This is a list of my favorite books:
1. Widle: The Picture of Dorian Gray
1. Orwell: 1984
2. Proust: Swann's Way
3. Camus: The Stranger
3. Joyce: A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man
4. Stoker: Dracula
5. Bulgakov: The Master and Margarita
6. Capote: In Cold Blood
7. Vonnegut: Slaughterhouse-Five
8. Dumas: The Count of Monte Cristo
13 June, 2010
An op-ed
Here is a copy of the op-ed I wrote in the Kalamazoo Gazette in October.
http://www.mlive.com/columns/kzgazette/index.ssf?/base/columns-6/1255704648126600.xml&coll=7
http://www.mlive.com/columns/kzgazette/index.ssf?/base/columns-6/1255704648126600.xml&coll=7
An interesting conversation
This happened a few months ago now, but I have been meaning to post it here. Americans: What is your response? Names have been changed.
John________ April 11 at 1:06am
Now listen, you have an intelligent sense if humour. I was out with all these "theatre" homo, who were as usual "advising" who should sing in what etc. Anyway, one mentioned writing a new musical, and I suggested 9/11 the musical, and the title song could be "it's raining men"...NOW...I think that's funny, but only one other did, who I hasten to add, is intelligent...Answer on a postcard. X
This was mine:
Michael __________April 11 at 12:58pm
Well, I can certainly see why only one person thought that was funny; most Americans are still quite sensitive about 9/11, and I would not expect that to change anytime in the near future. I think your joke is almost funny, but you must admit, it's a bit macabre; you probably would have had more luck outside of NY. Generally, I would assume that making a comical reference to the hundreds of people who jumped out of the towers to their deaths, while the entire world was watching--to people who likely witnessed it--is seen to be disastrously poor taste.
I mean, to suggest that a musical should be produced commemorating 9/11 is one thing--even though it would be a questionable medium artistically to commemorate such a tragic event. But to also suggest that it be funny (since "It's Raining Men" falls well short of serious) is pretty strongly grounded in what most people would likely describe as insensitivity to not only the current, fragile American condition, but also and especially, offensive to those relatives of people who had to wait WEEKS to find out if their loved ones were alive, only to find out that they were peeled off the pavement after jumping to their deaths in desperation.
Now, like you, I am not easily offended. But if I had been present to hear you say that--and I hate to bring this into the conversation, but it's important in this context--especially as a foreign citizen living in the US, I would have launched into a tirade like the one you just read. I would have attempted to explain to you--American citizen or not--why things as tragic as 9/11 or the holocaust SHOULD NEVER be joked about.
Besides those directly affected, the ENTIRE WORLD was indirectly affected by the destruction of the WTC. So an attempt to make it funny--especially so soon--is really not funny at all, but rather quite shocking in the comments' implicit suggestions that mass murder be somehow humorous.
Because it just isn't, John.
John________ April 11 at 1:06am
Now listen, you have an intelligent sense if humour. I was out with all these "theatre" homo, who were as usual "advising" who should sing in what etc. Anyway, one mentioned writing a new musical, and I suggested 9/11 the musical, and the title song could be "it's raining men"...NOW...I think that's funny, but only one other did, who I hasten to add, is intelligent...Answer on a postcard. X
This was mine:
Michael __________April 11 at 12:58pm
Well, I can certainly see why only one person thought that was funny; most Americans are still quite sensitive about 9/11, and I would not expect that to change anytime in the near future. I think your joke is almost funny, but you must admit, it's a bit macabre; you probably would have had more luck outside of NY. Generally, I would assume that making a comical reference to the hundreds of people who jumped out of the towers to their deaths, while the entire world was watching--to people who likely witnessed it--is seen to be disastrously poor taste.
