Clutter: Not about the stuff, though stuff is all about you

Two posts that remind me of how I've totally fallen off the wagon with my book-reduction project:

1) Hoarding Insecurities from Andrew Sullivan, who apparently is still at the Atlantic right this minute. How did he decide on exactly 200 books, not 100, not 250, to be read in his dotage?

2) Deep Cleaning and Other Cosmic Issues from Claire B. Potter, which apparently inspired Sullivan to inspire himself and indirectly to chastise those of us who will certainly someday most assuredly get around to sorting through whatever there is a pile of in our vicinity. And I will verify for Potter that it's not just a white thing.

The flaw in both the Sullivan and Potter posts is their reference to a "pile of unused CDs," which argument makes not the least dent in the hoarding guilt-armor (pun not intended) of anyone who still has a substantial number of vinyl records.

Better'n Black History Month?

Just a reminder:

February, 2011 is "America STILL Has a Black President" Month.

(paraphrasing Kris Broughton who said this a ways back, but it bears repeating.)

Steve Erickson, Arc d'X anyone?

Curse me for a novice, but is anyone out there familiar with Steve Erickson? I just picked up a copy of Arc d'X (1993) which is billed as being in the "avantpop" genre. I'm mentioning it here because Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings play significant parts in the novel.

Any info (comments, suggestions, criticisms) from anyone who's read Erickson would be appreciated!

P.S. I purchased this (on sale, mind you, for 50 cents) in clear violation of the "2 out for every in" book rule I established over the summer. Apologies to my shelves.

Spiraling in the Orbit of Precious: Films We're Not Watching

Thanks to the Oscar® nominations, there is another round of discussion around the film Precious.

On February 4, critic Ishmael Reed got some play in the New York Times. He had previously discussed his views elsewhere (e.g. in the comments to a post over at NewBlackMan) but the Times has now deemed fit to give his critique wider distribution. This caught the attention of Prometheus 6 (P6), who started a thread about not giving Precious an Oscar.

Although I've previously voiced an opinion about movies of 2009 I probably won't see, including Precious and The Blind Side, I'm pulling some of my own comments from the above P6 thread for possible cross-pollination here. I said in part:

With the movie, there's the work itself, in its intended medium. And then there are the memes emanating from it across several media as to what it means to be "realistic" and "black" at the same time-- becoming and carrying the message much more than the book ever did. To judge the work itself as a work takes more than I have in this phase of my life. I can tackle movies not of this era with all their faults (with a couple of exceptions), but Precious is both too current for that and so obviously not made with me in mind.

This led to what I meant by "not of this era... (with a couple of exceptions)" and I followed with the exceptions, films of the past that I find eminently skippable:

The exceptions right off are Birth of a Nation and Gone with the Wind, and what I mean by "tackle" is to accept them as products of their time, study and analyze them, or maybe even refuse to analyze-- to detach just enough to watch them as is. Birth, I've seen it once and might do it again. GWTW, I've never been able to sit through.

A question we didn't get to over at P6 (although we are having a lively exchange about films, Black films, really good films, and really good Black films) is whether we can speak and write intelligently about something we shy away from or won't see. I think this is possible (I think I have a viable example besides controversial films) but I'd like opinions on it.

The Shadow of the Torturer

You may be familiar with Gene Wolfe's The Shadow of the Torturer. The book takes place in a world where torture is not forbidden, not even an exception, but is a fully integrated, normal part of the culture, politics, and society. The story and its sequels follow Severian, an apprentice in the torturers' guild. In the habit of good science fiction, it forces us to rethink our assumptions of good and evil, starting with the Spanish Inquisition and working forward from there.

You may also be familiar with 24, the TV show in which self-flagellating protagonist Jack Bauer must, a few episodes into each season, resort to torture (or the threat of torture) to retrieve information vital to keep the show from grinding to a halt before 24 hours is up. It's something like a video game (after all, he must go through this routine every level, er, season), only with more angst.

I foolishly thought the U.S.-as-torture-supporter question was closed well before this blog even started, but I forgot who I was dealing with. Thanks to the latest idiot terrorist attempt to blow up a plane, the usual attack dogs are back on the job-- crusty old out-of-power Republicans, fading neocons, blowsy over-rouged pundicrats who resemble the real-estate agents you duck around corners to avoid, and all their progeny. They seem determined to ensure that America's global reputation never gets any better, thereby perpetuating the threat and guaranteeing new crops of people who don't like us.

Here's an example:

The setup, the groundwork for resurrecting and justifying the Jack Bauer approach starts at 3:15 in this video from MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. The actual references to torture as acceptable kick in at about 6:15.

[Tech note: You may need to resize/zoom in or out with your browser's View menu, as Blogger and MSNBC videos aren't perfectly interactive. Click here for direct link to video if needed.]

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy