I've been horribly remiss in my review writing lately without good reason. Part of it is because some of the books I've been reading are heady and the prospect of reviewing properly daunting; I am the wuss, goo goo goo joob. But enough of that wankery: Here comes some power reviewing, including two "long-form" reviews!
Books
(Note - the title of this post refers largely to the fact that I'm sitting here in June and the list of books I've read is embarrassingly short. So I need to jump on that horse in the next month before school starts in August! Geez!).
*****************************************************************************
From the "...And Civilization" Series, two long-formers:
Knowledge and Civilization (2004): NR
Madness and Civilization (1961): NR
*****************************************************************************
The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (1979) by James Lyotard: NR
This is the seminal philosophy text that defines postmodernism as " a suspicion toward metanarratives." That's specifically the metanarratives of the Enlightenment and Marxism, the ones that center on the inevitability of technological progress / human dominance over the natural world and social progression toward a certain form of government / civilization. There's a potential hypocrisy in there - the idea that "suspicion towards metanarratives" is itself a metanarrative - but Lyotard is so engaged in language games that it's hard to imagine that he didn't see this interpretation; it's more likely that he mandates a suspicion toward those specific metanarratives without abandoning the concept of narrative knowledge altogether. The book surprised me as it focused on the philosophy of science more than I expected, namely on the problem of legitimation in science. It is often noted that science is incapable of "proving" itself - you can't use the scientific method to show that the scientific method is valid - and consequently, many people resort to forms of narrative knowledge when attempting to justify scientific findings (just watch any scientist on your local news and evaluate whether he is telling you "science" or is just telling a story of sorts). In seeking its justification, science often resorts to notions of "pure science" - science for science's sake, or science in order to gain knowledge for its own sake - or notions of progress and utility, where science is only justified and or important because of the progress it begets. This not only (obviously) plays into the Enlightenment progress narrative, but it also places science firmly in the context of capitalism, where value is only to be found in efficiency and its utility. Lyotard proposes an alternative - that science is engaged along other forms of knowledge in a multi-strand language game, and that science's value comes from paralogy, it's ability to inspire new ideas, thoughts, manners of thinking, and creative processes.
Lyotard's work is fascinating for its grasping of real world problems - science's legitimation - and placing it in the Wittgenstein language games format. It's brilliant, and I surely mean to incorporate these ideas in my work in the future. But limiting these ideas to language is, well, limiting. Lyotard himself admitted that he was not entirely qualified to comment on the science which he comments on within this work, and that makes it difficult to trust his assertions - the "you don't know what you're talking about" accusation rings true. I think there needs to be a more material application to the ideas of science, not just the language game / ideas approach, though I think Lyotard provides a good framework in which to approach that.
The Sot-Weed Factor (1960) by John Barth: 95
An utterly astounding execution of language and character. I LOVED this book. It's a postmodern lit staple: Barth took a real world poem written by a real-world poet some 300 years ago and crafted a brilliant novel that not only entertains and delights in its own right but brutally parodies the "Historical Novel" form. It blends real world events, characters and artistic works with an imagined narrative that skewers everyone involved - Isaac Newton and John Smith make scandalous appearances, debased as harshly by Barth as any mythic figure ever was. One chapter, in its intentional absurd level of detail and, yes, boredom, skewers every historical document nitpicker for the ages. And the language of the book is brilliant - funny, charming, lewd as all get out, it repaints our notion of patriotism and admiration for the colonists, turning it to a realization that the same unsavory characters that walk our streets today were there, too, and in abundance.
But beyond the hilarity of form, there's a truly endearing central character, the poet Ebeneezer, who blumbers his was through the novel with the only thing heroic about him his dedication to idiotic propriety. He's hilarious, laughable, pitiable, and lovable at once. The farce that rages around him - for a solid 850 pages - crackles with energy and absurdity. It's been a while since I've read a book this great; now it's an all-time fave.
The Sportswriter (1986) by Richard Ford: 60
I plodded my way through this one - I enjoyed the writing style, but the content was fairly mundane. mainly I felt as though I was reading Rabbit Redux Redux, meaning that this book reeked of Updike rewritten with a more educated narrator (it even shared the present tense writing). I thought that while the observations made by the narrator in his running commentary of the countryside were great, the dialogue was terrible: it was the same "diagonal stance" speech of DeLillo's characters' only without sharp wit. I found Vickie, in particular, a joke of a character and an annoyance to read; the main character's wife, X, was not much better. Clearly the characters took precedent over the plot here, but I found the characters pretty drab.
The narrator is alternatingly praised and condemned by critics for his dreamy, "Everything's okay" approach. The running commentary he provides, and his constant "I'm a sportswriter" banter, wore thin for me. He does little to nothing to redeem much of anything through the novel, and in the end seems to more or less run away - Frank Run - taking a dream outside of a dream. More annoying than anything - Frank is a pretty ho-hum character, an older divorcee who is slumbering through life, and yet he is having sex with everything that moves in this book, picking up ladies left and right like nothing. Eh? The effortlessness with which he pulled this off just struck me as dumb. I recognize the "good writing" here, but as I said, the content was a gigantic waste for me. And i like lumbering slow novels!
Movies
Word Play (2006): 75
Very entertaining portrait of supreme nerddom. Beck and I now do the crossword every day, so you know it was pretty good.
The Bank Job (2008): 70
Better than you thought - classic heist movie with a great historical back story from 1970s Britain. Recommend it thoroughly!
The Flying Scotsman (2006): 60
Beck checked this out as a plane movie and I ended up watching it at home, mainly because Eli Stone played the bike rider. Cool story; not really the Rocky of cycling, but good enough. I liked their wrenching treatment of the main character's depression.
Baby Momma (2008): 60
Precisely as stupid as you would expect, but still funny. Tina Fey is a goddess, but you already knew that.
Indiana Jones I - IV: 85, 60, 85, 50
Aliens? Seriously? beck and I watched the original trilogy in NC to remind us of why we adore that Indy character. The second movie is better than you remember.
1408 (2007): 25
Seriously stupid Stephen King movie. I enjoyed the set-up, the ridiculous Samuel L. Jackson scene, and I'm a depressed / cynical John Cusack sucker. But wow - drags on forever and just gets stupider as things wind on. And the ending "shocker" is top 10 stupid movie scene material.
Get Smart (2008): 60
I already reviewed this: Hollywood dumb, but Steve Carrell charming. And it included a real life, Calvin-esque plane and truck and train collision. So props for that. I dug it.
The Number 23 (2007): 10
Wait, I though 1408 was bad? After a mildly interesting opening, this thing collapsed under its own inanity. Hmmmm, how about you just sit down and READ THE BOOK in two hours instead of 8 days??!!?! Or note that you DON'T REMEMBER YOUR LIFE before 13 years ago? Just painfully dumb, and I yawned for the last hour-plus. Don't do this.
No comments:
Post a Comment