Nelson Lowhim's Blog, page 126
May 5, 2014
A short to keep things even (excerpt)
There have been quite a few posts about things other than my writing. I'm finding that invigorating in some ways, but I will still keep posts on excerpts and upcoming novels. I am still fleshing out When Gods Fail 4 (it will be the final installment of the series, the title might be a little different) but should be getting started on that shortly. Meanwhile a novel inspired by Borges (though nowhere near that man's talent) is coming towards the end. It will be very different from everything else that I've written. And it will span several genres. Some are ones I've never tried before...
So to keep with the theme, click below to see a rough draft of what I've been working on. I will also, in the future, add pieces of shorts that I'm working on as well.
And as I walk, noticing that there are no more slits from doors, just wall and darkness, though now fireflies are lighting my way so I’m not tripping over the uneven moss on the ground—and even some that’s hanging off the ceiling which is too high to reach—I try to think on the men who are after me. If it’s a team moving in on me and trying to end me, then they would be FBI. So all the men I know in the other units, the Death Star units who work overseas, all of them aren’t involved. But perhaps that’s wishful thinking. I know how these leaders think. They are obsessed with historians seeing them as tough men who made tough decisions because this is a tough world. That’s a fact. No one wants to be seen as a weakling. Never. So they would do something like send my old friends after me. After all, all they’ll have to do is dump my body in the ocean somewhere and claim I was galavanting with terrorists, and that would be that. Who’s going to look forward. If I’m lucky a journalist with some integrity will tweet something that says that isn’t the whole story.
Great. That though almost turns my legs into jello, and I start to draw deep breaths, hoping that perhaps there will be a way out of this. But there might not be. I look back and this time there isn’t any light of the living room. This is a tough deal. Perhaps this was the wrong thing to do. And I remember how Mathews didn’t really want me looking this way, and I think that maybe I’ve done wrong. Perhaps the right thing was to ask for forgiveness and I think that perhaps even that wasn’t right. I was supposed to be discussing those definitions with Mathews. Sure we’d come to a stopping point, but what did that all mean? There was more to be discussed. I could turn this.
A scream, that of a little girl, echoes at me, slaps me even. I see the light underneath a door and I run to it.
I knock on the door—silly I know—and when the screams and the scuffling stops, I burst inside.
What greets me is a horrid stench and the sight of, in two rows of either side of an aisle, cages. Stacked as high as I can see. The stench I’ve smelled before. It’s the smell of humans being cooped up in an area for too long. Shit and urine, of course rise to the top of these smells, but there are also other tangible smells that one doesn’t think about: there is the smell of sweat, body odor, feet that haven’t been washed in too long and blood. Dried blood, and fresh blood. All of it is sweet, metallic. And though that smells sweet, there’s the smell o perfume. Somewhere, lingering behind all this organic decay and possibly even life trying to find a way, there’s perfume.
After taking a few steps I finally find it in me to look inside a cage. This one is empty. I look at another one. There’s food on a plate on the floor, some hay, some feces, but that’s about it in terms of signs of life. The next cage has blood. I stand on my toes and try to see what’s in the other cages. Nothing. But there must be something like people somewhere here, after all I just heard the screams. And like that, there are screams again. It’s coming from the end of the room, the other end. I feel more empowered, and reaching into the bag I was given, I pull out the book. I realize that it’s titled: When you don’t pick sides, the devil smiles. This doesn’t seem right, and my hand holding the book trembles. I drop it.
So to keep with the theme, click below to see a rough draft of what I've been working on. I will also, in the future, add pieces of shorts that I'm working on as well.
And as I walk, noticing that there are no more slits from doors, just wall and darkness, though now fireflies are lighting my way so I’m not tripping over the uneven moss on the ground—and even some that’s hanging off the ceiling which is too high to reach—I try to think on the men who are after me. If it’s a team moving in on me and trying to end me, then they would be FBI. So all the men I know in the other units, the Death Star units who work overseas, all of them aren’t involved. But perhaps that’s wishful thinking. I know how these leaders think. They are obsessed with historians seeing them as tough men who made tough decisions because this is a tough world. That’s a fact. No one wants to be seen as a weakling. Never. So they would do something like send my old friends after me. After all, all they’ll have to do is dump my body in the ocean somewhere and claim I was galavanting with terrorists, and that would be that. Who’s going to look forward. If I’m lucky a journalist with some integrity will tweet something that says that isn’t the whole story.
Great. That though almost turns my legs into jello, and I start to draw deep breaths, hoping that perhaps there will be a way out of this. But there might not be. I look back and this time there isn’t any light of the living room. This is a tough deal. Perhaps this was the wrong thing to do. And I remember how Mathews didn’t really want me looking this way, and I think that maybe I’ve done wrong. Perhaps the right thing was to ask for forgiveness and I think that perhaps even that wasn’t right. I was supposed to be discussing those definitions with Mathews. Sure we’d come to a stopping point, but what did that all mean? There was more to be discussed. I could turn this.
A scream, that of a little girl, echoes at me, slaps me even. I see the light underneath a door and I run to it.
I knock on the door—silly I know—and when the screams and the scuffling stops, I burst inside.
What greets me is a horrid stench and the sight of, in two rows of either side of an aisle, cages. Stacked as high as I can see. The stench I’ve smelled before. It’s the smell of humans being cooped up in an area for too long. Shit and urine, of course rise to the top of these smells, but there are also other tangible smells that one doesn’t think about: there is the smell of sweat, body odor, feet that haven’t been washed in too long and blood. Dried blood, and fresh blood. All of it is sweet, metallic. And though that smells sweet, there’s the smell o perfume. Somewhere, lingering behind all this organic decay and possibly even life trying to find a way, there’s perfume.
After taking a few steps I finally find it in me to look inside a cage. This one is empty. I look at another one. There’s food on a plate on the floor, some hay, some feces, but that’s about it in terms of signs of life. The next cage has blood. I stand on my toes and try to see what’s in the other cages. Nothing. But there must be something like people somewhere here, after all I just heard the screams. And like that, there are screams again. It’s coming from the end of the room, the other end. I feel more empowered, and reaching into the bag I was given, I pull out the book. I realize that it’s titled: When you don’t pick sides, the devil smiles. This doesn’t seem right, and my hand holding the book trembles. I drop it.
May 4, 2014
[OM] 5 Best Global/International Novels
If anyone of you has read some of my fiction, you will have noticed that at times I attempt to write as globally as possible. In other words, I try to include multiple world views. To understand a lot in the world today, I find this necessary. Of course, this post is about other books that are global in their purview. I'm talking, of course, about books that cover multiple perspectives and do so in a manner that shines light on the human condition. In other words, this list doesn't include the great novels that are more entertainment than prose for the soul (so the likes of Da Silva and others yet can't be included). Even if some of them are cerebral. I understand that this is a loose definition, so fire away any complaints below.
This was not as easy as I first anticipated. I wanted to lay down the basic rule that these books should at the least speak to three different continents (or cultures). Nothing doing. Two continents (or cultures) had to be the minimum as it would be impossible to fill this list with more than a handful if the definition was too tough. To that end, it's very interesting that not too many books—of the serious/introspective kind—have a global scope. You may be asking for a better definition of global. After all, many books do indeed include two continents/cultures (even the 'serious' ones); most war books in the US definitely include a couple countries.
But in the case of such books, where a character interacts but doesn't truly dive into the culture, won't be considered for this list. This isn't an easy thing to judge, either. It puts books like No Longer at Ease, and even Heart of Darkness either on the border of being rejected or outright rejected. The former, though an amazing book, treats England as a distant place and doesn't have enough interaction with it (though there is some), and the same could go for the latter. Much like the war stories, a lot of books will have the aspect of one culture clashing with another. Should these be considered international? Well, how far do they go to represent both the views? At least this is needed. Barring that, then perhaps a deep look at the 'other side' (because that's what inevitably comes out of these interactions).
And something I should also mention is that fantasy is not included (actually many of the more complete worlds I've read have been in fantasy).
I also made sure that these are all novels. I can think of a handful of short story collections that would fit the bill of having several cultures, but they won't be included here. Nevertheless, with the world changing as it is, I'm sure that this list will have to be expanded as it becomes a bigger topic. I also understand that I haven't read enough to be able to consider all books possible, so feel free to add some in the comments. I do expect to change this list as it's my thought that as time passes, international novels will become a very important way to write.
