1. Wall painting animation
2. Spiral Jetty
I told Murray that Albert Speer wanted to build...
structures that would decay gloriously, impressively, like Roman ruins. No rusty hulks or gnarled steel slums... He did a drawing of a...structure that was to be built of special materials, allowing it to crumble romantically—a drawing of fallen walls, half columns furled in wisteria. The ruin is built into the creation, I said, which shows a certain nostalgia behind the power principle, or a tendency to organize the longings of future generations.
Murray said, "I don't trust anybody's nostalgia but my own. Nostalgia is a product of dissatisfaction and rage. It's a settling of grievances between the present and the past. The more powerful the nostalgia, the closer you come to violence. War is the form nostalgia takes when men are hard-pressed to say something good about their country."
- Don Delillo (White Noise, 1985)
Quick Quotes 1
Beware of people who dislike cats.
- Irish Sayings quotes
I used to be make my bed in the morning to be tidy, now it's to keep myself from getting back in it.
-Tyler Samien
There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all.
- Peter Drucker
It is only the great men who are truly obscene. If they had not dared to be obscene, they could never have dared to be great.
- Havelock Ellis
- Irish Sayings quotes
I used to be make my bed in the morning to be tidy, now it's to keep myself from getting back in it.
-Tyler Samien
There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all.
- Peter Drucker
It is only the great men who are truly obscene. If they had not dared to be obscene, they could never have dared to be great.
- Havelock Ellis
Midnight's Children by Salman Rushdie
Review by Tyler Samien
Let’s just clear it up from the start, Midnight’s Children is a masterpiece. It has received not only the Man Booker Prize for Fiction but also the Booker of Bookers Prize, (the best of books given the Booker). The way Rushdie plays with the plot’s timeline through narration and connection to the supposed present is incredibly well-done. The magical realism, the children’s powers, his life being tied to the life of India are all stimulating inclusions. The touching moments between characters, the details of their relationships could only have been written by an author empathetic to the lives of people around him. Yada yada, masterpiece yada yada, so on and so forth. Let’s get to the point of this review: I didn’t much enjoy reading Midnight’s Children.
It’s a long book by my standards; over 500 pages of medium-small print. Completing it took a considerable chunk of time, of life, from me. I don’t regret reading. Like I said, it’s a masterpiece, masterpieces are worth the time. But I often found myself flipping ahead to find the next chapter, or line, break. I frequently reread because I wasn’t interested enough in what was presented to keep from being distracted. I felt like I was reading an uncut version of a book that had been awarded masterpiece status in reduced form.
To make it worse, something drags in Midnight’s Children and I think it’s a lack of interesting sub-text, of spirituality, of unifying theme in a book that sets itself up to be all about such substance. I don't get the same sense of depth and insight from Rushdie I get from other "masters" like Ian McEwen or Ayn Rand. It's hardly academic to make such a statement without backing it up. But I did and won't. This review is opinion, not analysis.
I’ll get to the Satanic Verses eventually out of respect for its reputation, but it’s hard for me to recommend Midnight’s Children as highly as the folks behind the Booker Prize when there are other masterful pieces I’ve found enjoyable and inspiring in a more thorough and consistent manner. But read it for yourself if you’ve no other masterpieces lined up. Rushdie is smart, he’s clever, he’s controversial, he has a unique style, intelligent vocabulary, and ideas I haven’t seen elsewhere. Besides, against the Booker people, what do I know?
Let’s just clear it up from the start, Midnight’s Children is a masterpiece. It has received not only the Man Booker Prize for Fiction but also the Booker of Bookers Prize, (the best of books given the Booker). The way Rushdie plays with the plot’s timeline through narration and connection to the supposed present is incredibly well-done. The magical realism, the children’s powers, his life being tied to the life of India are all stimulating inclusions. The touching moments between characters, the details of their relationships could only have been written by an author empathetic to the lives of people around him. Yada yada, masterpiece yada yada, so on and so forth. Let’s get to the point of this review: I didn’t much enjoy reading Midnight’s Children.
It’s a long book by my standards; over 500 pages of medium-small print. Completing it took a considerable chunk of time, of life, from me. I don’t regret reading. Like I said, it’s a masterpiece, masterpieces are worth the time. But I often found myself flipping ahead to find the next chapter, or line, break. I frequently reread because I wasn’t interested enough in what was presented to keep from being distracted. I felt like I was reading an uncut version of a book that had been awarded masterpiece status in reduced form.
To make it worse, something drags in Midnight’s Children and I think it’s a lack of interesting sub-text, of spirituality, of unifying theme in a book that sets itself up to be all about such substance. I don't get the same sense of depth and insight from Rushdie I get from other "masters" like Ian McEwen or Ayn Rand. It's hardly academic to make such a statement without backing it up. But I did and won't. This review is opinion, not analysis.
I’ll get to the Satanic Verses eventually out of respect for its reputation, but it’s hard for me to recommend Midnight’s Children as highly as the folks behind the Booker Prize when there are other masterful pieces I’ve found enjoyable and inspiring in a more thorough and consistent manner. But read it for yourself if you’ve no other masterpieces lined up. Rushdie is smart, he’s clever, he’s controversial, he has a unique style, intelligent vocabulary, and ideas I haven’t seen elsewhere. Besides, against the Booker people, what do I know?