I mean, to suggest that a musical should be produced commemorating 9/11 is one thing--even though it would be a questionable medium artistically to commemorate such a tragic event. But to also suggest that it be funny (since "It's Raining Men" falls well short of serious) is pretty strongly grounded in what most people would likely describe as insensitivity to not only the current, fragile American condition, but also and especially, offensive to those relatives of people who had to wait WEEKS to find out if their loved ones were alive, only to find out that they were peeled off the pavement after jumping to their deaths in desperation.
Now, like you, I am not easily offended. But if I had been present to hear you say that--and I hate to bring this into the conversation, but it's important in this context--especially as a foreign citizen living in the US, I would have launched into a tirade like the one you just read. I would have attempted to explain to you--American citizen or not--why things as tragic as 9/11 or the holocaust SHOULD NEVER be joked about.
Besides those directly affected, the ENTIRE WORLD was indirectly affected by the destruction of the WTC. So an attempt to make it funny--especially so soon--is really not funny at all, but rather quite shocking in the comments' implicit suggestions that mass murder be somehow humorous.
Because it just isn't, John.
It's a little bit funny....
I often wonder why people betray themselves. I see it happen everyday, especially in a drinking-mediocre-apathy championed subculture that seems to flourish in Kalamazoo. I should clarify what I mean by betrayal: a definite set of speech that allows one to appear less intelligent than they really are in order to be successfully assimilated into said subculture. The easiest way to understand this principle is simply by watching people interact at a bar. Conversations so rarely foray into real topics that matter; or admittedly, topics that should matter.
This is not merely my personal opinion that those who possess intelligence have, to echo Lionel Trilling, a moral obligation to exert that intelligence in some way. There are too many in American society that do not possess high intellectual capacity or ability, but believe that they do, as evidenced by this wonderful study: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
Bertrand Russel's "In the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt" is incredibly apt.
I think the situation must be remedied or at the very least, improved. I suggest to those who notice this phenomenon, especially if they are apart of Russell's "doubting intellectuals," that they try to be a bit more cocksure. I have always championed this approach successfully. True, it does contain the possibility that you might be viewed as a party pooper or know-it-all, but seriously, is that really a legitimate reason to not uphold the truth? Just because something is easy doesn't make it right, and to let people languish in their own under-conceptualized perspective of the world is just wrong. I pursue these conversations because maybe, just maybe, there is a chance that my interlocutors will see a glimmer of the perspective from which I approach the world. For other intellectuals--some of my best friends in fact--it is a worthless enterprise, but for me it is too enticing to ignore.
Naturally, you might be asking yourself: Well, he is awfully sure of his own perspective, what makes him so confident? Besides the fact that I personally love to argue about anything (and it isn't to be a dick; nay, it is in the pursuit of my idealized [naive?] goal above), it is the knowledge that society is an ever changing and relative structure, and is bound by the limits of discourse, institutions, and power. This really touches home for me, because I have been all over the world and seen the accomplishments of our race when we work as a collective of intellectuals. I wish I could describe the awe of gazing up at the largest church dome in the world and knowing that it has been around since the *16th century.* Seriously folks, what happened? Next time you are at a bar, try pursuing a topic of conversation that enhances or challenges a perspective, whether yours or someone else's. To bring us full circle, I think it would be best to end this post with my favorite quote. It is certainly an apt observation of society, and one that I interpret as a call to arms in many ways:
"It isn't evil that is ruining our earth, but mediocrity. The crime is not that Nero played while Rome burned, but that he played badly."--Ned Rorem (1964!)
This is not merely my personal opinion that those who possess intelligence have, to echo Lionel Trilling, a moral obligation to exert that intelligence in some way. There are too many in American society that do not possess high intellectual capacity or ability, but believe that they do, as evidenced by this wonderful study: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
Bertrand Russel's "In the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt" is incredibly apt.
