Disturbing
It's arguable what the greatest invention might be, but the internet itself, wherever it ranks, has to be considered one of the most important. Variations on the phrase, "It has to be on the internet because it has everything," can be heard in many areas of life, and, while it's not technically true, there is some grain of truth, however small, to that notion. Included, obviously, amongst the "everything" is the seamier, more disturbing side of the net. Here I'm not referring to just pornography, which, depending on who you ask can be viewed as a blessing or a curse. No, what I'm referencing here are sites devoted solely to the aspect of death in all its graphic and brutal reality.

Whether one is a casual observer of the current situation in Iraq or a enthusiastic follower, one of the more disturbing trends to emerge, besides the fact that the entire enterprise is one built on lies and distortions, is the wave of kidnappings and beheadings that have plagued the region, our allies, and ourselves. For the most part, the kidnappings are a ploy for either ransom money from the victim's families or withdrawal of all troops from the abducted party's homeland from the region, and sometimes both. The kidnappers, usually, draw out the process by releasing propagandistic videos showing the captured parties pleading for their lives, making withdrawal requests, or even more outlandish demands such as securing the release of all female prisoners held in Abu Ghraib. After a period, the kidnappers release another video, and this one, almost always, depicts the savage beheading of the hostage. They preface the execution with some more religious gibberish, but the final moments almost always play out the same with blood and gore.

Since these groups rely heavily on the internet for communications through websites and various other forums, and, as we all know news travels fast on the web, the footage, inevitably, ends up on other sites as well. The first such tapes to cause wide commotion were Daniel Pearl's and Nick Berg's. Since then, there have been numerous videos released. Not all of the cases result in the beheading of the hostage. Most do, and those are the ones that make headlines.

As one would imagine, the sites that feature this type of content are very disturbing in general, and, when a trend like this isn't occurring, they usually traffic in death in general in the form of videos and pictures. Naturally, one can't resist the curiosity factor when one realizes that this type of content is available. So, I took a look, and, naturally, was repulsed by what I saw. Beyond the fact that the videos themselves are beyond belief in their bloody realism, being real I guess this is inevitable, is the notion that one might feel the need to comment on them, which they do on discussion boards that are featured on the site I stumbled upon and I assume others as well.

What's troubling about this, aside from its inherent ghoulishness, is the reality that people are out there whose sole purpose is to view gore and other outlandishly brutal content while surfing the internet, and nothing more than that. Perusing the board, I came across a comment that was just astonishing and very revealing in its observation. It's incredible when you think about finding such a poignant response in of all places a discussion board where the usual fare centers around commenting on a picture of a dead body. This particular person made the observation that, depending on how you interpret it, is either quite revealing or beyond repulsive. As I mentioned, there are many of these tapes out, and this site seems to have all of them. Also, as one could imagine that when one has watched all of these that you eventually become numb to their reality. The comment in question made just this type of accusation. The point the writer was making was that the videos had started to seem particularly repetitious and lacked, for lack of a better word, anything different. The sameness of the tapes was the real issue.

Not to turn this into some sort of stereotypical critique on the affects of violence, but there seems to be something truly disturbing and, at the same time, revealing about this comment. On the one hand, it appears as if the writer has become more or less totally desensitized to the realities that are being depicted in the videos that they are watching. I've watched several of the tapes, and each one is terribly disturbing and very difficult to come to terms with. I won't lie. I could say that I wanted to watch the tapes to better understand the realities of what's occurring on the ground in Iraq. That's a illegitimate excuse, and I find it highly unlikely that very many people actually feel that way. No, I watched because I was curious. Day after day it seemed as if another news story was appearing in the paper announcing another beheading. Curiosity got the best of me, and that's just how life operates. The reason the cliche about passer-by craning their necks to look at an accident has proliferated throughout life for so long is because it's true. True, seeing the gore itself is more than likely to repulse a normal person beyond belief, but the itching in the back of your mind that wants to, needs to look is hard to resist.

