Brian’s Comments (group member since Jul 24, 2007)

Brian’s comments from the The Subversives group.

Random fact about platypi number one:

The duck bill is magnetically sensitive, and is used to root through mud and sense electrical impulses from the nerve cells of their pray.

When you're a chronic insomniac, it's either a non-stop barrage of "Girls Gone Wild" commercials or Animal Planet.

I picked Animal Planet.

Okay, so I'm imagining a three-tier system here.

The "read" shelf includes any books passed without debate onto The Subversives-approved BOGFMLA-sanctioned reading list. For the sake of making us not look like petty squabblers, I have included all of the books currently listed on the "Subversive Books" thread in this category.

If anyone has specific objection to a book on the list right now, give a holler and we can move it to the currently being read section. That way, we can all read it and pettily squabble.

(I'm not sure if I as Moderator and Pope am the only one allowed to to do this or what-not...if that is the case, we'll need to agree on some kind of system of voting or blackballing to move stuff from read to currently reading)

Books that are under debate, in the currently reading shelf. I guess for the sake of not cluttering up the argument about whether the Boson Higgs particle exists or is simply a conspiracy of mayonnaise magnates, each book under debate should probably get it's own thread, wherein participants are encouraged to be well-mannered about their petty squabbling.

Books that individual members have read and no one else seems to know anything about can go in the "to be read" shelf.

After paragraphs of obfuscation, I'll add some bullet points:

Read:
We like-it like it, but we're not sure how it feels about us.

Reading:
We know it, but we're not sure if we like it
(possibly because of the huge zit on its nose and its snide demeanor).

To Be Read:
We don't know about it. As a matter of fact, it kind of scares us.

[quote:] In his analysis of post-World War II horror fiction, The Modern Weird Tale (2001), critic S. T. Joshi[19:] devotes a chapter to King's work. Joshi argues that King's best-known works (his supernatural novels) are his worst, being mostly bloated, illogical, maudlin and prone to deus ex machina endings. Despite these criticisms, Joshi argues that since Gerald's Game (1993), King has been tempering the worst of his writing faults, producing books that are leaner, more believable and generally better written. Joshi also stresses that, despite his flaws, King almost unfailingly writes insightfully about the pains and joys of adolescence, and has produced a few outstanding books, citing two non-supernatural novels – Rage (1977) and The Running Man (1982) – as King's best: in Joshi's estimation, both books are riveting and well-constructed, with believable characters.[/quote:]

-- Wikipedia entry on "Stephen King"

This is almost exactly how I feel about Stephen King. I detested The Running Man, but I liked "Rage" and "The Long Walk"

"Gerald's Game" was a tad histrionic for my taste, but it was wickedly plausible. "Bag of Bones" was the most recent King I have read (I read it immediately before "Desperation" and disillusionment), and it was meaner and leaner, but hardly more believable.

Have been unable to find anything that points to King ghostwriting his latest novels, although there seems to be an interesting discrepancy between King being unable to write because of painful injuries from the van crash (hip shattered, unable to write for more than an hour at a time) and King suddenly blossoming into a horror wunderkind again.

In other news, we begin the desperate sprint to finish the first draft this evening. I'm only 2,000 words a day for two weeks away from a full night's sleep, then the first cut, and then the bloodletting and recriminations begin.

Actually, the book is going to be nowhere near as funny as the stuff I write here. It's an attempt at Serious Literature, the kind of Serious Literature that drives people to heavy drinking and withdrawing from society for long periods of time, and perhaps the wearing of black berets, but almost certainly the smoking of cigarettes. There's humor here, but it's black humor.

It wouldn't be so bad if I hadn't come down with Stockholm Syndrom midway through Part 3 and now don't want the book to end. I've got probably about 45 pages (25,000 words) left to go on the first draft (after which comes the First Cut, then the Distribution to Friendly Editors, then the Second Cut, then the selection of literary agents to pester, then the Third Cut, then mailing, then Rejection in all, the process is probably going to take two years at the rate I'm going now), and between starting a new job, commuting for four hours each day, packing, negotiating the end of my lease, I'm having a difficult time finding time to write my standard 2,000 words a day. The inevitable truth is, I'll simply have to finish one day, because I've written about 125,000 words so far (about 225 pages so far), and even if I have to turn the main characters into superheroes to do it, or simply bang my forehead against the keyboard to fill stuff in.

The rule I'm adhering to is: No one but the Holy Whoever sees anything before the first cut, so I don't go posting excerpts everywhere.

But the synopsis is basically: two gay lovers travelling cross-country in 2004 from Maine to California. Working title is "Sons of Perdition."

It seems I've chosen the one book that will piss Absolutely Everyone off. Gay people will hate it because I'm heterosexual. People who don't like gay people will hate it because I mention gay people.

As to why I decided to write about homosexuals, it basically boils down to having been at Ground Zero for the 2004 election, and having heard for months about the stupid gay marriage amendment. Then, just when everyone was screaming at a fever pitch and the battle lines were drawn and the culture wars were reignited and people were screaming for blood in the streets, something very profound happened, which was: nothing. Sure, all the states passed their acidic little amendments (including Wisconsin), so I guess in some sense, something happened. But the titanic clash between the forces of cultural conservatism and humanism never really exploded the way I wanted it to, the way I needed it to in some sense.

So I set out to write an ending, some kind of ending, anything, to take the tremendous hyperbolic energy that had been pouring into my ears and eyes and do something with it, put it to use. Which carried me through the first two acts, or 100,000 words, well enough. Now we're in the land-mind riddled third act, and I have to bring the thing to a close and I don't really want to, because I like my characters, but I know I have to, so I'm kind of winding it through anyways, like chipping out a marble statue with a toothpick, or your fingernails.