I think the situation must be remedied or at the very least, improved. I suggest to those who notice this phenomenon, especially if they are apart of Russell's "doubting intellectuals," that they try to be a bit more cocksure. I have always championed this approach successfully. True, it does contain the possibility that you might be viewed as a party pooper or know-it-all, but seriously, is that really a legitimate reason to not uphold the truth? Just because something is easy doesn't make it right, and to let people languish in their own under-conceptualized perspective of the world is just wrong. I pursue these conversations because maybe, just maybe, there is a chance that my interlocutors will see a glimmer of the perspective from which I approach the world. For other intellectuals--some of my best friends in fact--it is a worthless enterprise, but for me it is too enticing to ignore.
Naturally, you might be asking yourself: Well, he is awfully sure of his own perspective, what makes him so confident? Besides the fact that I personally love to argue about anything (and it isn't to be a dick; nay, it is in the pursuit of my idealized [naive?] goal above), it is the knowledge that society is an ever changing and relative structure, and is bound by the limits of discourse, institutions, and power. This really touches home for me, because I have been all over the world and seen the accomplishments of our race when we work as a collective of intellectuals. I wish I could describe the awe of gazing up at the largest church dome in the world and knowing that it has been around since the *16th century.* Seriously folks, what happened? Next time you are at a bar, try pursuing a topic of conversation that enhances or challenges a perspective, whether yours or someone else's. To bring us full circle, I think it would be best to end this post with my favorite quote. It is certainly an apt observation of society, and one that I interpret as a call to arms in many ways:
"It isn't evil that is ruining our earth, but mediocrity. The crime is not that Nero played while Rome burned, but that he played badly."--Ned Rorem (1964!)
31 March, 2010
Battles and Interrogations
My friend posted this as her Facebook status:
____________tries to remember: "Be kinder than necessary; everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle."
I have problems with this statement for some reason. In attempting to interrogate--perhaps more aptly to deconstruct-- why I have a problem with it, let's examine the premises upon which it is based.
This mantra assumes that day-to-day experiences can be metaphorically represented as battles, which, by definition, must be won or lost by one set of participants. In taking this first assumption, we find embedded within it the connotation that "fighting a battle" is associated negatively with aspects of life; it implicitly suggests that conflict (battle) is fuel for a broader social dissonance, and therefore propagates the admittedly unrealistic view of human interaction as being inherently unconfrontational or peaceful. One is "kinder than necessary," then, in order to prevent the complications inherent in any given or hypothetical personal battle: stress, anxiety, anger, discontent, lost experience, lost knowledge, etc. Perhaps even to avoid "battle" and its complications all together. Since humanity has been conditioned to eschew conflict--examples are everywhere in mainstream media-- it associates negative emotion with anything past the status quo of social interaction. The statement suggests, then, we all must collectively be kinder than usual , kinder than we are. So when one is "kinder than necessary," one is protecting not only themselves and their possible interlocutor from "battle," but their society as well by betraying practical human agency.
So, it is fair to say that this statement has inherent and bold conformist meaning, that is, the statement assumes that:
A.) Everyone interprets life as a series of unending conflicts (Positive [winner] and negative [loser]);
B.) Everyone is only partly kind, rather than consistently kind. (Conditioning)
C.) In order for society to be productive and functional, members of the society must conform to unwritten rules codifying the society's own propagation of consonance between members. By extension then,
Ca.) Members of a society, in order to function within it, must conform to normative social interaction.
In addition to promoting conformist attitudes, the statement also implies that humans--and their interactions--exist normally, within a status quo; and that status quo's outcomes in our lives are directly influenced by another's interference or non-interference in "the battle." Thus, if we label daily conflicts as battles, thinking again that they must be either won or lost by the participating and primary party, then this statement is also implying that when we act "kinder than necessary," we are actually interfering positively, rather than negatively, on the outcome of the battle. To put this a bit more bluntly: the statement implies that alone, we cannot win battles; that we need the help of others to overcome any foreseeable or hypothetical conflicts within our lives. Thus this conclusion dually functions as not only further illuminating the statements conformist attitude, but also furthering the uselessness of human agency. Do not think for yourself; do not cause trouble in society; do not foster negativity; do not ask questions of why, only questions of how. Hence, this statement is arrogant in its idealistic perspective that the world is a peaceful place of cohabitation and coexistence--which we can all recognize as fallacy by simply glancing at today's newspaper headlines.