2666
Might be the best book on this list. Easily the first one to take a deep look at the New World Order that exists today. From the US, to Europe to Mexico, this novel takes an unflinching look at the darker sides (as well as lighter, for Bolano does not miss out on talking about literature) of life. In many ways he manages this, and the multiple cultures, with relative ease, but it's also the subjects which he chooses to look at that matter.
Cloud Atlas
Spanning genres, continents, centuries, Cloud Atlas is a book about many things. Somewhat a collection of novellas, the book is about rebellion, memes and traits that carry the spirit of humans forward (as well as those which bring us back down).
Mother Night
Vonnegut's other great work (IMO). About a Nazi double agent, and with minor characters from around the world, this is a great story about the many masks we all wear. About one man, Vonnegut's style allows him to bring out so much depth in the supporting cast, that it had to be included in this list.
Dream of the Celt
Written recently about a man who died about a 100 years ago. This book helps to perfectly frame issues we deal with today: such as Empires that try to do good but by the size of their weight don't always do so, powerful and ill-acting corporations, and nationalism in the form of Empire or an Irishman rebelling against that Empire.
White Teeth
A story about London and its immigrants. But to achieve this, this novel reaches out across several continents. It tells each story, then it shows the clash and the mixing and the imbroglio of humanity. Beautiful.
Also rans:
Waiting for the Barbarians (about a generic Empire and Barbarians, this story could be about almost any nation/empire. But I'm not certain that applicability allows it on this list)
What is the What (About an refugee from Sudan, this book, great as it is, might be too focused on a single man, without enough insight to the nations/peoples he comes in contact with)
WWZ (Easily the most international book I've ever read, this journalistic-esque masterpiece is a riveting read. I'm not sure it plumbs deep enough into the depths of humanity to warrant a place on this list, though I might be wrong)
Heart of Darkness (again, a classic, but more so about one person. His interaction with the two worlds aren't given enough for it to make this list)Shorts not included: Interpreter of Maladies, History of Iniquity, Iraqi Christ...
Perhaps one day one of my books will make this list. I am proud to say that Ministry of Bombs
meets the specifications for this list, but isn't quite there yet. 
This was not as easy as I first anticipated. I wanted to lay down the basic rule that these books should at the least speak to three different continents (or cultures). Nothing doing. Two continents (or cultures) had to be the minimum as it would be impossible to fill this list with more than a handful if the definition was too tough. To that end, it's very interesting that not too many books—of the serious/introspective kind—have a global scope. You may be asking for a better definition of global. After all, many books do indeed include two continents/cultures (even the 'serious' ones); most war books in the US definitely include a couple countries.
But in the case of such books, where a character interacts but doesn't truly dive into the culture, won't be considered for this list. This isn't an easy thing to judge, either. It puts books like No Longer at Ease, and even Heart of Darkness either on the border of being rejected or outright rejected. The former, though an amazing book, treats England as a distant place and doesn't have enough interaction with it (though there is some), and the same could go for the latter. Much like the war stories, a lot of books will have the aspect of one culture clashing with another. Should these be considered international? Well, how far do they go to represent both the views? At least this is needed. Barring that, then perhaps a deep look at the 'other side' (because that's what inevitably comes out of these interactions).
And something I should also mention is that fantasy is not included (actually many of the more complete worlds I've read have been in fantasy).
I also made sure that these are all novels. I can think of a handful of short story collections that would fit the bill of having several cultures, but they won't be included here. Nevertheless, with the world changing as it is, I'm sure that this list will have to be expanded as it becomes a bigger topic. I also understand that I haven't read enough to be able to consider all books possible, so feel free to add some in the comments. I do expect to change this list as it's my thought that as time passes, international novels will become a very important way to write.
2666
Might be the best book on this list. Easily the first one to take a deep look at the New World Order that exists today. From the US, to Europe to Mexico, this novel takes an unflinching look at the darker sides (as well as lighter, for Bolano does not miss out on talking about literature) of life. In many ways he manages this, and the multiple cultures, with relative ease, but it's also the subjects which he chooses to look at that matter.
Cloud Atlas
Spanning genres, continents, centuries, Cloud Atlas is a book about many things. Somewhat a collection of novellas, the book is about rebellion, memes and traits that carry the spirit of humans forward (as well as those which bring us back down).
Mother Night
Vonnegut's other great work (IMO). About a Nazi double agent, and with minor characters from around the world, this is a great story about the many masks we all wear. About one man, Vonnegut's style allows him to bring out so much depth in the supporting cast, that it had to be included in this list.
Dream of the Celt
Written recently about a man who died about a 100 years ago. This book helps to perfectly frame issues we deal with today: such as Empires that try to do good but by the size of their weight don't always do so, powerful and ill-acting corporations, and nationalism in the form of Empire or an Irishman rebelling against that Empire.
White Teeth
A story about London and its immigrants. But to achieve this, this novel reaches out across several continents. It tells each story, then it shows the clash and the mixing and the imbroglio of humanity. Beautiful.
Also rans:
Waiting for the Barbarians (about a generic Empire and Barbarians, this story could be about almost any nation/empire. But I'm not certain that applicability allows it on this list)
What is the What (About an refugee from Sudan, this book, great as it is, might be too focused on a single man, without enough insight to the nations/peoples he comes in contact with)
WWZ (Easily the most international book I've ever read, this journalistic-esque masterpiece is a riveting read. I'm not sure it plumbs deep enough into the depths of humanity to warrant a place on this list, though I might be wrong)
Heart of Darkness (again, a classic, but more so about one person. His interaction with the two worlds aren't given enough for it to make this list)Shorts not included: Interpreter of Maladies, History of Iniquity, Iraqi Christ...
Perhaps one day one of my books will make this list. I am proud to say that Ministry of Bombs
meets the specifications for this list, but isn't quite there yet.
May 2, 2014
[OM] On Salman Rushdie's death sentence and freedom of speech
Everyone should read this article, as it's a great article on what Mr. Rushdie went through after the fatwa by the Iranian regime. It brings me to another subject: what of these religious reactions? Surely one can say that Mr. Rushdie was merely a victim of what appears to have been more of a political move by Iran than anything. Indeed his novel's views on Islam have inflamed many places (and his book, the Satanic verses is not considered to be that controversial by some) and he was refused a place to speak in India recently.
As an American, I easily side with Mr. Rushdie and his novel, having that American spirit of Freedom of Speech to fall back on (full disclosure, I have not read the novel, but I plan to). An author should be able to right about whatever it is they want. But alongside this is the context of history. And I shake my head when the likes of Bill Maher and others blame Islam (hinting that there is something inherent to that religion that makes it violent etc) for all its reaction. Again, it is a world view that seems to want to discard history, or even what else is happening in the world.
And if you read the Vanity Fair article you will see that there was a split in the intellectual world that looked at some of this history. What are people who agree that Western Imperialism is to blame for a lot of the violence in the Islamic world, when someone comes along and inflames the situation with a book? Especially when one's liberal ideals equate freedom of expression as important. And especially when one views it as stronger than what religions think. In my opinion, there is danger in thinking that one has to choose a side. Surely you can be for an author's right to publish, and fight for that right, but at the same time fight against atrocities in the same lands where these reactions to certain books/cartoons are occurring? I will have to admit that I'm not sure why this is the case for many people. That they have to pick a side and not an action.
Nevertheless, there are too many people these days, including some I respect (the late Hitchens, for example) and to include Rushdie, who have some sort of view that the fatwa on Rushdie was some sort of harbinger for the violence of the future and of 9-11. In some ways they are correct. It was similar in many ways. But it was also different in many ways. And what only seems to serve my opposition for this is that these voices always seem to avoid talking about what is done for these reactions to happen. At best it seems that, like most stories in the news, they will present a simple cause and effect.
Again, this is beyond me. I'm not sure how anyone but a child can look at anything in the world as something other than a continuous stream of events, each influencing the other. I'm not sure why these views have become prevalent, but they are. I would dare say that I see this in many of the New Atheists' talk about Islam. In some sort of intellectual jujitsu they claim none of their nations tactics that would be considered vile/war atrocities (though Hitchen's stance on the Iraq war stands in stark contrast on this matter) by claiming these are actions of some other, and all the while condemn the actions of those who would fight back. Unfortunately it has turned New Atheism into some sort of neo-colonialist squad.