The other idea raised by this comment is that there appears to be a reason why the outrage surrounding these tapes seems to waver and currently has waned significantly. Are we becoming desensitized to this type of violence because it's happening too often? Can others, outside of the immediate families of the abducted, feel outrage, disgust, anger? I fear that, like violence that plagues other countries much more pervasively than our own, we will eventually hear about these types of executions and shrug with minimal pity in our hearts. The very fact that this occurs frequently enough to foster its own cottage industry should be enough to dissuade anyone from re-electing our president. Isn't this a sign of failure beyond a shadow?

"A screaming comes across the sky..."
Gravity's Rainbow by Thomas Pynchon is the greatest book ever...ever!!!

Awarding the Obscure
Everyone knows there's pretty much an award for everything these days. Part of this is due to the organization's effort to garner attention to not only itself but to also provide certain works with an additional advantage when it comes to the awarding of the bigger honors. Conversely, one can assume that this stems from the notion that if a major work doesn't get the big name award, then it at least can claim some of the lesser known ones as minor accomplishments. The fuss surrounding the National Book Award nominations stems not from either of these two scenarios, but from the fact that the nominees are less than household names. In fact, it appears their own publishers, sometimes, aren't aware of their existence.

The New Yorker and the New York Times both published articles concerning the fuss over the nominees, and, while it's clear that awarding the obscure has a certain refreshing quality, it also raises other issues about the process, the judges themselves, and the publishers' interest in the role literature and literary awards affect not only sales but the reading public at large.

Anyone even half attuned to the book world knows that the most celebrated fictional work to appear in the last few months is Philip Roth's The Plot Against America: A Novel. All personal bias aside (I think Roth is one of our greatest living writers), the omission of Roth, among other big names, raises the issue of what exactly the motivation is of the nominating committee. Led by Rick Moody, the panel is, to some extent, prevented by the National Book Foundation, the organization responsible for the award, from commenting. The Times, however, hints at but doesn't actually address one crucial aspect. None of the judges have had a book on the Times' bestseller list, and only two have been nominated for the award in the past. These two facts raise several questions. Are the judges using this position as a way to make a statement against big name publishers and their prized authors, such as Roth? The two judges who had been nominated previously are, likewise, obscure. Are they responsible for even more obscure works being nominated?

Personally, I can't decide where to fall on this issue. On the one hand, it seems rather unprofessional of the judges to nominate books that are obscure for obscurity's sake. However, if there is a heartfelt appreciation that these books represent, truly, the best the publishing world has to offer this year, then it's commendable that they would choose these over books that are, from all indications, not the best from highly regarded writers. In the end, it doesn't really matter all that much because, as highlighted in the Times piece, the National Book Award really isn't all that prized anymore, especially when compared with the anticipation of the Booker Prize in Britain. Now, that's a culture that I wish we could embrace.

Eh?
Writing something truly original is a pretty hard task these days. When one takes into account all of the sources of information that bombard us on a daily basis, both willingly and unwillingly, there's bound to be some sort of seepage into one's own expressions that reflect that influence. However, it's a pretty odd coincidence to lurk through the world of other a blogs and feel that somehow, someway you're being copied, or subtly toyed with. Paranoia? In true Slothropian fashion, I'll trudge along and look for the patterns.

Critics
A wise man once wrote something about avoiding the practice of critiquing those who critique you. For, as this wise man surmised, the only function of such an action would be to provide further fodder for the fire. Anne Rice apparently missed that memo, and, from the results, seems to be doing nothing more than adding not only fuel but extra wood for the flames.

For those who haven't been following the story, Rice apparently felt that the now infamous reader reviews posted on Amazon.com for her book Blood Canticle were, to put it mildly, a tad harsh. In response, Rice composed a 1,200 word defense of her work that appeared right along with the other reviews. I say "appeared" because the review has either been removed by Amazon or Anne Rice herself requested its removal; it's nowhere to be found on the site. Luckily for us some other websites decided to save her words of wisdom for others to read before their removal.

An article about the controversy appeared in Monday's New York Times. This article, though, does little justice to Rice's entire tirade. Fraught with many contradictions in logic and written in a tone that strives mightily to mask rage with prose, Rice does little actual defending of her work, and, in my opinion, addresses few, if any, of the real issues of the critiques that plague writers of her same ilk. By "ilk" I mean to refer to writers such as Stephen King who publish massive amounts of text and traffic in books that, for all intents and purposes, are the same.

