John Henry Days - Colson Whitehead

A small town has a festival honoring John Henry, who may have existed, and who may have entered into a duel with a machine near this town long ago.  While the ending is always the same, the actual story seems to exist in infinite versions.  Many of those are presented here with someone obsessed with all the versions of John Henry in song; someone else has a fascination with railroad stamps; another is trying to win a contest of his own and survive off junketing expenses a long as he possibly can.


Whitehead writes from several different viewpoints in this book, alternating from chapter to chapter.  While the expense account loving magazine writer J Sutter is the main character, he often rides on the periphery of the story, which really, is about John Henry.  We even get a few chapters from Mr Henry's point of view, a mythical (?) black man looking for recognition in a white world.  Race is outwardly a minor component here, but J Sutter is an African American as well, and lives with problems associated with that day in and out.  John Henry died in a race against a technology that if it didn't get him that day, would surely come back soon after and be better than before, until it would defeat him.  Sutter's problems are more subtle, and he ultimately figures out that he, unlike, Henry, has a bit of a way out.  Not that all the foreshadowing is wrong about how this ends;  like most mythology, there has to be something tragic.  But it might not be quite as expected.


There is a lot to like in this book.  If you are looking to identify, or become familiar with a character, this isn't for you - even J Sutter is hard to define by the end - he's too worn out to give much of himself, and he disappears for large chunks of the novel.  But the other characters who fill in are endlessly interesting, from the various fanatics, to his colleagues and the various town members whom all are involved in the goings on.  For a book that hangs on postage stamps, it is unique take on American mythology and its effects on us all in defining who and what we are.

Under the Skin - Michael Faber

If there's a category for sci-fi vegan satire, I suppose this would be the classic.  I went into this completely unaware of what this was about, and still wasn't quite sure after having read probably one third of the book.  Faber, who wrote  The Crimson Petal and the White, which is a fantastic, and very sexual, Victorian tale, does things quite differently here.  The protagonist, Isserley, is, in the beginning, very detached from anyone she encounters.  The writing is done in a very dispassionate manner.  On a side note, I did see the film version of this book not too long ago;  I didn't have too much faith in it going in, but it was actually a good film.  While the very basic story outline is the same, the details and the progression of the story are radically changed.  Given that the film is heavy on visuals, and sound, it worked on its own rather than trying to recreate the novel.


So, we have Isserley, a young woman who drives her car along the highways in remote Scotland searching for hitchhikers. Isserley, though not particularly attractive, has large breasts (this is important!!).  We soon learn that she subdues the hitchhikers, after finding out if they are suitable for her mysterious purpose. 




That purpose is to feed the starving population on her home planet.  Isserley is an alien, who through surgery, has been made to look like a human female.  Unused to walking on two legs, she is in constant pain, but she takes pride in her work.  The humans she captures are essentially treated like livestock - tongues cut out, castrated, fattened up and then slaughtered for food sent back home.   Initially Isserley regards humans, as well, sub-humans, as they are just a source of food.  However, she becomes gradually more sympathetic to them, and is horrified when she discovers all that actually happens to them.


She also begins to realize her lowly status among her own.  Condemned to appearing as a freak, toiling in gruesome work for the benefit of the upper class far away, who have destroyed the ecological balance on their own planet.  Faber goes after a lot of things here; sexism, corporate greed, consumerism and a host of others along the way. 

Zeroville Steve Erickson

 

“The Searchers is one wicked bad-ass movie whenever my man the Duke is on screen, evil white racist honky pigfucker though he may be.”


Plot: Ike Jerome (Vikar)  arrives in Los Angeles in 1969 just at the time of the Tate-LaBianca murders.  Vikar is obsessed with movies and will eventually parlay that obsession into work as a film editor.  As he travels through the 1970's and the emergence of a New Hollywood, Vikar encounters a wide range of Hollywood's movers, as well as others who share his fascinations to a varying degrees.  Near autistic, Vikar has a hard time comprehending the non-movie world, though he does develop into a fan of punk. 


Why read it: This is a movie lover's book, where you can have characters going into deep conversations on a whole range of movies going back to the 20's, arguing over what some may consider arcane aspects (there's a nice section on what film editors actually do).  Vikar has father issues (when your real name is Isaac, one might guess that to be the case).


A few years ago, I read Easy Riders and Ragin' Bulls, a history of Hollywood film from the late 60’s to early 80’s, when a group of new filmmakers, Scorcese, DePalma, Spelberg, Coppola, and the rest,  radically changed the ways films are made.  Zeroville follows roughly the same time period and involves many of the same characters, just in fictional, or thereabouts, mode.  However, Zeroville goes beyond that, regretting the loss of the old Hollywood and the movies that were made, despite the rigidity of making movies within the existing system that prevailed then.  If you have any love of 20^th Century film, this is a book for you – its filled with discussions, references, and criticisms of a vast catalog of movies, both from Hollwood and other places.  I was tempted to list them all at one point, but it was too daunting a task.

