Dr. Rat

What are they reading? --eric

Coincidentally, one of the things I've studied quite a bit is the emergence of periodical publications in the 17th and 18th centuries. The problem you see with blogs is one you often see with new forms--people seem to have some feeling for the new possibilities opened up by the new form (in this case the blog) but they end up using it largely to replicate older forms (newsgroup, bulletin boards). For instance, when printing was invented it was mainly used to supplement the manuscript book production, and it is sometimes difficult to tell the difference between mass-produced manuscripts and early printed works. It took years and years for printers, writers and readers to explore the possibilities opened up by the availability of relatively cheap printed products. The blog is still a form in development, but obviously the possibilities of this kind of publication have struck a chord with both writers and readers. I see them as something of a return to the early periodical essay (Addison & Steele, etc.) where there is a value to the maintenance of a particular authorial voice, where there is managed give-and-take with the audience, and where establishing a sense of community may be the biggest factor in the success of a blog (as opposed to anything the blog might actually talk about). With the possibilities of hyperlinking syndication and powerful search engines, though, blogging is WAY more content-intensive than early periodicals. And with the proliferation of many many blogs, it is interesting to see how specific and detailed many of them can get. (For instance, there are good blogs by experts on climate science, on chaos theory, on evolutionary psychology that laypeople can puzzle out if they so choose.) Blogging might be a fad, but it might also be one of the big forms of the future. I think you are already seeing blogs that are staking out interesting new territory in the realm of literary form. But you have to come to them with a full knowledge of the older conventions they might use (the bulletin board or whatever) and an acceptance of the way they might defy the expectations developed by those earlier forms. --eric

On the whole, one of the things that most irked me about Clem was his style, which I thought was WAY too wink-nudge, way too cutsey, and, at the end of the day, demeaning to those folks who actually use some of the idioms he was casually trying to incorporate into his own image. Sometimes imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, sometimes it's nothing but a pose. We've all got our styles, of course, mine (i think) reflecting all the 18-century stuff I've read (bit of swift, bit of steele, bit of smollett . . .) I don't mind stream of consciousness or any "difficult" literary style when its the right tool for the job. I found, often as not, Clem's use of it was nothing but obscurantism and an attempt to give the wink to the wider audience that he didn't really take the person he was speaking to seriously. All that said, he's obviously far from illiterate. I'm sure he'd be ecstatic that someone would fall for his colloquialism act so far as to call him that. My read was that he was an upper-middle-class university-educated person wanting to be something much more earthy and "authentic" than that. I imagine that Clem to be pretty smart, pretty well-read, and . . . in need of some better models of organic intellectualism than he's got at the moment. (and no I'm not suggesting he look here!) Don't KNOW if this applies to Clem, but I see him as an example of what I used to see often amongst my students: sharp young people with rotten role models. The way the university tenuring system works now, most of the people with power and prestige are not the best intellectuals--they are the best higher-ed beaurocrats and politicians, who are often deeply intellectually dishonest and politically opportunist. (In saying this I should note that I'm ABD, so you can write me off as bitter if you like.) Lastly: it's interesting the Clem were building here in his absence! --eric

My experience is relatively limited: I was born and raised in Philly, and have spent significan amounts of time in New Brunswick, NJ and Traverse City. As for small towns, I have to say that I like living in a world that is knowable. I don't like never having anonymity. For big places, I love the cultural opportunity (food, people, culture). I don't like all the civic problems seeming intractible and the lack of a common context. I voted "doesn't matter" because they both have their pluses and minuses. I think I'd probably be voting "big city" if not for the fact that I've spend a lot of my life in them, and I am actually enjoying the novelty of a small ltown at the moment. --eric

This is partially remaindered at my local book dump. Should I get it? --eric

I too butted heads with Clem on a number of occasions, and as was probably pretty obvious to everyone he had a number of traits and practices that very much irked me, but I had a soft spot for him. But I'm not going to tell that vicious scoundrel where that soft spot is, cause I know he'd have no compunction about going right for it! --eric

WNMC Jazz adds for this week: # ARTIST Recording 1 ORGANISSIMO This Is The Place 2 GARAGE A TROIS Outre Mer 3 MARC COURTNEY JOHNSON Marc Courtney Johnson 4 SANDY CRESSMAN Brasil-Sempre no Coração 5 SAMMY FIGUEROA And Sammy Walked In --eric

I don't think I can add anything to the wise and touching things you and others have already written. But let me express my sympathies to you, Conrad. --eric

Brown's only won one championship, and his teams are not always right there, BUT these aren't the only standard by which coaches should be judged. Anyone can see who wins the championship every year, so it is an easy standard to apply, but by that standard there is one successful coach every year and a couple of dozen bums. We all know that isn't true. I never thought much about Brown until I saw him coach the Sixers, whom I was follwing very closely at the time. I watched that team when they were a traversty (stackhouse/iverson turnover frenzy!) andnI watched them make their run in 2001. Larry Brown is a very good coach, who chooses team leaders well (Aaron McKie, for instance), gets a lot out of big men with limited abilities, and gets some truly amazing defensive performnaces built on hustle and smarts. Iverson is ajaw-dropping player. I saw him as a rookie at floor level, and I have never seen anyone with that sort of ability to change direction with the ball and just leave people behind. He's got a lot of guts and a lot of will to win. But if he has grown into something more than a gifted player (and I think he has) it is largely because of Brown. --eric edit to get jerry stackhouse's name right