Rice, who strangely resembles our current president in her inability to accept criticism, starts off her response by stating that her career has thrived because of her ability to "ignore denigrating and trivializing criticism." This type of blanket assessment of criticism, which in her mind refers to a specific type, betrays a lack of acceptance for any type of criticism, regardless of intent. I'm skipping ahead, but, from the sounds of it, Rice doesn't feel that there's much if any room for criticism of her canon of works period. In what can only be described as a glowing self-assessment, Rice describes her work as being beyond the necessity of having input from, horror of horrors, an editor because, simply put, it's so great. As she puts it, "I have no intention of allowing any editor ever to distort, cut, or otherwise mutilate sentences that I have edited and re-edited, and organized and polished myself." Later, she states that "every word is in perfect place." Rice is one of the better writers in her genre. There's a little more depth to her writing, and her prose can, and often is, neatly flowing. However, Nabokov, she is not. Anyone who has ever read one of her books must realize the absurdity of the claim that Rice needs to work so hard to craft simple sentences. Her works aren't bad stories, but they're about as deep as a puddle.

As for Rice's contradictions, and perhaps contradictions isn't the correct term to use but rather her desire to have it both ways, they are numerous, and it's truly surprising that she was able to cram so many in such a short piece of writing. First, regarding Amazon, she states that "there is something compelling about Amazon's willingness to publish just about anything." Rice freely admits to reading the comments and, in fact, states that, "I believe in what happens here." Stating that, wouldn't one assume that you're capable of accepting criticism then? Surely all the reviews for all the works she has perused haven't been glowing. Rice, in an attempt to address specific writers, decries the "sheer outrageous stupidity of many things you've said here that actually touches my proletarian and Democratic soul." The whole gist of her letter is supposedly aimed at only those with the temerity to make, in Rice's opinion, "outrageously negative comments." It remains a mystery to me if Rice's version of Democracy allows for freedom of speech and a right to criticize, regardless of the tact taken by the critic even if it is loathsome and "denigrating."

Second, Rice seems to feel as if she's one amongst the people by stating that she is "justifiably proud of being read by intellectual giants and waitresses in trailer parks, in fact, I love it, but who in the world are you?" Again, it seems as if she can't quite grasp the basic tenants of democracy in action, or the realities of society at large. If in fact you enjoy being read by a wide spectrum of personality types and, obviously, educational ranges, for why else mention the intellectual giants juxtaposed with the undereducated "waitress," then how is it that you're incapable of understanding that along with the wide acceptance you're also going to be judged in a variety of ways. It goes without saying that an "intellectual giant" and a "waitress" might have different means of expressing their criticisms. In other words, anyone receiving criticism from such a wide spectrum can assume that the discourse will vary somewhat from group to group. Critics outside of academia might be a lot harsher in their criticism and rudimentary in their word choice. You pretty much have to accept it all regardless. Having said that, it's important to at least mention that part of Rice's complaint stems from some criticism that was purported to be personal in nature. These comments supposedly referred to her mental state after the death of her husband in 2002. Again, I say "supposedly" for two reasons. One there are no quotes from specific posts in the vein. Two there are nearly three hundred comments related to this book on Amazon's page. If the posts making allusions to her husband's death were in poor taste, then there might be a real issue there worth addressing. However, if the theory was thrown out there just as that, a theory, then Rice's skin is a lot thinner than any public figure should have. In her most venomous paragraph, Rice states:

But your stupid, arrogant assumptions about me and what I am doing are slander. And you have used this site as if it were a public urinal to publish falsehood and lies. I'll never challenge your democratic freedom to do so, and yes, I'm answering you, but for what it's worth, be assured of the utter contempt I feel for you, especially those of you who post anonymously (and perhaps repeatedly?) and how glad I am that this book is the last one in a series that has invited your hateful and ugly responses.