And unfortunately it appears that Rushdie falls for this. Claiming that this extremism is something rare and on a certain side. Certainly the man has been through a lot, and for that he should be commended. But that someone so intelligent can see the world and say that one side is acting with a specific and unheard of ferocity is impressive. And indeed, the Vanity Fair article highlights some of this odd dichotomy that seems to live in elite circles (though I should say it's the circle that's most visible) whereupon they seem to live by the same us v them rules that most people do, but that it's cultivated makes them think that their brand is better.
This is not an easy question (what does it come down to? Power and the reaction to it?), and as always I'd prefer a discussion over 'wins' (if such things are possible). I do have a book that takes a slight look at what happens in a clash of morals. Ministry of Bombs, tackles many aspects of power and reactions to it. Your thoughts?
As an American, I easily side with Mr. Rushdie and his novel, having that American spirit of Freedom of Speech to fall back on (full disclosure, I have not read the novel, but I plan to). An author should be able to right about whatever it is they want. But alongside this is the context of history. And I shake my head when the likes of Bill Maher and others blame Islam (hinting that there is something inherent to that religion that makes it violent etc) for all its reaction. Again, it is a world view that seems to want to discard history, or even what else is happening in the world.
And if you read the Vanity Fair article you will see that there was a split in the intellectual world that looked at some of this history. What are people who agree that Western Imperialism is to blame for a lot of the violence in the Islamic world, when someone comes along and inflames the situation with a book? Especially when one's liberal ideals equate freedom of expression as important. And especially when one views it as stronger than what religions think. In my opinion, there is danger in thinking that one has to choose a side. Surely you can be for an author's right to publish, and fight for that right, but at the same time fight against atrocities in the same lands where these reactions to certain books/cartoons are occurring? I will have to admit that I'm not sure why this is the case for many people. That they have to pick a side and not an action.
Nevertheless, there are too many people these days, including some I respect (the late Hitchens, for example) and to include Rushdie, who have some sort of view that the fatwa on Rushdie was some sort of harbinger for the violence of the future and of 9-11. In some ways they are correct. It was similar in many ways. But it was also different in many ways. And what only seems to serve my opposition for this is that these voices always seem to avoid talking about what is done for these reactions to happen. At best it seems that, like most stories in the news, they will present a simple cause and effect.
Again, this is beyond me. I'm not sure how anyone but a child can look at anything in the world as something other than a continuous stream of events, each influencing the other. I'm not sure why these views have become prevalent, but they are. I would dare say that I see this in many of the New Atheists' talk about Islam. In some sort of intellectual jujitsu they claim none of their nations tactics that would be considered vile/war atrocities (though Hitchen's stance on the Iraq war stands in stark contrast on this matter) by claiming these are actions of some other, and all the while condemn the actions of those who would fight back. Unfortunately it has turned New Atheism into some sort of neo-colonialist squad.
And unfortunately it appears that Rushdie falls for this. Claiming that this extremism is something rare and on a certain side. Certainly the man has been through a lot, and for that he should be commended. But that someone so intelligent can see the world and say that one side is acting with a specific and unheard of ferocity is impressive. And indeed, the Vanity Fair article highlights some of this odd dichotomy that seems to live in elite circles (though I should say it's the circle that's most visible) whereupon they seem to live by the same us v them rules that most people do, but that it's cultivated makes them think that their brand is better.
This is not an easy question (what does it come down to? Power and the reaction to it?), and as always I'd prefer a discussion over 'wins' (if such things are possible). I do have a book that takes a slight look at what happens in a clash of morals. Ministry of Bombs
, tackles many aspects of power and reactions to it. Your thoughts?
April 25, 2014
[OM] 5 Best Science Fiction novels of all time
Science Fiction (Sci-fi) is an interesting genre that never gets the credit it deserves. Too many people seem to dismiss it as childish, or perhaps escapist work. But it's so much more than that. From a writer's perspective, Sci-fi has the ability to free the story from normal constraints of everyday minutia. There will be details, no doubt, but of your own choosing. This, as you can imagine, is more difficult, and those details that do differ usually do so to highlight something about the world we live in right now. This is done by either showing what's missing, or what will change if we continue on the current course we're in. And the creation of a different world (it can be ours, but it's always different in some manner) helps to lower people's defenses, or perhaps transplanting the problems or possible problems of our world to another helps us look at it from a different angle. Much like traveling to another culture can do. Sometimes it merely uses an advanced technology to highlight something important. In many ways, sci-fi usually ends up being the Cassandra. Look at 1984 and how many times that's referenced. Something that only goes to show the importance that sci-fi plays in every day life.
Most of the books I'm about to show are either dystopian or post-apocalyptic in nature. That tends to be the two routes in which a writer can say the most about our society. Post-apocalyptic tends to say that this society we have now will break down some where in the future (and in a way, it will revert to the past). Meanwhile dystopian fiction focuses on the society going down the wrong path, but with less horrific (depending on whom you talk to) consequences.
Here is my list. They are books that I have read. As with all my other lists and posts. I will change it as I see fit.
Slaughter House Five
One of the best war novels and also sci-fi novels out there. Written to help explain one war veteran's experiences and traumas, the intelligence with which this book is written amazes me. Nowadays you will most likely see this book in literary sections. It is sci-fi through and through. Vonnegut manages to use aliens and time travel to help explain his war experience. And so it goes.
We
An outstanding dystopian (though with some hints at post-apocalyptic) novel. Also has the distinction for being the first book banned by the Bolsheviks. The author of the book had to face first the Tsar's wrath (he was a bit of a revolutionary), then the Bolsheviks. It seems that even that far back he had a sense of what was coming with the suppression of 'animal instincts' and so forth. It could be said that his novel is more of a statement against industrialism more so than Bolsheviks, but I'm leaning towards seeing him as a man who did see through a lot of the memes of the day. Check it out. It influences the next book on the list.
1984
Orwell's book about totalitarianism. It's hard to miss the influence that this book has on discussions today. And with the recent revelations about the NSA and its spying, this book is no longer a mere distant problem of Communist societies for us Westerners. Now that webcams can spy... But this book is more than that. It also speaks of the ease with which the machine can crush and tear apart two people and their love.
Read Homage to Catalonia
if you get a chance, as it will show that experience's influence on him.
The Road
It might be too early to call this a classic, but I'll do it. Bleak. That's one word. A harbinger of what happens when we waste away everything? Perhaps. But mainly it's a love story between a man and his son. It shows how they can persevere through the darkness. And through it all McCarthy's biblical prose grinds at your soul.
A Canticle for Leibowitz
Written during the cold war, this book still resonates. More about the cycles of mistakes that humans make, than about M.A.D., this book traces humans from the first nuclear war that wipes most out, to the next thousand years. Slowly following the mistakes that humans tend to make. Over and over. Beautiful and haunting.
Read these books, you won't be disappointed. When you're done, shoot me your thoughts. These books have made the list of my best books of the 20th century and 21st century. And if you're interested in some sci-fi thinking, read this post on coming up with a plan to keep people away from nuclear waste for 10000 years (no cultural markers, as you may imagine).
Most of the books I'm about to show are either dystopian or post-apocalyptic in nature. That tends to be the two routes in which a writer can say the most about our society. Post-apocalyptic tends to say that this society we have now will break down some where in the future (and in a way, it will revert to the past). Meanwhile dystopian fiction focuses on the society going down the wrong path, but with less horrific (depending on whom you talk to) consequences.
Here is my list. They are books that I have read. As with all my other lists and posts. I will change it as I see fit.
Slaughter House Five
One of the best war novels and also sci-fi novels out there. Written to help explain one war veteran's experiences and traumas, the intelligence with which this book is written amazes me. Nowadays you will most likely see this book in literary sections. It is sci-fi through and through. Vonnegut manages to use aliens and time travel to help explain his war experience. And so it goes.
We
An outstanding dystopian (though with some hints at post-apocalyptic) novel. Also has the distinction for being the first book banned by the Bolsheviks. The author of the book had to face first the Tsar's wrath (he was a bit of a revolutionary), then the Bolsheviks. It seems that even that far back he had a sense of what was coming with the suppression of 'animal instincts' and so forth. It could be said that his novel is more of a statement against industrialism more so than Bolsheviks, but I'm leaning towards seeing him as a man who did see through a lot of the memes of the day. Check it out. It influences the next book on the list.
1984
Orwell's book about totalitarianism. It's hard to miss the influence that this book has on discussions today. And with the recent revelations about the NSA and its spying, this book is no longer a mere distant problem of Communist societies for us Westerners. Now that webcams can spy... But this book is more than that. It also speaks of the ease with which the machine can crush and tear apart two people and their love.
