunity to get it down.

This also happens in literature when a writer unwittingly writes a similar story to something they had never come across. In general, this happens by some sort of collective osmosis (perhaps it’s a Jungian phenomenon) by which these thoughts and ideas are in the ether - part of the existing background. It’s in the groundwater. 

This morning I read a short story in the Bradbury-edited collection that I’ve been making my way through.  It’s called “Mr. Death and the Redheaded Woman”, by Helen Eustis. It is an unintentional prequel to Piers Anthony’s On a Pale Horse (by which I mean of course, Anthony unintentionally wrote a whole series of novels {of which I’ve read the first few but not all} as a follow up to Eustis’s very fine story).

I've been getting back into Wikipedia as of late, particularly as I've been reading Timeless Stories for Today and Tomorrow, edited and with an introduction by Ray Bradbury.  As I started digging into the stories, I was struck first by the sense of time - of being tales from a different (but not entirely unfamiliar) era.  Much like when I read The Thin Man last year, one of the most enjoyable parts of every story, is a real insight into how folks lived 'in the before'.

The stories have also been enjoyable in their own right, but because they are primarily speculative as opposed to pure fantasy, they each have been deeply and fundamentally rooted in the time they are written (or when they are portraying in the rare case it's not meant to be "present day").  Bradbury finished the introduction on 1 July 1951, which means the collection is made up of stories all from before that time (and likely mostly well before, given that they're mostly being re-produced and collected here in this book).

As I read the first couple stories, I wondered who the collection of writers were that Bradbury had collected.  I've heard of many of them, but the first two at least were completely unfamiliar to me.  Henry Kuttner's story, particularly, excited me as he had worked within the Cthulhu Mythos (and had corresponded with H.P. Lovecraft).  Kuttner also worked closely in collaboration with his wife, C.L. Moore and the authorship of much of his work and her work were intermingled (so much so that the story in this collection could likely have been in good part her work).

 I plodded forward, and for each story resolved to read the Wikipedia entry for each author in concert with the story.  Which brought me to Christine Govan's story, where I found no corresponding wiki-entry (though she was mentioned in a few other articles, often as a family member to someone else).  A writer in her own right, I created her article and have now noticed that Helen Eustis also has one missing.

Govan and Eustis were the second and third woman authors collected in this book, and the first two authors in the book without their own wiki-entries.  It's a problem and I am working on solving in a small way.  I created a stub for Govan, in the same way that I had Faustin E. Wirkus years ago.  I don't have the time or inclination to go in depth and create a full article, but a sourced stub about someone who definitely deserves a wiki-page will grow on its own.  It takes time, but eventually the world will help do the work (as long as it doesn't get deleted!).

Ready for Ready

It started with my damn Apple news feed...  An article about Ready Player One, that i did not need to read.  But, it had the promise of classic 80s video games online.

Source: Polygon.com

I do not love the algorithms that know what we will want to read, and present it to us.  I have read (and watched) this all before.  Dystopias come in many shapes and sizes - but a lot of them rhyme.

I knew as soon as it came out, of course, that Ready Player One was going to be a book (and then a movie!) for me.  It's in my lane, but i resisted.  In part, because Vernor Vinge's exceptional book Rainbows End felt like it was being ripped off (at least in the descriptions i heard of Cline's book).

With the premiere of Spielberg's movie fast approaching, i recalled while playing a couple of (dozen) rounds of Joust that i had downloaded the audiobook of Ready Player One (narrated by Wil Wheaton!) a while back during one of my stints of Audible membership.  I knew that if i didn't listen to it before the movie premiere, i would likely never read the book.

And so i dove in a few nights ago... and i am HOOKED.  The geek culture made relevant, and powerful.  It's so good - not great, but tons of fun, and referential.  I've finished a third of the novel - i love the Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey nod, and feel like i may finish the rest in not too many days. 

And then will probably just go straight out and see the movie as soon as it's out too... because because.

The eclipse, Hegel, and the American Road

I logged 2400 miles of American roads, 14 hours of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit, 3 full Brewers game broadcasts (all the enemy radio feed on XM), and 1 total eclipse as seen from Glendo State Park in Wyoming.