The hero of the story is Vikar, a strange man (“cineautistic”), who arrives in Hollywood in 1969 with a shaved head bearing a large tattoo of Elizabeth Taylor and Montgomery Clift from A Place in the Sun.  A repressive childhood (“God hates children.  He killed his own child.”) has left Vikar with one passion in life, film.  He manages (after being considered a potential suspect in the Manson murders) to find work building sets and from there getting involved in editing.  He also comes across Viking Man (essentially a renamed John Milius), a member of the new Hollywood, who helps Vikar (and names him as well) understand the odd world he inhabits.  Vikar yearns for the magical Hollywood of old and has a hard time understanding the new – his tattoo is constantly mistaken for Natalie Wood and James Dean, which confounds him to no end; after all this is Hollywood, how could they not know?  Still, Vikar establishes himself as a success in the new Hollywood.  Vikar’s personal life is barebones; he has difficulties connecting to other humans in general, with some exceptions – there’s a rather Taxi Driveresque relationship with a young girl Vikar runs into off and on (her mother is an unstable actress with a fractured relationship with Vikar).  Vikar does also find something in 70's punk - "I Wanna Be Your Dog" touches him like nothing else.

The ending drifts off to its own ambiguous end.  At first, I was a bit put off, as it didn’t seem to fit well.  Much like the hero, the book seemed to just exhaust itself.  Maybe that’s the point.   But I can read about film until the cows come home, and when it is done intelligently and passionately, as many of the characters do here, I'm in literary heaven.

Fuck continuity.  Indeed.

I would imagine if you like this, Suspects would also be worth a try.

The Dirtiest Job

Franklin Roosevelt’s VP (John Nance Garner) made the famous statement of his job being “not worth a bucket of warm piss.”  That has been less true for the past few decades, starting mostly with Al Gore, as VP’s have been given a little more to do.

In an article today asking various Republican strategists about who they likes as a potential Republican VP candidate, Newt Gingrich came out on top, though, at 13%, it’s reminiscent of how Trump won primaries, for what that’s worth.  Rubio, Kasich, Rice, Jeff Sessions and Joni Ernst all had support. More interesting was their responses about people actually accepting this job (these are Republicans saying this):

“like being first mate on the Titanic.”

“No one should have to endure that.”

 “It won't matter, except for the poor unfortunate soul who will gain the world's worst resume line.”

“I don't see any rational political figure accepting this suicide mission except those with an exaggerated ego and self-inflated thoughts of political superego.” (This would definitely explain why Gingrich came in first)

“Anyone willing to share the ticket with Donald Trump is unfit for the office of the vice president.”

“There is no one Trump can pick that would make him palatable.”

And my personal favorite:

“No one remembers who Goldwater's running mate was,” (It was William Miller, btw), “but at least that person had some honor. The one who says yes to Trump will not.”

The idea that an intelligent person (Rice, Rubio, Kasich) would take the job is kinda ludicrous, but this has been a ludicrous year already.  The job is not only not worth a bucket of warm piss, it entails one being poured over your head, with the stench remaining for years.

The Narrow Road to the Deep North - Richard Flanagan

Flanagan upends ideas about heroism and bravery in this story, which uses the construction of the Burma Railway by Australian POWs in WWII.  Large sections of the book take place during this, and it is horrific stuff.  Disease and starvation are rampant among the prisoners, who are forced to work grueling schedules in intolerable conditions.  Their leader is Dorrigo Evans, a surgeon, who by rank, and attrition, is suddenly responsible for life and death decisions for all the men.  However, his range of decisions available are few, and their Japanese guards often demand them quickly.  Evans tries to save the most vulnerable of the soldiers by getting them days of rest when he can, but it all seems futile as more and more of them end up dead.




As a straight narrative, this is a gripping read.  What makes it rise above that, though, is Evans.  Although he is apparently a natural leader, respected by all his men and even his captors, he feels inadequate for the task.  This feeling will follow him for his entire life, even as he is celebrated back home as a hero, and for his skills as a surgeon.  Evan's personal life is marred by serial illicit affairs with several women despite his longtime marriage and family, and he seems emotionally empty for much of his life.  He is haunted by the one great love of his life, shortly before he heads off to war, with a woman married to his uncle.  This affair, and the complications that arise from it, both during his time in Burma, and after, will shadow him through everything he does.


The contrast between life as prisoners and Evan's civilian life is jolting.  The Burma sections are the ones most vivid - men on the verge of death with every step they take a monumental burden, surgeries attempted with a lack of supplies, medicine, and in one case, a lack of enough patient.  The scenes in Australia are more ephemeral - there's a section where Evan's is attempting to rescue his family from a wildfire which seems surreal.  We also get some of the post war history of one of the Japanese, who, despite is brutality during the war, is able to blandly assume a normal life after it.  I assume this is there to demonstrate the peculiarities of our roles during extraordinary times, and how those roles may be of no relation to the rest of our lives.