Read Homage to Catalonia
if you get a chance, as it will show that experience's influence on him. The Road
It might be too early to call this a classic, but I'll do it. Bleak. That's one word. A harbinger of what happens when we waste away everything? Perhaps. But mainly it's a love story between a man and his son. It shows how they can persevere through the darkness. And through it all McCarthy's biblical prose grinds at your soul.
A Canticle for Leibowitz
Written during the cold war, this book still resonates. More about the cycles of mistakes that humans make, than about M.A.D., this book traces humans from the first nuclear war that wipes most out, to the next thousand years. Slowly following the mistakes that humans tend to make. Over and over. Beautiful and haunting.
Read these books, you won't be disappointed. When you're done, shoot me your thoughts. These books have made the list of my best books of the 20th century and 21st century. And if you're interested in some sci-fi thinking, read this post on coming up with a plan to keep people away from nuclear waste for 10000 years (no cultural markers, as you may imagine).
April 23, 2014
[OM] Drone Warfare
[OM] On all things drones:Here follows my opinion on the current drone war. There are plenty of
“And so it goes.”
A few days ago, I clicked on an article about an Australian and New Zealander killed by a drone strike (and even more recently a strike has killed more). The reactions in the comment section were predictable. Most were crass, though to be fair few of the dressed up comments from public officials (invariably all leaned towards the serious look and the statement that such things must be done) were much better in content.
All I’ve seen on the news and on the Internet on the main sites and the comments sections, is the yelling of two tribes. What two tribes? For the most part they fall into the for and against categories. I mentioned the comments section. Though full of vitriol, these people tend to echo what’s being argued in the public sphere. A public official will say: X was killed today. X was a known member of the Y organization. Y= a horrendous terrorist outfit. Y turned to 0 = increased safety of Americans. If only the world were this simple. Meanwhile people in this tribe will say something ranging from: good, a terrorist is dead, to what else do you expect when they want to harm us and Muslims in their area? Note that these sentiments mimic those of our well-spoken President (especially during his Nobel speech). So as base as the comments section may sound, they do parrot what's out there. And they do represent the politically easy stance. The way this argument is framed, anyone against drone strikes is against killing terrorists. And easy slogans are made, such as we bomb them there rather than them here—none of these are backed up with any substantial facts. In other words, this is a politically easy choice.
Now for the against side. The main line of argument here seems to ask for some level of legal transparency, as well as the claim that in the long term these strikes won't do any good since they will cause more terrorists to arise and destabilize the countries in which they're being carried out. The former view takes a strict legalese route and seems to be making some headway. While the former view bases much of what it claims on history. I will concede that these two views of the against side are harder to explain, and don't make for easy bumper stickers, making them a harder sale to the busy American people. They are also easier to demonize since all someone has to say is: "you're defending terrorists," or "you want every terrorist to have a trial, something these terrorists would never allow you."
Collateral damage is an important part of this discussion. Some will say that this is war (these people won’t be bothered with the definition thereof, or the worrying prospect that a government allowed to carry out assassinations at all times, in all places, without oversight, could ever become an issue) and that one only has to compare the miniscule collateral damage in the drone wars to the wars of the past. Take the bombing conducted by the Allies before the they liberated France where thousands more civilians died. War is war, these people say, and this one’s ending up better than most. I’m skeptical of such comparisons. Most people who carry out these comparisons only do it to justify actions they carry out on other humans’ skins. Of course there are less killed in the drone wars than in WWII. What does that help? Do I hear these people saying that the Boston bombing was nothing because we didn’t lose the same amount of people as in 9-11? Or perhaps they should have compared 9-11 to some other massacre? I’m not saying that comparing things to gauge the importance of some events isn’t needed, but it does no good as much is gained by looking at the context.
I will say that drones are indeed a very efficient weapon with regards to collateral damage. That it’s the way of the future is hard to argue against. Nevertheless, when I think of drones, and their effects, I am immediately reminded of the 1990s and the tomahawk missiles that were launched with some regularity (apparently taking about 2 hours to hit a target, thus increasing collateral damage). Before that it was a bomb from a plane, or ship. Indeed, when viewed from a military standpoint, a drone is an amazing improvement. Now a drone can hover (in cycles) over an area of known terrorist activity and, with minimal delay, hit a target. This will inevitably mean better use of intelligence (in theory, and given some numbers, in fact as well) and thus less collateral damage than before.
But that doesn’t stop the main point that conducting this war (without oversight, mind you) in various areas only creates more enemies, and thus doesn't exactly solve the problem. There are few people in these areas of drones attacks who are on our side. And I’m not talking about Al Qaeda (AQ) members, though this will make it easier for them to recruit.
We are also destabilizing the nations where we conduct this. In someplace like Somalia this doesn’t appear a strong argument. In Yemen it could be considered important. But what then of Pakistan and its nukes? Is destabilizing such a country as Pakistan wise? For all three countries it appears as if some agreement, secret or otherwise, has been reached with either the government or the military or the intelligence agency in that country. If it is the latter two and not the first, we should ask if indeed we are doing more harm than good. For the civilian government and people in Pakistan howl in protest about the strikes. And yet nothing is changed. The military doesn’t seem to say much; they probably are fine with a few drones hurting those who have targeted them so much. It could be that the civilian government is in a secret agreement with ours. But such things, when the people are obviously not for it, don’t end well. As they shouldn’t. We would only be usurping democracy for some short term goals. But it appears that the desire to subvert democracy for military ends runs strong in the world and even in our country.
Again, history and most experts on the matter (not monetarily tied to the need for more drone strikes) claim that we are only making the situation worse. That the people we are targeting do not like what’s happening in their tribal areas. Indeed, our strikes are only exacerbating the situation, giving the militants the upper hand, morally. The tribal systems are falling apart (elders being attacked by a lack of moral power resulting from the drone strikes, as well as a from the militants themselves). If history is any indication, we know how to break these places down, but we don’t know how to build them back up. And knowing the political situation, we will not have the will to rebuild another tribal area. It is the short-sightedness of politicians that allows this game to continue. So far, it seems, that the only thing that matters for them is the added benefit of seeming to kill our enemies.
That brings me to another point: the issue of collateral damage (civilian deaths) itself is too fraught with lies and obfuscation to make a definitive statement (and who's hand does that play into?), but it does go to show the level to which the US government is willing to lie to its people to cover up what it’s doing in these drone attacks. This should raise red flags for all but the most hawkish of citizens. Why is it so necessary to white wash the results of the drone war? Shouldn't they speak for themselves? Apparently military aged males are all free game at these drone sites. Why isn't this called out more often? The numbers that the US government has given out on civilian casualties has been so low as to be laughable.
When it comes to the legal question, there are several takes. No time should be spared for those who would claim that people worried about the legalities of these attacks are hoping for a trial for every terrorist in the world. These people are popping smoke (this tactic, of labeling those of us who do care for the nation and want to prevent future attacks defenders or aiders of AQ, is simply nonsense). Either laws matter or they don’t. To claim some moral superiority for dismissing laws, then telling other nations to abide by these laws will only cause the US to lose even more moral standing in the eyes of the world.
Some say that the current administration is straddling the world of warfare and the world of the right to defend itself. Obama does indeed have permission from Congress to carry this drone war out. So as far as American lawmakers are concerned there is minimal friction. There has been an issue with killing American citizens. Hawks seem to howl at this with the same obfuscation of trials as so on. Of course certain people can’t be brought to trial, but we should have some oversight on how they are being chosen for assassination. As it stands we know nothing about the methods for choosing anyone for this death from above.
Imminent danger to the US, as the President sees fit. That’s the only thing that’s stopping an out of control executive from expanding its assassination program. How most people cannot see that this is a horrendous time to dismiss the checks and balances that have made our nation so great, is beyond me. But people are working (mainly by asking for justice for the Americans killed) to bring this all into light. Not since Magna Carta has such open killing been allowed. Remember, these are laws that made us great. Are we really to believe that some judicial oversight (if need be, it could be after the fact, especially if time were an issue when it comes to an attack needing to be stopped). Luckily some progress has been made on this front.
This brings me to a question: what then is the endgame for this drone warfare? I mentioned before the comparisons to previous wars. Yet for the successful ones, they had a specific purpose. The drone war doesn’t appear to have an end to it. Not when the process itself creates many more people willing to take up such a label. Will whole populations simply be all right with having drones flying overhead for decades? Striking at a moments notice? Would you? Doubtful, isn’t it? Is the plan then, to hope that these people being attacked will cower, or be shell shocked for life? Or is the plan to eliminate them all over a period of time? Again, think of your own reaction to something like drone warfare in your area. What would happen if someone you loved was bombed?