I woke up on Sunday morning and decided to forgo my Midwestern eclipse experience plans because the weather looked uncertain for optimal viewing.  En route to Deadwood, SD, I listened through the Preface (very familiar!), the Introduction and the early parts of A. Consciousness. 

My copy of Phenomenology was safely at home on my bookshelf, sitting right next to Susan Buck-Morss' excellent Hegel, Haiti, and Universal History (which I have read in its entirety!).  I bought a used copy (originally Elizabeth Trejack's it seems) at a book shop in Minnesota.  It was highlighted and underlined in a few very specific sections (it opens automatically to Lordship and Bondage), and otherwise appears largely untouched.

I first learned of the existence of a fellow called Hegel and his friend "Geist" on my first day of classes at the University of Chicago.  I read the greatest hits from Hegel's masterwork, and nodded knowingly when his influence on later theorists was discussed.  On arrival to UW-M, I heard less about Hegel (though there was quite a lot more mention of Foucault, who I only heard come up once at UChicago, and that was in a joke from a Zadie Smith reading about introducing someone at an academic party as "... she likes Michel Foucault and costume jewelry"), but dutifully put Phenomenology and Buck-Morss' book on my prelim reading list.

Naturally, like most good reading lists, I did not read most of most of the books on the list, but excel at the academic art of talking about books you have not read.  I have also not read that book, though I've held it in my hands, and skimmed through bits, and I know people who have read it.

During my long drives of the last several days, I've read through the first 513 paragraphs of Hegel's work, starting and stopping and occasionally paying more and less attention as one is wont to do when reading or listening or existing at all, I suppose.  I think this might be the best way to read Phenomenology, not as one's only or deep reading of the text, but as a way to have read through it all.  As I drove, I would make notes of paragraphs I wanted to return to (don't worry, the highways of South Dakota and Wyoming are sparsely populated, even when there's an eclipse on!).  When I was first reading Shakespeare (or first reading it in college, I can't remember which), someone (either Jerry Davis or Mary Hull Mohr) gave me the advice to "just keep going" when you're reading it and not sure you're absorbing.  It's reading as muscle memory, and the deep read of certain sections can come later (or earlier!). 

Hearing "of Lordship and Bondage" after reading through the entirety of Consciousness changes the focus of the passage.  It makes the easy reading of Hegel as writing the heroic history of Haiti less easy and fancy free.  I've come to trust Buck-Morss, and don't think her reading is at all off the mark.  That said, I think it is important to remain aware of our academic practice of the use of texts to suggest meaning and significance.

*.  *.  *

I first learned of the Great American Eclipse earlier this year, and almost in the same moment committed in my mind that I would be there to see it.  I took a few days vacation, but made few other plans, except to choose Beatrice, Nebraska as my viewing sight.  Tim & Jen & the kids live in Omaha, and actually lived in Beatrice shortly after they got married.  When the day got close, weather across the Midwest started looking dicey, and I headed west.

A total eclipse is an awe-inspiring sight, truly an opportunity to see the most awesome, magnificent vision available on earth.  An eclipse is also a random conflation of events - a new moon that aligns with the earth and sun; a sun for a planet that is about 400 times larger than the planet's moon, which is about 400 times closer than that same sun (so they take up about the same amount of sky space).  Also, we also happen to be in the small window of time, cosmically speaking, that allows this confluence.

I've been struggling to describe what I saw, or what the experience was like, or why it was worth the trip.  Finding significance in the random confluence of hunks of rock hurtling through the galaxy is what we do as humans.  Making meaning from bringing texts, histories, moments - that's what humanists do.  We live in a strange confluence of psychology, philosophy, astronomy, physics, history, sociology, geology, chronology and on and ology.

My thoughts of late have been turning back toward the super-modern, and the importance of the small.  I'm still working at making meaning from the experience of the eclipse, and from reading Hegel on the way to and from seeing the eclipse, and the observations and thoughts I had about Americans and Trump and Mt. Rushmore and history on the way to and from seeing the eclipse.  I expect that I will continue to try to build this meaning for quite some time.