The statement also preserves and proscribes meaning to itself. Why should we be "kinder than necessary" if not to validate our own and our other's battles? Or, from a broader approach, our own and other's existences? By avoiding conflict and remaining passive, we can not only help others but also help ourselves! Obviously, this is an entirely absurd notion.
It must be said that when I stumbled across this Facebook post, I was immediately bothered by it. The above discussion is my own subjective interpretation of what the statement could mean when taken in a social context, and by no means is it exhaustive. There could be a whole slew of other things that it implies, but it's late and I don't really feel like getting into that.
I am not reflecting negatively on what the person who posted this was trying to say, since when you take the statement at face value it makes decent sense; rather, I am reflecting on what I perceive to be embedded within the statement, that which makes the statement work (so to speak) within a broader contextualized perspective of life. It is my own personal perspective of life that drives these interpretations; a perspective that upholds the necessity of human agency and the many personal connotations that follow it, one that is necessarily confident in the ability of the self rather than the ability of the many. I certainly respect the ability of the many; I am as idealistic as the next guy, but the statement really rubbed me the wrong way, as if it implied that as individuals we do not matter. I have always placed the will of the individual above the will of the collected; so there you have it.
____________tries to remember: "Be kinder than necessary; everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle."
I have problems with this statement for some reason. In attempting to interrogate--perhaps more aptly to deconstruct-- why I have a problem with it, let's examine the premises upon which it is based.
This mantra assumes that day-to-day experiences can be metaphorically represented as battles, which, by definition, must be won or lost by one set of participants. In taking this first assumption, we find embedded within it the connotation that "fighting a battle" is associated negatively with aspects of life; it implicitly suggests that conflict (battle) is fuel for a broader social dissonance, and therefore propagates the admittedly unrealistic view of human interaction as being inherently unconfrontational or peaceful. One is "kinder than necessary," then, in order to prevent the complications inherent in any given or hypothetical personal battle: stress, anxiety, anger, discontent, lost experience, lost knowledge, etc. Perhaps even to avoid "battle" and its complications all together. Since humanity has been conditioned to eschew conflict--examples are everywhere in mainstream media-- it associates negative emotion with anything past the status quo of social interaction. The statement suggests, then, we all must collectively be kinder than usual , kinder than we are. So when one is "kinder than necessary," one is protecting not only themselves and their possible interlocutor from "battle," but their society as well by betraying practical human agency.
So, it is fair to say that this statement has inherent and bold conformist meaning, that is, the statement assumes that:
A.) Everyone interprets life as a series of unending conflicts (Positive [winner] and negative [loser]);
B.) Everyone is only partly kind, rather than consistently kind. (Conditioning)
C.) In order for society to be productive and functional, members of the society must conform to unwritten rules codifying the society's own propagation of consonance between members. By extension then,
Ca.) Members of a society, in order to function within it, must conform to normative social interaction.
In addition to promoting conformist attitudes, the statement also implies that humans--and their interactions--exist normally, within a status quo; and that status quo's outcomes in our lives are directly influenced by another's interference or non-interference in "the battle." Thus, if we label daily conflicts as battles, thinking again that they must be either won or lost by the participating and primary party, then this statement is also implying that when we act "kinder than necessary," we are actually interfering positively, rather than negatively, on the outcome of the battle. To put this a bit more bluntly: the statement implies that alone, we cannot win battles; that we need the help of others to overcome any foreseeable or hypothetical conflicts within our lives. Thus this conclusion dually functions as not only further illuminating the statements conformist attitude, but also furthering the uselessness of human agency. Do not think for yourself; do not cause trouble in society; do not foster negativity; do not ask questions of why, only questions of how. Hence, this statement is arrogant in its idealistic perspective that the world is a peaceful place of cohabitation and coexistence--which we can all recognize as fallacy by simply glancing at today's newspaper headlines.