Empathy is another strong motivator for movements. If not the specific reaction of people in the area of drone attacks, what of other people around the world who will see this for the great injustice that it is? Will they not make easier recruits? Will it not help the spread of AQ when conditions change? AQ’s current doctrine is a violent reaction, and one that won’t sustain itself. But it will one day change. It will adapt. And what then when we have racked up injustices and people have a legitimate problem with us? Not something easy to grasp. Easier to grab hold of short-sighted slogans, isn't it? But we must grapple with these issues.
This in the end, highlights my stance. I know what happens when the government starts to lie about things like national security. Let us not minx words, more likely than not, these drone attacks are terrorism. We need to make sure that we are indeed safe. Don’t fall for the false dichotomy of bomb here or there. The politicians and the industries that benefit from this care not for that. Otherwise they would listen to the experts on the matter. Why, cynic would say that the apparatus we have for combating terrorists must create more to explain its exorbitant budget, though I wouldn't go that far.
In the end, like most issues, this is not an easy one to ‘solve’. But being a citizen of a republic with a great history of democratic discourse, I think that a discussion should be opened up on the matter. Surely some aspects are under the realm of national security (another topic for another time, as it seems to be the cloak to hide actions of all sorts of doings of a government, adding a level of darkness that was once a realm of precursors to our system of government). But that there is no oversight to a system to see if the process is in line with our own and international laws is inexplicable. Right now we have the run of the drone warfare that goes on out there. But what about in the future, when multiple countries have this capability? Surely our leaders are not short-sighted enough to allow this to become another free for all?
But they are, and we must hold them accountable. Every time they cry out national security, and tell us we can’t be told, understand that this is a lie. Chomsky has mentioned in-depth studies conducted on what governments have withheld from their people in the past. It ends up being that the information is withheld because the government wants to protect itself from its people. The claim of national security (not the act, but the need to hide things from the public, or even judicial oversight) is usually a bogus claim. Be wary wherever it is raised.
Addition:And the final question of what we do when drones become something more than a remote controlled toy? Already it’s a way to do war with which Congress doesn’t seem too concerned about. After all, it’s merely a toy that’s lost if something goes wrong (or innocents not of our nation that die if the intel is off). It doesn’t seem to be an issue for most lawmakers, or citizens to be fair. But when the capabilities to run a full on war (to include robotic on land capabilities, that means we’ll be able to hold ground without risking troops) without risking lives becomes a reality, the political costs of wrong wars (short term, at least for now, such paradigms can and will change) will become close to nil. What then? Another time and place for that question.
Note: As always, I see this as a discussion, and will add or change any parts as more information comes in...
“And so it goes.”
A few days ago, I clicked on an article about an Australian and New Zealander killed by a drone strike (and even more recently a strike has killed more). The reactions in the comment section were predictable. Most were crass, though to be fair few of the dressed up comments from public officials (invariably all leaned towards the serious look and the statement that such things must be done) were much better in content.
All I’ve seen on the news and on the Internet on the main sites and the comments sections, is the yelling of two tribes. What two tribes? For the most part they fall into the for and against categories. I mentioned the comments section. Though full of vitriol, these people tend to echo what’s being argued in the public sphere. A public official will say: X was killed today. X was a known member of the Y organization. Y= a horrendous terrorist outfit. Y turned to 0 = increased safety of Americans. If only the world were this simple. Meanwhile people in this tribe will say something ranging from: good, a terrorist is dead, to what else do you expect when they want to harm us and Muslims in their area? Note that these sentiments mimic those of our well-spoken President (especially during his Nobel speech). So as base as the comments section may sound, they do parrot what's out there. And they do represent the politically easy stance. The way this argument is framed, anyone against drone strikes is against killing terrorists. And easy slogans are made, such as we bomb them there rather than them here—none of these are backed up with any substantial facts. In other words, this is a politically easy choice.
Now for the against side. The main line of argument here seems to ask for some level of legal transparency, as well as the claim that in the long term these strikes won't do any good since they will cause more terrorists to arise and destabilize the countries in which they're being carried out. The former view takes a strict legalese route and seems to be making some headway. While the former view bases much of what it claims on history. I will concede that these two views of the against side are harder to explain, and don't make for easy bumper stickers, making them a harder sale to the busy American people. They are also easier to demonize since all someone has to say is: "you're defending terrorists," or "you want every terrorist to have a trial, something these terrorists would never allow you."
Collateral damage is an important part of this discussion. Some will say that this is war (these people won’t be bothered with the definition thereof, or the worrying prospect that a government allowed to carry out assassinations at all times, in all places, without oversight, could ever become an issue) and that one only has to compare the miniscule collateral damage in the drone wars to the wars of the past. Take the bombing conducted by the Allies before the they liberated France where thousands more civilians died. War is war, these people say, and this one’s ending up better than most. I’m skeptical of such comparisons. Most people who carry out these comparisons only do it to justify actions they carry out on other humans’ skins. Of course there are less killed in the drone wars than in WWII. What does that help? Do I hear these people saying that the Boston bombing was nothing because we didn’t lose the same amount of people as in 9-11? Or perhaps they should have compared 9-11 to some other massacre? I’m not saying that comparing things to gauge the importance of some events isn’t needed, but it does no good as much is gained by looking at the context.
I will say that drones are indeed a very efficient weapon with regards to collateral damage. That it’s the way of the future is hard to argue against. Nevertheless, when I think of drones, and their effects, I am immediately reminded of the 1990s and the tomahawk missiles that were launched with some regularity (apparently taking about 2 hours to hit a target, thus increasing collateral damage). Before that it was a bomb from a plane, or ship. Indeed, when viewed from a military standpoint, a drone is an amazing improvement. Now a drone can hover (in cycles) over an area of known terrorist activity and, with minimal delay, hit a target. This will inevitably mean better use of intelligence (in theory, and given some numbers, in fact as well) and thus less collateral damage than before.
But that doesn’t stop the main point that conducting this war (without oversight, mind you) in various areas only creates more enemies, and thus doesn't exactly solve the problem. There are few people in these areas of drones attacks who are on our side. And I’m not talking about Al Qaeda (AQ) members, though this will make it easier for them to recruit.
We are also destabilizing the nations where we conduct this. In someplace like Somalia this doesn’t appear a strong argument. In Yemen it could be considered important. But what then of Pakistan and its nukes? Is destabilizing such a country as Pakistan wise? For all three countries it appears as if some agreement, secret or otherwise, has been reached with either the government or the military or the intelligence agency in that country. If it is the latter two and not the first, we should ask if indeed we are doing more harm than good. For the civilian government and people in Pakistan howl in protest about the strikes. And yet nothing is changed. The military doesn’t seem to say much; they probably are fine with a few drones hurting those who have targeted them so much. It could be that the civilian government is in a secret agreement with ours. But such things, when the people are obviously not for it, don’t end well. As they shouldn’t. We would only be usurping democracy for some short term goals. But it appears that the desire to subvert democracy for military ends runs strong in the world and even in our country.
Again, history and most experts on the matter (not monetarily tied to the need for more drone strikes) claim that we are only making the situation worse. That the people we are targeting do not like what’s happening in their tribal areas. Indeed, our strikes are only exacerbating the situation, giving the militants the upper hand, morally. The tribal systems are falling apart (elders being attacked by a lack of moral power resulting from the drone strikes, as well as a from the militants themselves). If history is any indication, we know how to break these places down, but we don’t know how to build them back up. And knowing the political situation, we will not have the will to rebuild another tribal area. It is the short-sightedness of politicians that allows this game to continue. So far, it seems, that the only thing that matters for them is the added benefit of seeming to kill our enemies.
That brings me to another point: the issue of collateral damage (civilian deaths) itself is too fraught with lies and obfuscation to make a definitive statement (and who's hand does that play into?), but it does go to show the level to which the US government is willing to lie to its people to cover up what it’s doing in these drone attacks. This should raise red flags for all but the most hawkish of citizens. Why is it so necessary to white wash the results of the drone war? Shouldn't they speak for themselves? Apparently military aged males are all free game at these drone sites. Why isn't this called out more often? The numbers that the US government has given out on civilian casualties has been so low as to be laughable.