What I learned or have built or have decided for now is that my phenomenology of totality has provided me some perspective on our present American experiment.  We are a strange and strained people, but I still think this is all just crazy enough to work. 

mind the gaps...

I. Preamble -

This isn't a review - rather an overall critical analysis of ueber-narrative.  I've recently been on a mission to watch the Star Wars oeuvre in chronological order (dedicated readers {I presume they will be there in future, as they aren't currently turning out in significant numbers} will note that I'm also currently on the same project in the Star Trek universe).

I know Disney and J.J. Abrams own my viewership soul, but I frakking love filling in the gaps of mythologies.  I am eager to see the story of the new episodes - VII & VIII - but watching Episode III followed by Rogue One and then A New Hope is fascinating and fulfilling.  The fun fairy tale that I knew as a kid (still has whiny little Luke) has become a robust narrative. 

I'm equally (or perhaps more) excited for the start of the new Star Trek: Discovery series starting this fall, which will bridge the end of Enterprise to the days of ST: TOS (by way of the lost ship at the center of the plot of Star Trek Beyond).

Walter Benjamin has a concept called Jetztzeit (now-time), which he also calls messianic-time. The simplest framing of this concept for me is using the latter term, and imagining the potentiality of all times (of each moment) to contain salvation (or revolution, or clarity).  This concept is fundamental in Benjamin's oeuvre, and is related I think to the concept of hyper-modernity (or supermodernity), which is the idea of the whole being explained or understood or accounted for in every part. This is also a common theme for Benjamin, and in many ways his Arcades Project is the prototypical work of supermodernity.

I have my own (as yet unnamed) theory of reality and being and narrative. The line of thinking goes something like this: the act of literary creation is, in fact, an instance of literal creation. By imagining a thing (or perhaps by writing it down or filming it or publishing it,,, I'm not too clear on all of the specifics), that thing is created in reality. It is evoked. The actuality of the thing is explained scientifically (I use this word loosely) by multiple worlds / realities theory - the idea that every choice or possible outcome exists in parallel realities.

II. Messianic Time / Messianic Space -

The Arcades Project is Benjamin's masterwork.  It is a collection of quotes and fragments focused on a series of subjects relating to the Paris Arcades, which Benjamin works through.  Benjamin is sitting in the mid-20th Century looking back at the 19th Century for meaning.  The work is a strong candidate for bibliomancy; a lot of obscure passages that can be interpreted for a lot of situations. 



III. Container Story

We see ourselves as occupying 'the real' world, and the narratives we create are a part of our world.  The Chronicles of Amber has another, different starting place (actually 2, Amber and the Courts of Chaos), but contains the same conclusion, that there is a real space, which begets all else.

The Dark Tower is


IV. Narratives of scale -

Star Trek is the future narrative of a world much like ours.  Star Wars claims to be in the distant past, far away.  In time, both of these narratives might be found to be in the same universe (that's right, I'm loosely proposing that Wesley Crusher is the next last Jedi).

This weekend, The Dark Tower is being released in cinemas across the country - another new chapter in a long-established narrative.  The tag line on early images teasing the new movie was "The Last Time Around...". 

The narrative of the film (mild-spoiler alert warning) is in some ways an odd reformulation of Stephen King's first novel of the series - The Gunslinger -, but it's a bit hard to recognize as such.  In the novel, Jake Chambers is torn from his native New York (although we don't see this at this point in the series) and pulled into Mid-World.

This new iteration of a decades old story feels a bit out of synch when watched on its own.  Stephen King's Dark Tower universe is a narrative that contains all other narratives - all other realities in fact.  As a reader, familiar with the scope and scale of the Dark Tower universes, the new film feels like a sprinting tour of the whole series of novels.  At the same time, it's a reset button in which Jake Chambers saves Roland's quest, which has been lost to the pursuit of revenge.  The movie finds Roland having forgotten the face of his father.



VI. All of us are 'one of the most important figures' in our own universes, our own narratives


Much like Benjamin's "Capitalism as Religion", I intend this entry to be something robust and interesting... but I want to post (it's been a while!), so there may be a while before the overall outline gets filled in.