Finally, as the last sentence indicates, this book is supposedly the last one in her long line of books. However, earlier she states that this is nowhere mentioned in the book or in any other way is there any indication that she's ending the Vampire Chronicles. So, which is it? Are you ending the series out of spite because a few reviewers on Amazon made you mad, or are you forging ahead and ignoring their comments?

Ultimately, the idea of ending the series is what, I think, critics are addressing. Rice has run out of ideas regarding these stories and, in particular, her main character, Lestat. Rice, in one of the creepier passages, describes Lestat as if he were real and a companion of hers, cementing her image in my mind as a writer without a clue as to how she's portraying herself in what can only be described as an vain artist with too much pride self-serving praise of her own creation. I've only read the first two books in the series, Interview with the Vampire and The Vampire Lestat, and it's abundantly clear to anyone with half a brain where this story is going. If the repetitive feel of the first two books is any indication, then the other eight are pretty much rehashes of the first, albeit best, book. When describing the current book, Rice talks about specific scenes and concludes that they "stand with any similar scenes in all of the chronicles." How true. I feel like screaming, "Anne, don't you see? The point is that they are similar, all of them. I haven't even read this book, and the scenes are familiar, almost like I've read them before."

One can sympathize with Rice if the comments addressed to her were truly personal and hurtful in nature, but it strains one's ability to offer sympathy to someone who seems to feel as if her entire body of work is beyond reproach. Rice has forged an interesting career with her books devoted primarily to one area of horror, vampires and witches as well, but they are as open to criticism as any other writer's work, be it those enjoyed solely by waitresses or solely by intellectuals. Nothing is out of bounds. And with Amazon's increasing popularity with their reader comments, it's going to be even harder to make sure that critics play by the rules.

Tone
My tone of voice is all wrong, or at least I've been told so much so by someone, namely a female, who I have an interest in on a level more than just social, this very night. Effectively, this exchange probably struck the death knell for any sort of future endeavors, but, as I usually do in these situations, I feel like I was misinterpreted. My tone was of annoyance, sure I can accept that, which might stem from a long build up of frustration after having my initial proposal accepted but subsequently delayed for weeks on end now. It also stems from being in a position where I'm not supposed to be completing the task of answering reference questions that I did in the past, but seem to always have to do when either of the two library school students referred to in the last post are working the desk.

Thus begins the age of uncertainty with regards to my role here at the library. It's hard enough to strike a balance that's in line with my job description and that doesn't infringe entirely upon the duties I once held. Add on top of that, the unending buzz of personality overdrive from this particular student, the one who I referred to as being in a near "orgasmic" state with regards to her enthusiasm. It's maddening to have to be around for long periods of time. Luckily, I do have an office and a desk to escape to when I'm not duty bound to man the ship out front, so I can get a break. However, the residue still clings to you long after you're out of sight and mind. My annoyance reaches a fever pitch quite often, and after this incident, I'm even more certain that I'll have to try extra hard to contain my frustration.

As for the incident itself, which isn't worth recounting here in its entirety, but amounted to nothing more than another in a long line of occurrences where I'm forced to admit that I don't know how I come off in certain situations. Do I sound annoyed all the time? Do I appear angry? Sure, I know I do at times, but that's natural for anyone, but this girl seems to think it's a perpetual state for me, when, in fact, it's little more than an infrequent result of enthusiasm overload. I can't handle it, and I think that the only cure for it is a good old dose of reality. Some get it and others don't. Those that don't can't remove their rose-tinted glasses and thrive in a incredulous state that refuses to grow up and tune in to the realities of life, especially life in an academic setting or just life as most people beyond the age of thirteen live it. Those that do, without question, seem to be much more genuine and grounded in reality, a phrase I've used before, and they can see the real world, and this profession, for what truly is, a sham.

Random Thoughts and Observations
Lost Words
Since my last post was gobbled up in a moment of technological breakdown, I felt that it was necessary to revisit that type of disaster. If for nothing else than stability and piece of mind, those of us who hearken back to the days of writing with an instrument of your choosing need no further evidence for this argument than the eventual and sometimes frequent failure of the computer. Having your words deleted by any number of freakish occurrences can be so disheartening that it begs one to wonder if we would have been better off without the word processor. Once it's gone, you're sunk. Unless you have a sharp memory that can reproduce your words again flawlessly, then you know it won't be the same.