When it comes to the legal question, there are several takes. No time should be spared for those who would claim that people worried about the legalities of these attacks are hoping for a trial for every terrorist in the world. These people are popping smoke (this tactic, of labeling those of us who do care for the nation and want to prevent future attacks defenders or aiders of AQ, is simply nonsense). Either laws matter or they don’t. To claim some moral superiority for dismissing laws, then telling other nations to abide by these laws will only cause the US to lose even more moral standing in the eyes of the world.
Some say that the current administration is straddling the world of warfare and the world of the right to defend itself. Obama does indeed have permission from Congress to carry this drone war out. So as far as American lawmakers are concerned there is minimal friction. There has been an issue with killing American citizens. Hawks seem to howl at this with the same obfuscation of trials as so on. Of course certain people can’t be brought to trial, but we should have some oversight on how they are being chosen for assassination. As it stands we know nothing about the methods for choosing anyone for this death from above.
Imminent danger to the US, as the President sees fit. That’s the only thing that’s stopping an out of control executive from expanding its assassination program. How most people cannot see that this is a horrendous time to dismiss the checks and balances that have made our nation so great, is beyond me. But people are working (mainly by asking for justice for the Americans killed) to bring this all into light. Not since Magna Carta has such open killing been allowed. Remember, these are laws that made us great. Are we really to believe that some judicial oversight (if need be, it could be after the fact, especially if time were an issue when it comes to an attack needing to be stopped). Luckily some progress has been made on this front.
This brings me to a question: what then is the endgame for this drone warfare? I mentioned before the comparisons to previous wars. Yet for the successful ones, they had a specific purpose. The drone war doesn’t appear to have an end to it. Not when the process itself creates many more people willing to take up such a label. Will whole populations simply be all right with having drones flying overhead for decades? Striking at a moments notice? Would you? Doubtful, isn’t it? Is the plan then, to hope that these people being attacked will cower, or be shell shocked for life? Or is the plan to eliminate them all over a period of time? Again, think of your own reaction to something like drone warfare in your area. What would happen if someone you loved was bombed?
Empathy is another strong motivator for movements. If not the specific reaction of people in the area of drone attacks, what of other people around the world who will see this for the great injustice that it is? Will they not make easier recruits? Will it not help the spread of AQ when conditions change? AQ’s current doctrine is a violent reaction, and one that won’t sustain itself. But it will one day change. It will adapt. And what then when we have racked up injustices and people have a legitimate problem with us? Not something easy to grasp. Easier to grab hold of short-sighted slogans, isn't it? But we must grapple with these issues.
This in the end, highlights my stance. I know what happens when the government starts to lie about things like national security. Let us not minx words, more likely than not, these drone attacks are terrorism. We need to make sure that we are indeed safe. Don’t fall for the false dichotomy of bomb here or there. The politicians and the industries that benefit from this care not for that. Otherwise they would listen to the experts on the matter. Why, cynic would say that the apparatus we have for combating terrorists must create more to explain its exorbitant budget, though I wouldn't go that far.
In the end, like most issues, this is not an easy one to ‘solve’. But being a citizen of a republic with a great history of democratic discourse, I think that a discussion should be opened up on the matter. Surely some aspects are under the realm of national security (another topic for another time, as it seems to be the cloak to hide actions of all sorts of doings of a government, adding a level of darkness that was once a realm of precursors to our system of government). But that there is no oversight to a system to see if the process is in line with our own and international laws is inexplicable. Right now we have the run of the drone warfare that goes on out there. But what about in the future, when multiple countries have this capability? Surely our leaders are not short-sighted enough to allow this to become another free for all?
But they are, and we must hold them accountable. Every time they cry out national security, and tell us we can’t be told, understand that this is a lie. Chomsky has mentioned in-depth studies conducted on what governments have withheld from their people in the past. It ends up being that the information is withheld because the government wants to protect itself from its people. The claim of national security (not the act, but the need to hide things from the public, or even judicial oversight) is usually a bogus claim. Be wary wherever it is raised.
Addition:And the final question of what we do when drones become something more than a remote controlled toy? Already it’s a way to do war with which Congress doesn’t seem too concerned about. After all, it’s merely a toy that’s lost if something goes wrong (or innocents not of our nation that die if the intel is off). It doesn’t seem to be an issue for most lawmakers, or citizens to be fair. But when the capabilities to run a full on war (to include robotic on land capabilities, that means we’ll be able to hold ground without risking troops) without risking lives becomes a reality, the political costs of wrong wars (short term, at least for now, such paradigms can and will change) will become close to nil. What then? Another time and place for that question.
Note: As always, I see this as a discussion, and will add or change any parts as more information comes in...
April 22, 2014
On the Struggle Trilogy and accompanying material
Though this post is about The Struggle Trilogy, it's also about the focus of the book as well (read Baghdad, read Iraq, read the Middle East).
In my opinion, fiction and non-fiction are separate, but the line between is quite blurred. Nevertheless, The Struggle Trilogy
, a novel about Baghdad which I published in 2012, sits comfortably in the fiction section. Well received in certain quarters (one review, two review, three), I have nonetheless heard from some people who might not agree with the shift in their preconceptions.
So here are a two very important articles (by the great
The second article, focuses on Iraq, but gives a good overview of what was left behind with regards to the sectarian political games (and very dangerous ones) being played. I highly recommend both articles for all those who are interested in Iraq, and for all those readers of The Struggle Trilogy. If you haven't read it, check out the free short story The Struggle
today. 
In my opinion, fiction and non-fiction are separate, but the line between is quite blurred. Nevertheless, The Struggle Trilogy
, a novel about Baghdad which I published in 2012, sits comfortably in the fiction section. Well received in certain quarters (one review, two review, three), I have nonetheless heard from some people who might not agree with the shift in their preconceptions.So here are a two very important articles (by the great
The second article, focuses on Iraq, but gives a good overview of what was left behind with regards to the sectarian political games (and very dangerous ones) being played. I highly recommend both articles for all those who are interested in Iraq, and for all those readers of The Struggle Trilogy. If you haven't read it, check out the free short story The Struggle
today.
April 18, 2014
Short I'm working on
People have asked, and yes the next installation of Gods Fail (The last one as well) is being worked on, as is another project, though I'm not sure this one has a similar large reach.
For now, here is a short piece:
Matt, his skin red from the sun, his brown hair standing fried, embraced the eagle-eyed Bedouin with grooves etched on his face.“Be safe. I don’t want you to risk too much,” said Matt.“And you. Don’t be a dead infidel,” the Bedouin said in a rusting voice and a brown-teeth smile.“We’ll talk soon.”Matt stood at the entrance of a dusty tan house watching the Bedouin walk off. Matt locked the door and lit a cigarette as he walked to his car. The street’s aroma of diesel and rotting food forced him to spit. The wails of a call to prayer broke out. First static, then a mournful hum.Matt checked under the hood and wheel wells for a bomb and scanned the rooftops of the nearby tan houses, as small-leafed trees swayed between them. It was a beautiful town. And the weather right now was that perfect dry heat that made him think of Socal’s springs. Perhaps one day it would be filled with tourists with red skin.That thought was jolted by an explosion in the distance.Two kids came running by. One of them pulled out a few toys from his pocket. He held up a broken plastic soldier and indicated that he wanted five dinar.Matt smiled. “Here,” he said, handing over the money, though he knew he was getting ripped off. The boy seemed surprised. And his friend started to search through his pockets for something. He looked at Matt with a hurt look. Then his face brightened up. “I ficky your mom.”“You’re not the first or last.” Matt grinned.The boy didn’t like the reaction, and he tussled with his friend for the money.Matt placed the toy soldier on his dashboard, and drove off. The kids stared at him with smiles that soon accompanied waves then rocks. He directed his car through dusty roads, avoiding donkey carts and teenage boys with herds of goats. It smelled like cloves and meat here—he liked that. Matt felt sick. After an hour of driving, he saw a small village nested on a mountainside in the distance. He parked his car away from the road and climbed up a ridge.A goat herder up top greeted him.Matt followed the herder, and a young boy stayed with the goats. They made their way up the trails and between satellite peaks. Matt forced his legs to keep up. They came to a ridge overlooking a compound with high walls.“That’s it,” said the goat herder.“Are you certain?” Matt asked.The herder shrugged.There were a handful of cars, all dusty, but still too fancy for these parts.Matt pulled out a small telescope and watched for any familiar faces.A vibration started near Matt’s thighs. He moved away from the ridge and took the phone call.