Oh, come on! I'm from Philly, Brown's last city left behind and if anyone anywhere doesn't know Larry Brown's MO by now, anyone who actually is naive enough to feel betrayed when he moves along . . . well, now, I find it hard to believe there is such a person. I mean, you might be disappointed that he doesn't stick around, but betrayed? It's like feeling betrayed when a bird craps on your car. Brown likes to overachieve, and when he feels he can't overachieve anymore he leaves. Or if he just feels like it, he leaves. Larry Brown leaves. Larry Brown means "see you later" in several languages. Larry Brown is a great basketball coach who will be coaching some other team in a couple of years, no matter what he tells you. Larry Brown, --eric

At which point they became Madison Starship and soldiered on for eight more years. --eric

What about "pissed?" does that count as profanity, or has that fully entered the casual Englished vernacular. If not You can have "Someone stole my freakin' cellphone . . . and I am most particularly preturbed!" --eric

Just moved into a new house and got to go out and buy a new range--nothing fancy, but way better than my old p.o.s. Anyhow, I got to experience the joys of a high-BTU burner as I stir-fried onion carrot red pepper and string beans and tomato with peanut sauce . How did I ever do this before? It really made a big difference. If you are out stove shopping make sure you get a high-powered burner! --eric

You're just upset because Klingons don't get any respect on this planet. --eric

You're just upset about your cellphone. --eric ← Soulstation1 lost his cell phone. ← Any relation? --eric

You're just upset about your cellphone. --eric

Shouldn't we be doing all we can to preserve these precious resources, rather than encouraging people to go out and buy them? --eric

I've read one and two, and I live with a young person who loves the whole series. I have Rawling to thank for her able assistance in my nefarious plan to turn above mentioned young person into an avid reader. As for me . . . well like a lot of genre writers, especially genre writers doing material for inexperienced readers, she has her strengths and her weaknesses. I think she has an excellent way of evoking the frustrations of being a child and playing those frustrations out in innocent ways. The original scenario is a great idea. Creating a setting that is both very different than everyday reality and also very close to everyday reality (witches living as an active underground in contremporary society) is a brilliant move. I think she's created a series which is a great introduction to the pleasures of reading, but, on the other hand I think Rawling is often pretty derivative and there is a real lack of depth to the books--I don't find the drama I remember in, say, LeGuin's Earthsea trilogy, or a completely absorbing world like Middle Earth. But these faults are in some ways functions of the strengths of the novels. --eric

Are you saying that it's the popularity that makes the music a commodity? Or that all music (and therefore all art) = commodities because they were created to be "consumed"? It almost sounds like your getting into the "death of the author" type stuff, because I bet a lot of the creators, even of popular music, don't view their music as a commodity ... ← Well, I'm not quite going that far with it (death of the author). I would go so far as to say that the author's intention is only ONE of the things to look at. And I'd say that part of the reason why artists would be quick to deny that their work are commodities is because they have a misplaced disdain for the concept "commodity." If you think of a commodity as an item created with the intention of it being traded, then art is a commodity. I'd even push it so far as to say that all art is ipso facto commodified and that the essential question isn't whether but how it is commodified. I think this is a much more reasonable and even healthy basis for discussion than the false dichotomy between commerce and art that we've been desperately trying to maintain for the last 100 years or so. --eric

No doubt he has a different view of things that I have, or than Jim Morrison had. And certainly he has a right to try to protect his vision of that music, naive as I might see it to be. I just don't see that as virtuous. I'd say that all music from which people have made millions of dollars, that are being avidly sought after by commercial advertizers, are already commodoties, and, in fact were created as commodities and are in no way degraded by being used to sell some other commodity. I'm not saying that the Doors music is somehow degraded for being popular, I'm just saying that the reverence we have for popular music hits on the one hand, and the complete and utter disdain we have for advertizing on the other is a symptom of a sort of denial: a denial that there the dividing line between successful "art" and "commerce" is not at all easy to draw. And probably not even worth the effort. My point is something like: Among artists everyone has always already "sold out." There is no not "sold out." All there is is different ways of selling out to choose amongst, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. --eric

Personally, I think it's kind of silly. The songs were from the outset little bits of lifestyle marketing. Of course Densmore has a right to decide (or help decide) HOW his work is disposed of in the marketplace, but I don't see anything righteous about it. It's just a disagreement over marketing strategy. --eric

I've not been but I talked to a Canadian artist once who told me I shoudl move heaven and earth to go to it. But I haven't, of course. --eric

I don't have them, but I've wanted them ever since I read about them in the Greil Marcus book (The Old WEird America, or Invisible Republic whatever they're calling it now). I was hoping Dylan himself would do a cleaned up legit issue of this stuff. I am not a huge Dylan fan, but I love the Columbia Basement Tapes and would definitely spring for a more comprehensive treatment of those sessions. --eric

I'm just saying all in all, across the board, most cover art is not of much artistic interest. Though I think some of it is cool, it isn't worth kicking too much of a fuss about. Some labels had consistently fine cover art, well worth reproducing, even in cofee-table book format! --eric ... I think I strongly disagree with that. Are you talking about all labels, or just Muse, or...? Anyway, I'm with those who do desire original artwork (and hopefully good quality, respectful reproductions of same). Yes, part of it is nostalgia, but there's more to it than that. For me, cover graphics are an important part of the entire package. The music sets a mood, the artwork sets a mood (sometimes the two are more in harmony with one another, and sometimes less so, but there's still a visual stimulus there that I find important). In general, I think Muse's original cover art was less appealing than a lot of other labels, which makes me more relaxed about Dorn's choices than I otherwise might have been, but that red X thing is just plain odd, IMO. It would be interesting to hear the full story regarding that decision... maybe it would make more sense if explained. ←

Mad hatters all! --eric