The Optimistic and the Defeated
Encountering two current students in the library science program I completed in December, I arrived at the conclusion that there seem to be only two types of personalities emerging from this school: the defeated and the overly optimistic. These seem to be the two types of personalities that are churned out by library schools, at least here in Pittsburgh, but I suspect that it's common at most schools that offer this type of degree.

The optimistic seem to, for whatever reason, be confined mostly, to the females who enroll in the program. I don't know if they require females to have rose-colored glasses before being accepted or what, or maybe they're issued upon acceptance, but they seem to be in abundance both when they enter and upon exiting. If library school was a cult, then it'd be pretty efficient at brainwashing female members. These eternal optimists are, again for whatever reason, confined to the least mature and bear the resemblance, as someone who shall remain nameless likes to refer to them, of "kindergarten teachers." The sappiness seems to ooze from them like slime from a snail. It's hard enough to take seriously, but it also betrays a certain disconnect from reality. Living in a world that celebrates paper-plate masks in the shape of animals, these optimists seem to require little more from life than terribly written children's fiction, that allows them a license to live a neverending childhood, and an inability to think on a level beyond that of an elementary school teacher.

The other group, a much sadder lot, the defeated seems to emerge from library school without any shred of hope. After all the time and money spent on the schooling, the entire program seems little more than a joke designed to bilk people in the guise of helping them enter a field that brims with possibility. This possibility, as far as I can tell, is a fleeting mirage, the cheese dangled to lure the mice into the trap. Sure, the abundance of jobs was no lie, but getting past the initial application phase seems to be reserved for those with a willingness to degrade themselves in any way to get a foot in the door. Creating a phony persona seems to be the ticket in, otherwise why the need for "energetic," "creative," and "team oriented" (which basically means you're going to be stuck working with other phonies in some sort of psychological and intellectual deathtrap) individuals for most jobs? Most of these people are no different than graduates from other schools. Take any liberal arts student pursuing a graduate degree, and you'll see what I mean.

What's troublesome about this beyond the fact that it's a sad situation without much hope, is that it's a perpetual cycle. Misery begets misery, and the same can be said for the optimists. The delusional state is just as dangerous, if not moreso than the than the defeated because those in the latter group seem to have a little higher stake in reality and are much more genuine. Reality isn't a stranger to these people, and the thought of adopting a persona, no matter how appealing, is revolting on many grounds.

So, if the two I'm currently working with continue down their paths, one is obviously grooming to be an uber-librarian and can barely keep her enthusiasm from reaching orgasmic proportions, the other, who already has another degree and should have no trouble landing a quality job, could go either way, although right now she
might be on the verge of creating a new category, the academically bored, then the cycle will perpetuate itself. The one constant in library school is that there's no constant. You're either delusional beyond belief or hopeless beyond hope. Pick one.

Look into my Eyes
If the old maxim of eyes being windows into the soul holds any sway, then to extend it further would include the eyes and the face betraying one's contempt for others.

There's no real need to rehash my own dislike for bar culture which seemingly is the perpetual engine the fuels the side of town I live on. Without the endless number of bars and other establishments that serve alcohol, I'm sure the South Side would dry up and whither away like some windswept dustbowl circa the Great Depression. (If only John Ford were still around to direct the remake.) Regardless, I realize they fulfill a function and keeps the money flowing to a certain degree. However, for all the benefits, one also must suffer the ill effects of having a bar or two located on each and every block. With all the variety, one would assume that it's possible to locate a bar that measures up to snuff and allows one the freedom one, namely me, would expect. I'm still looking.

On a very, very infrequent night out, I was reminded why exactly I despise going to bars. I only went to two places, and they were fine, but it seems that there's one or more characteristic that rears its ugly head to do nothing but confirm my.....I had more to say, hell, I had it written, but for some reason Blogger chose to fail me here. I'm not even going to attempt to rewrite this post because I know I can't do it again word for word. So, just imagine what else I might have written.