For now, here is a short piece:
Matt, his skin red from the sun, his brown hair standing fried, embraced the eagle-eyed Bedouin with grooves etched on his face.“Be safe. I don’t want you to risk too much,” said Matt.“And you. Don’t be a dead infidel,” the Bedouin said in a rusting voice and a brown-teeth smile.“We’ll talk soon.”Matt stood at the entrance of a dusty tan house watching the Bedouin walk off. Matt locked the door and lit a cigarette as he walked to his car. The street’s aroma of diesel and rotting food forced him to spit. The wails of a call to prayer broke out. First static, then a mournful hum.Matt checked under the hood and wheel wells for a bomb and scanned the rooftops of the nearby tan houses, as small-leafed trees swayed between them. It was a beautiful town. And the weather right now was that perfect dry heat that made him think of Socal’s springs. Perhaps one day it would be filled with tourists with red skin.That thought was jolted by an explosion in the distance.Two kids came running by. One of them pulled out a few toys from his pocket. He held up a broken plastic soldier and indicated that he wanted five dinar.Matt smiled. “Here,” he said, handing over the money, though he knew he was getting ripped off. The boy seemed surprised. And his friend started to search through his pockets for something. He looked at Matt with a hurt look. Then his face brightened up. “I ficky your mom.”“You’re not the first or last.” Matt grinned.The boy didn’t like the reaction, and he tussled with his friend for the money.Matt placed the toy soldier on his dashboard, and drove off. The kids stared at him with smiles that soon accompanied waves then rocks. He directed his car through dusty roads, avoiding donkey carts and teenage boys with herds of goats. It smelled like cloves and meat here—he liked that. Matt felt sick. After an hour of driving, he saw a small village nested on a mountainside in the distance. He parked his car away from the road and climbed up a ridge.A goat herder up top greeted him.Matt followed the herder, and a young boy stayed with the goats. They made their way up the trails and between satellite peaks. Matt forced his legs to keep up. They came to a ridge overlooking a compound with high walls.“That’s it,” said the goat herder.“Are you certain?” Matt asked.The herder shrugged.There were a handful of cars, all dusty, but still too fancy for these parts.Matt pulled out a small telescope and watched for any familiar faces.A vibration started near Matt’s thighs. He moved away from the ridge and took the phone call.
April 7, 2014
[OM] What to consider when reviewing books/Also, how to review a book.
What should one consider when rating and reviewing a book?
With ratings (the 1-5 stars for this book) so ubiquitous now that we have the internet—though I like that ability to have a say—it seems that all books are being considered on the same plain. Yet I have the inkling that some stories simply shouldn't be rated on the same five star system as others.
I'm going to discuss what I look for in a book when I'm ready to rate it. In the end such matters can only be idiosyncratic (some people look for a riveting plot and neatly tied ends, while others look for prose and nothing resembling a plot), but I hope to at least provide a template for a rating scheme that will possibly address all of these issues.
Now, a lot of these items have been dealt with here, my piece about using certain criteria to pick out a classic, as well as to pick out classics from the contemporary lot (some of it has been cut and pasted here as well). Now for rating, we can expect that the same parts of a book are looked at, but I can't expect every book I read to measure up to classic status, nor would I want that.
Nevertheless, I sometimes find that rating one book that's for entertainment is not the same as rating it for other reasons. This especially goes for those 'great' or near classics of today that tend to feature in our elitist chatter, and yet seem to get low ratings elsewhere. I think this is because there's a certain level of expectation from the readers (did a reviewer compare it to Dostoevsky? Okay, let's compare it to that) and that, when it's not met, results in a lower score. I personally think that this is unfair.
So the second part of this essay, is my hope to create a new type of reviewing system for readers like myself. I hope that I am even somewhat successful.
Prose or form.For me this is to consider what kind of prose, whether it's short terse made for page turning material, or long eloquent words for the literary crowd? The concept of voice (arising from the prose) must also be considered. How strong is it (can it completely enclose you in the story, or can it allow you a wry grin every now and then)? Does the voice lend itself to the story? The language and voice must combine to hum in my ears.
Story. There doesn't have to be a page turning story here, but that it should ring with some truth (though to be fair many of today's page turners are based on old classics) and originality. This is a very personal item, as I expect that some people prefer formula more than anything else. On the other hand, I'm a fan of books that leave certain things unanswered. In the end, the story must simply be interesting enough to shuttle me from one end of the book to the other.
Characters. More important than ever. They must be strong. They must stir up feelings inside (hate or love) me. They must live through the range of life that I know is possible. I must be allowed to delve deep (usually through a view at their psychology, but it can be through their actions) into their minds. I must live their lives on the pages like they were our own.
Questions. The book must speak to some philosophical questions that arise on this rock. As I see it, of course—though most of humanity sees them. This does not have to be overtly done (usually it's better that it's not), but the book should at least point to the (moral?) issues that we have in modern life.
That an author can raise certain questions, is a very important part of the rating system, as if he or she raises something deep, I expect depth in the answers, or attempt to answer (though sometimes, in this genre driven world, that a person can and will ask tough questions allows them much leeway in my view).
And so how do we rate all this? I believe there should be a multiple star item, whereby, represented in a circle, one rates the different aspects of a book: The prose/voice, the story, the questions, the characters. Is that it? No. The expectations for each of those. So was it meant to be supremely good, with regard to prose? Did it fall far below expectations?
Examples: Game of Thrones: Prose/voice 3/3, story 4/4, questions 1/1, (so 100% @ 8)The Son (Meyer) : Prose/voice 3/5, story 4/5, questions 3/5 (so 66% @ 10)These are just two recent books I've rated at 3/3 stars (on the normal star system). I'm not sure why I've been so brutal, but that's the truth. Yet, I'm willing to give Meyer's a chance by reading anything else he puts out, while outside of the Game of Thrones series, I'm not so certain I'll read Martin.
Other examples would be books like The Magicians and Last Werewolf, that use prose and deep characters and seem to end up with very genre like 2ndhalves, or other books that don't ask big questions when they seem like they should, seem to fall hard by this system.
Of course, of the above two rated, which one is better? One has more points, but less of a percentage, while the other is better for what it aimed for. I hope that this system would allow other readers to see (with a more in depth explanation for each?) if they would like this book or not...
By this method I hope to clear some of the issues I have with the five star system (not better or worse than the system by which we have to read the entrails in the version of a review in some literary magazine, and they have positives and negatives sprinkled throughout for every goddamned book). This might be an act of solipsism and no one else might see the issue. But I think it exists. I also think that it's very possible that big data solves this and gets us the best possible books; though currently everything I see in the "also boughts" or "recommended", hardly works for choosing my next book or even a book I'll like.
I understand that this can be different for different people (genre lovers will hate the idea of rating a formulaic story lower than something else), but I feel certain that we can reach some standard with this route.
As usual this is a discussion in progress. Please feel free to jump in.
April 3, 2014
[OM] On what makes a classic (Literature!(?))
What makes a classic book? Now even the experts disagree, so perhaps I should rephrase the question as: What kind of book do I consider to be a classic (or is it Literature)? Indeed, I have issues with some books considered classics today. So take what follows with this in mind (though, to be fair, I do differentiate between classics I merely don't like but can see why they're revered, versus ones I like, versus ones I have no clue why people like). In the end, reading is a very personal affair. Something that occurs between the reader and the author.
Also, in my mind, this discussion is intertwined with the argument of what makes a great book today? But it seems to me that the criteria one uses to say a book is a classic should be applied to modern books and that in of itself will allow you to predict which books in the contemporary era will make it.
Yes, what posterity thinks matters (and who knows what styles they'll find amazing in the future, or which book will prove to be the most influential), but there does seem to be certain things that run true through all the classics which end up standing to the test of time.
Nevertheless, let's discuss the first issue. Permanence. That a book can last decades in the minds of a people (or resurface only to last) makes for the ultimate proof. I don't think anyone will argue that a book must last, but that doesn't help us in trying to define whether a book from today is any good.
A few years later are people still talking about it? Does it ring in the back of your head? Do the themes cause you to look at life in a different manner, to wonder about certain things (well into adulthood); do they seem to creep up (over time) when you look at the world around you or just cause cogitation? These things matter and certainly do help play into what future generations will see in a book.