This can be a difficult book to read at times - the prison camp scenes are graphic, but it is well worth the effort.

F Von Clownstick

I'm not sure whether to feel sorry for Republicans who have embraced, in whatever capacity, large or small, Trump.  In some ways I do, as I think that in particular a lot of the party leaders, McConnell, Ryan and the rest, have been put in a tough spot.  On the other hand, they have all chosen then short term copout;  we have to support our nominee.  In the long run, or just on principle alone, I think that is an awful choice.




Donald Trump has no business being anywhere near a Presidential election.  The past week has shown him at his worst, and that is saying a lot.  His attack on a federal judge in San Diego are abhorrent, showing not only his absolute lack of intelligence, but also his horrid racism.  While it has been encouraging to see a fair amount of Republicans condemning him for it, there absolute unwillingness to call out what it out for the racist ideology it is, is rather shameful in itself.  They have all couched their criticism in vague language such as "I do not agree with what he said" or other such wording.  Hey, its racist.  Ugly, vicious racism in the raw. 


Update 6/7:  A few Republicans have shown some class - Lindsey Graham being one, as he called for Republicans to "un-endorse" Trump after what has transpired the last few days.  I'm not sure Graham actually endorsed Trump in the first place.  He gave some weird kind of statement a few weeks ago that was rather unclear, I think in the vein of "I'm supporting our candidate, but not endorsing him" which is a mindless piece of nonsense.  But he did make the un-endorse call today.  Good for him.  Graham is an odd character anyway - he seems to alternate between weird panicky statements and moments of being incredibly rational. 


Mark Kirk took away(?) his endorsement of Trump as well.  Again, I'm not sure Kirk had endorsed him previously or was just saying he will not endorse Trump due to his constant hate mongering.  Kirk is in a tough spot as the Republican with the biggest X on his forehead due to being in a liberal state and facing a tough opponent (a penchant for making his own ill advised statements every now and then hasn't helped him either.


The other guy who deserves credit is Ben Sasse, who has been a committed anti-Trump guy from the start.  He's getting a lot of flack from some members of his party for it, which I find pretty deplorable.  Ignore Trump's failings as a human being (hard as that is) and you still have a guy that embodies few Republican values (actually any values), and its still not hard to see why a person who values those values might be aghast at him being the candidate of the Party. 

What Trump Would Mean

An interesting analysis of what Trump as president would mean. Bremmer specializes in studies of global risk and is very even-handed here. On the good side, he doesn’t think the chances of Trump involving us in nuclear war are very high (yay for that!), or that he would create some type of conflict with Iran (it’s not clear he actually cares enough about Iran, or perhaps more likely, like his son, he gets his foreign policy lessons from Hollywood movies, and remembers to never get involved in a land war in Asia), or that he would seriously mess things up with China.

On the other hand, he would seriously mess up the world. Trump’s lack of coherent policy or ideas would be a disaster for the US and everyone else. Promoting this as “I want to surprise people” is idiocy as the article points out several times. It would result in a lack of confidence from allies, shred the dollar to pieces, and result in enemies being much more likely to test the US to see what the response is, since there would be no way to tell otherwise. “A clear policy, and predictable outcomes, help shape the behavior of the world’s bad actors.”

On the dollar: “An unpredictable foreign policy, the product of either an administration that likes surprises or a temperamentally erratic commander in chief, will undermine that confidence quickly. Worse, any hint from the president that the U.S. might deliberately default on its debt, for any reason, will inflict damage that can’t be undone, and it will push foreign governments to look more urgently for an alternative….This risk is unprecedented for a credible presidential candidate: No one else has said the things Trump is saying about debt and America’s global relationships.” It’s one thing to shoot your mouth off about things you don’t know, even when you’re a presidential candidate, but it is much different when you are President. Words matter.

And then there’s this: “ Finally, a Trump presidency would make the United States, its citizens and its assets the single most attractive target for Al Qaeda, ISIL, and other Islamic militant groups.” This one is pretty obvious – while we have been comparatively spared in this area compared to much of the rest of the world in this regard, much of that has been due to having level-headed leaders who understand complexities. Trump doesn’t.

The conclusion? “A Trump foreign policy will undermine U.S. exceptionalism, the consensus-based conviction that America will fight for more than its self-interest and is therefore worthy of emulation. That idea has sustained plenty of damage in recent years. It will sustain more. But the biggest risk posed by a Donald Trump foreign policy is that he will destroy this worthy aspiration once and for all.”

And he's a short fingered vulgarian.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-donald-trump-international-foreign-policy-global-risk-security-guide-213936