The statement also preserves and proscribes meaning to itself. Why should we be "kinder than necessary" if not to validate our own and our other's battles? Or, from a broader approach, our own and other's existences? By avoiding conflict and remaining passive, we can not only help others but also help ourselves! Obviously, this is an entirely absurd notion.
It must be said that when I stumbled across this Facebook post, I was immediately bothered by it. The above discussion is my own subjective interpretation of what the statement could mean when taken in a social context, and by no means is it exhaustive. There could be a whole slew of other things that it implies, but it's late and I don't really feel like getting into that.
I am not reflecting negatively on what the person who posted this was trying to say, since when you take the statement at face value it makes decent sense; rather, I am reflecting on what I perceive to be embedded within the statement, that which makes the statement work (so to speak) within a broader contextualized perspective of life. It is my own personal perspective of life that drives these interpretations; a perspective that upholds the necessity of human agency and the many personal connotations that follow it, one that is necessarily confident in the ability of the self rather than the ability of the many. I certainly respect the ability of the many; I am as idealistic as the next guy, but the statement really rubbed me the wrong way, as if it implied that as individuals we do not matter. I have always placed the will of the individual above the will of the collected; so there you have it.
18 February, 2010
Transition
The title of this post could describe several periods in my life which have already occured. The series of events and feelings that make up what can be labeled a "transition" is a state of being, and we all experience it in phases. This does not necessarily imply a forward progression, but I like to think that with me it is.
I am finding myself in one of these new periods, where very much in my life is the same save one aspect that has been a major part of it for over a year. Of course, I immediately recognized this and did my best to curb its influence, so I believe that this is a minor transition, the first in a progression that will culminate after I have lived in London for about a month to three months.
The transitory period can exert visible influence on us, albeit not always measurable, and does not have to be positive, although I look at it this way. Being able to make efficient use of time during one of these phases is key, especially at this point in my life. Goals should be present and attainable, measurable with each day. A new state of mind and habit develop or evolve, but only if once can embrace it.
I am ready.
I am finding myself in one of these new periods, where very much in my life is the same save one aspect that has been a major part of it for over a year. Of course, I immediately recognized this and did my best to curb its influence, so I believe that this is a minor transition, the first in a progression that will culminate after I have lived in London for about a month to three months.
The transitory period can exert visible influence on us, albeit not always measurable, and does not have to be positive, although I look at it this way. Being able to make efficient use of time during one of these phases is key, especially at this point in my life. Goals should be present and attainable, measurable with each day. A new state of mind and habit develop or evolve, but only if once can embrace it.
I am ready.
11 February, 2010
Another Successful Encounter
I went to Olga's Kitchen for dinner this evening, and oh boy, what a night. The guy, totally reminiscent of a homeless person, was being ultra rude to his server and the manager after he barked some orders to his server and she did something wrong. The following conversation ensued:
Me: (Quite Loudly) Excuse me, We are both servers (referring to Kristi, who was also present), and it's people like you that make me hate my job.
Guy: (stupefied)
(stupefied)
(stupefied)
We are about to leave when he says:
Guy: Well if you hate your job, maybe you should get some sort of different future!
Me: At least I have one.
Several people verbally thanked me for calling this guy out. This is why the world needs more confident people.
The end.
Me: (Quite Loudly) Excuse me, We are both servers (referring to Kristi, who was also present), and it's people like you that make me hate my job.
Guy: (stupefied)
(stupefied)
(stupefied)
We are about to leave when he says:
Guy: Well if you hate your job, maybe you should get some sort of different future!
Me: At least I have one.
Several people verbally thanked me for calling this guy out. This is why the world needs more confident people.
The end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