Prose, or form. For me this is a point of contention as many modern books aim for form over style (something I care not for). But I think that though there may be a diverse range from Ulysses to 1984, we can still say that some level of thought must have been given to the language and not just to the story. That's not clear a definition either, though. The concept of voice must also be considered. How strong is it (can it completely enclose you in the story, or can it allow you a wry grin every now and then)? Does it lend itself to the story? With translations this can definitely be lost, but it should still be considered.
So language and voice must combine to hum to more than one person's ears. It must hum to a group of people's. How to apply such a variable to today's writing? That it speaks to your ear. That once the hype around a book subsides (one must take out the influence of whipped up frenzy) it still should sing to one's ear (a combination of a voice and prose). This, again, is subjective, but more important than having some trick to the prose or having such complicated words one is forced to look at the dictionary over and over.
Story. Some might say that this is what relegates a book to genre. But I disagree. I'm not saying there hasto be a page turning story here, but that it should ring with some truth (though to be fair many of today's page turners are based on old classics) and originality. I would think that a book that uses the exact same formula as all other books in X-genre use, wouldn't really clear this hurdle today. But it's definitely possible. And though I'm a fan of books that leave certain things unanswered (like in life) that's not a prerequisite. The story must simply be interesting enough to shuttle us from one end of the book to the other. It must also be strong enough to highlight aspects of life in a way that it sheds light on the cause and effect workings of our world.
Characters. More important than ever. They must be strong. They must stir up feelings inside (hate or love) us. We must be allowed to delve deep (usually through a view at their psychology, but it can be through their actions) into their minds. We must live their lives on the pages like they were our own.
Questions. The book must speak to some philosophical questions that arise on this rock. As we see it, of course. This does not have to be overtly done (usually it's better that it's not), but the book should at least point to the (moral?) issues that we have in modern life. Or perhaps shed light on them in a new way.
In the end, all of the above need to work together in perfect conjunction. It's usually not enough to have merely one to survive. But classics don't have all as strengths. They have weaknesses, but overcome them by doing one thing very well (usually that serves to highlight something else). Also, the emotions caused by some parts, like story, tend to be less long lasting as those caused by characters, or the questions asked. Nevertheless, I stand by the statement that it's a symphony of all these things put together.
Like with most of my series of OM (odd musings), this one has the caveat of being a live discussion (I also understand the extreme weakness and non-objective nature of these definitions, or measuring sticks with which I would measure all modern books), and I will update this post as things progress and more information is gained. For now, you can look at my current attempt to apply this post to what will be the classics of the future from this century.
I'll end with another point: that there is another aspect of an item lasting a long time (though this has less to do with being able to judge anything from today than with something to note) is that there are several levels of readers to consider. There's the MFA system which has now mushroomed into a beast that can contain its own eco system of writing. This system, in our country at least, tends to have 'literary fiction' as its trademark and it tends to value things like voice and prose over other matters (like what I listed above). Therefore if a book gains traction within this system (there are, thousands of these programs these days) for it's voice, or whatever other reason, it will most likely stick around for this reason alone (and who knows, eventually its merits will be known to the wider reading public).
Another, associated with the ivory tower, is the matter of English departments (which shouldn't be conflated with MFAs). They too look at literature and serve as gatekeepers to young minds and what they read. Something they find to be of importance will likely stay in the fringes of our society, but eventually it too will have a chance at making it big with the greater reading public.
We can also consider that some books will just be discovered on their own, or rediscovered after having been lost. Like Stoner. This too is hard to factor in, but I believe that it is more in line with what I mentioned above. The colleges and what they hold does seem like a separate factor, but an important one nonetheless. In a way it reminds me of Canticle of Leibowitz's monks, though I'd like to think of myself as something other than ignorant.
Also, in my mind, this discussion is intertwined with the argument of what makes a great book today? But it seems to me that the criteria one uses to say a book is a classic should be applied to modern books and that in of itself will allow you to predict which books in the contemporary era will make it.
Yes, what posterity thinks matters (and who knows what styles they'll find amazing in the future, or which book will prove to be the most influential), but there does seem to be certain things that run true through all the classics which end up standing to the test of time.
Nevertheless, let's discuss the first issue. Permanence. That a book can last decades in the minds of a people (or resurface only to last) makes for the ultimate proof. I don't think anyone will argue that a book must last, but that doesn't help us in trying to define whether a book from today is any good.
A few years later are people still talking about it? Does it ring in the back of your head? Do the themes cause you to look at life in a different manner, to wonder about certain things (well into adulthood); do they seem to creep up (over time) when you look at the world around you or just cause cogitation? These things matter and certainly do help play into what future generations will see in a book.
Prose, or form. For me this is a point of contention as many modern books aim for form over style (something I care not for). But I think that though there may be a diverse range from Ulysses to 1984, we can still say that some level of thought must have been given to the language and not just to the story. That's not clear a definition either, though. The concept of voice must also be considered. How strong is it (can it completely enclose you in the story, or can it allow you a wry grin every now and then)? Does it lend itself to the story? With translations this can definitely be lost, but it should still be considered.
So language and voice must combine to hum to more than one person's ears. It must hum to a group of people's. How to apply such a variable to today's writing? That it speaks to your ear. That once the hype around a book subsides (one must take out the influence of whipped up frenzy) it still should sing to one's ear (a combination of a voice and prose). This, again, is subjective, but more important than having some trick to the prose or having such complicated words one is forced to look at the dictionary over and over.
Story. Some might say that this is what relegates a book to genre. But I disagree. I'm not saying there hasto be a page turning story here, but that it should ring with some truth (though to be fair many of today's page turners are based on old classics) and originality. I would think that a book that uses the exact same formula as all other books in X-genre use, wouldn't really clear this hurdle today. But it's definitely possible. And though I'm a fan of books that leave certain things unanswered (like in life) that's not a prerequisite. The story must simply be interesting enough to shuttle us from one end of the book to the other. It must also be strong enough to highlight aspects of life in a way that it sheds light on the cause and effect workings of our world.
Characters. More important than ever. They must be strong. They must stir up feelings inside (hate or love) us. We must be allowed to delve deep (usually through a view at their psychology, but it can be through their actions) into their minds. We must live their lives on the pages like they were our own.
Questions. The book must speak to some philosophical questions that arise on this rock. As we see it, of course. This does not have to be overtly done (usually it's better that it's not), but the book should at least point to the (moral?) issues that we have in modern life. Or perhaps shed light on them in a new way.
In the end, all of the above need to work together in perfect conjunction. It's usually not enough to have merely one to survive. But classics don't have all as strengths. They have weaknesses, but overcome them by doing one thing very well (usually that serves to highlight something else). Also, the emotions caused by some parts, like story, tend to be less long lasting as those caused by characters, or the questions asked. Nevertheless, I stand by the statement that it's a symphony of all these things put together.
Like with most of my series of OM (odd musings), this one has the caveat of being a live discussion (I also understand the extreme weakness and non-objective nature of these definitions, or measuring sticks with which I would measure all modern books), and I will update this post as things progress and more information is gained. For now, you can look at my current attempt to apply this post to what will be the classics of the future from this century.
I'll end with another point: that there is another aspect of an item lasting a long time (though this has less to do with being able to judge anything from today than with something to note) is that there are several levels of readers to consider. There's the MFA system which has now mushroomed into a beast that can contain its own eco system of writing. This system, in our country at least, tends to have 'literary fiction' as its trademark and it tends to value things like voice and prose over other matters (like what I listed above). Therefore if a book gains traction within this system (there are, thousands of these programs these days) for it's voice, or whatever other reason, it will most likely stick around for this reason alone (and who knows, eventually its merits will be known to the wider reading public).
Another, associated with the ivory tower, is the matter of English departments (which shouldn't be conflated with MFAs). They too look at literature and serve as gatekeepers to young minds and what they read. Something they find to be of importance will likely stay in the fringes of our society, but eventually it too will have a chance at making it big with the greater reading public.
We can also consider that some books will just be discovered on their own, or rediscovered after having been lost. Like Stoner. This too is hard to factor in, but I believe that it is more in line with what I mentioned above. The colleges and what they hold does seem like a separate factor, but an important one nonetheless. In a way it reminds me of Canticle of Leibowitz's monks, though I'd like to think of myself as something other than ignorant.
April 2, 2014
Another Interview
Just wanted to point everyone towards another interview here. Check it out. 
Nelson Lowhim's Blog
- Nelson Lowhim's profile
- 14 followers
Nelson Lowhim isn't a Goodreads Author
(yet),
but they
do have a blog,
so here are some recent posts imported from
their feed.