Three great image collections:
I'd space these out over a few days (there are a lot of pictures).
OMG That Rocks!
Hacked
Marcofolio Imagedump
OMG That Rocks!
Hacked
Marcofolio Imagedump
"Protective as Brink's, polite as tea...
respectful as a job applicant during a recession... Southern men were trapped in a backwater of masculine ethics, a classical male image that the rest of the population had largely outgrown. To be sure, their code of honor precipitated their chivalrous charm. but it also fostered the primate-band competitiveness that prevented them from relaxing unless dead drunk. Their strength was a facade, for it emanated from rules and protocol rather than from self-knowledge or inner resources. They were paper tigers, these Dixie white boys.
-- Tom Robbins (Skinny Legs and All, 1990)
-- Tom Robbins (Skinny Legs and All, 1990)
"Early religions were like muddy ponds...
with lots of foliage. Concealed there, the fish of the soul could splash and feed. Eventually, however, religions became aquariums. Then, hatcheries...
We approach the Divine by enlarging our souls and lighting up our brains...
But such activity runs counter to the aspirations of commerce and politics. Politics is the science of domination, and persons in the process of enlargement and illumination are notoriously difficult to control. Therefore, to protect its vested interests, politics usurped religion a very long tme ago. Kings bought off priests with land and adornments. Together, they drained the shady ponds and replaced them with fishtanks. The walls of the tanks were constructed of ignorance and superstition, held together with fear. They called the tanks "synagogues" or "churches" or "mosques."
Religion is nothing but institutionalized mysticism. The catch is, mysticism does not lend itself to institutionalization. The moment we attempt to organize mysticism, we destroy its essence. Religion, then, is mysticism in which the mystical has been killed. Or, at least diminished.
not only is religion divisive and oppressive, it is also a denial of all that is divine in people; it is a suffocation of the soul."
- Tom Robbins (Skinny Legs and All, 1990)
We approach the Divine by enlarging our souls and lighting up our brains...
But such activity runs counter to the aspirations of commerce and politics. Politics is the science of domination, and persons in the process of enlargement and illumination are notoriously difficult to control. Therefore, to protect its vested interests, politics usurped religion a very long tme ago. Kings bought off priests with land and adornments. Together, they drained the shady ponds and replaced them with fishtanks. The walls of the tanks were constructed of ignorance and superstition, held together with fear. They called the tanks "synagogues" or "churches" or "mosques."
Religion is nothing but institutionalized mysticism. The catch is, mysticism does not lend itself to institutionalization. The moment we attempt to organize mysticism, we destroy its essence. Religion, then, is mysticism in which the mystical has been killed. Or, at least diminished.
not only is religion divisive and oppressive, it is also a denial of all that is divine in people; it is a suffocation of the soul."
- Tom Robbins (Skinny Legs and All, 1990)
Habitual chartist: nature or nurture?
Charts and schedules motivate me, sometimes ridiculously so (as I am about to show). Often the intrinsic payoff for accomplishing a task pales beside the fulfillment I feel as I place a clean check mark within the lines of that little box on a “to do” list. But what's wrong with it if it helps me get things done? During completion of the objectives on a list I have a sense of control; afterward, an indisputable visual proof of progress. How can this be a bad thing?
Well, for one, at times my day-to-day self seems slave to someone else, to the occasional part of me that emerges for planning sessions to make charts and “to do” lists during small bursts of discontentment. Lately that part of me has gotten out of control. Here is a somewhat useful chart I made to develop good habits, but here is a useless chart made to determine what I will eat for breakfast and another for bathroom usage. Here is a “to do” list I made for the current hour.
I’m beginning to think I should seek professional help for my habitual chart-making, but who should pay the psychiatry bills? If this inclination sprouts from a childhood of chore-charts and, as early as age 7, forced distribution categories on my allowance, the bills will goes to my mother. If the chartist in me is genetic, my HMO should cover it.
But it’s almost 10 til, I need to wrap this up. I’ll pencil in “attempt resolution to chartist problem” for sometime next week. Time to check out more charts!
Well, for one, at times my day-to-day self seems slave to someone else, to the occasional part of me that emerges for planning sessions to make charts and “to do” lists during small bursts of discontentment. Lately that part of me has gotten out of control. Here is a somewhat useful chart I made to develop good habits, but here is a useless chart made to determine what I will eat for breakfast and another for bathroom usage. Here is a “to do” list I made for the current hour.
I’m beginning to think I should seek professional help for my habitual chart-making, but who should pay the psychiatry bills? If this inclination sprouts from a childhood of chore-charts and, as early as age 7, forced distribution categories on my allowance, the bills will goes to my mother. If the chartist in me is genetic, my HMO should cover it.
But it’s almost 10 til, I need to wrap this up. I’ll pencil in “attempt resolution to chartist problem” for sometime next week. Time to check out more charts!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)