And now I bet you wish you hadn't asked about the book at all.

I think I'd find Latin equivalents for unpleasant aspects of life and name cities after that.

Actually, as the last remaining Grandmaster of the Freemasons Society (the inner circle of which is a front for Howard Hughes clones and Lohanesque vampires), King is forever roaming the earth looking for new ways to thwart me, the last Scion, and my cocaine-addicted repressed-homosexual lawer-sidekick, Gary. Lately, King has been trafficking cucumbers out of Bolivia for God knows what end (almost certainly evil...evil always involves cucumbers). Meanwhile, Gary has sureptitiously gone shopping for lipstick, only to be taken prisoner by Farquod, head of the Society to Resurrect Hitler, a subdivision of the Inner Circle, with the lure of a free, China-white-laden Twinkee.

It's a tough job, being the last bastion of faith, hope, and goodness in a world gone awry. Somehow I'll manage.

Delusions and Anne Rice-John Grisham-Dan Brown-Douglas Adams crossovers aside, I spent a lot of time reading Stephen King books, and (ever the slow learner) slowly came to the conclusion at the end of "Desperation," that I had, in fact, read that book before, in a slightly different guise, perhaps a dozen times at that point. Cataclysmic struggle of supernatural good vs. supernatural evil. Man vs. the supernatural. The bad guys always have the initials R.F., and good always wins in the end. The few times he's deviated, I've enjoyed it. I liked Pet Cemetary. I liked The Dark Tower.

My dissatisfaction peaked right as I discovered Vonnegut, Hemingway, Faulkner, a bevy of others. It's three years of my life I'll never get back.

So half of me resents me for reading nothing but SK novels. The other half resents him for not having something better at the end of the ride for me. Petty? Absolutely.

It's one of those subjective things I cling to, the way people seem to irrationally hate Paris Hilton (while they read every AP story about her and e-mail it to their friends, normally with angry remarks like "look what the stupid skag has done now," etc.) I just ignore Hilton, and that suits me well enough.

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/books/revi...

Okay, okay, so the Times' book section doesn't have the best reputation. Oftentimes, they pick intellectual opponents to review the book, just so they can savage each other in print. I like to think of it as Jerry Springer on some wierd existential level.

There are still at least five titles here I'm interested in each year. The 2006 edition was no exception.

Absurdistan, Apex Hides The Grief, and a couple other ones look interesting.

The points I take off for having my personal archnemesis Stephen King on the list, I give back for including John Updike.

Thoughts, murderer's row?

I guess we COULD solve the energy crisis if we all burned L. Ron for heat.

Reminds me of the sewer mutant library in Futurama, made exclusively from things flushed down other people's toilets. It was "nothing...but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand."

In other shocking news, I actually liked "The Fountainhead," but could smell polemic underneath all trappings of fiction (this from the guy who loves Orwell). I would have suggested it for the subversive books if I hadn't had a copy of it shoved down my throat every time I got into a political argument.

This topic had been posted before...apparently we need a first post to keep the list going. So I killed the old one and started this one.

This might also be the place to debate what constitutes a "subversive" book.

I'm going to include, in random order, some of my favorite subversive books. Yeah, they're self-evident. They might even be on Oprah's list. But they have vicious teeth:

Animal Farm
1984
Keep the Aspidistra Flying

On the grounds that they challenged the conventional understanding of politics at their time, making Socialist Orwell one of sneakiest monkeys I know.

Player Piano

On the grounds that it is a dead-on razor parody of post-industrial United States. It's less sneaky than Orwell, but it's brazen.

A Clockwork Orange

Not your stupid 20-chapter Stanley Kubrik version. Your 21-chapter version, wherein, well, read it, okay?

Jeez, what am I, the pope?

Hard Times

Dickens, subversive? Of course! And this is as underhandedly wicked as he gets. Sure, he used Oliver Twist to mock religious charity. But can you gimme something that mocks 18th and 19th-century politics, makes a charade of marriage, and includes several dozen referrences to turtle soup on a golden spoon?

Done and done.

The reader's list made my eyes bleed. "Battlefield Earth" doesn't make it to the top of my science fiction novels, much less the greatest novels of the 20th century.

Choking back bile,
Brian

Okay, so here's the nifty, shiny new second post. It smells of new car and Internet. Mmmmmmm, Internet.

If you have a reliable source of book recommendations, post them here. I generally wander the library until I find something interesting (the latest acquistion? "Sex: A Natural History") that doesn't have an O sticker on it, or pick up one of the thousands of books my friends have recommended to me in the short time since I started writing my novel and ceased to read fiction.

Before people start slamming me for not reading right now, know that the very second the first draft is done, I'll be good 'ol bookwormy me again.

Rule One: no celebrity endorsements that involve a panel recommendation of any kind. If a celebrity recommends a book, they absolutely must have read it themselves. If a panel recommends a book, they can't have a celebrity to give them extra street cred.

Rule Two: Every third Wednesday of each month except those months containing a proper full moon, amber or honey in color and not accepting false "red" full moons (as determined by the Board of Governors of the International Full Moon Lovers Association or BOGIFMLA), shall be known hereafter as Moprah Day. On Moprah Day, the wearing of funny hats and clothes of the opposite gender is required, including but not limited to bowler hats, hose of various kinds, and accompanying undergarments, where not prohibited by law (I'm looking at you, Arkansas).

I think that's enough for rules at this point. Post away, kids.

Whoah, whoah, whoah...

I'm not allowed to just criticize? I have to provide a constructive alternative as well?

I feel like Chris Baty in the second year of Nanowrimo (http://www.nanowrimo.org/modules/cjay...). Rules? I know no rules. Hmmmm. Feel like I've been pantsed in high school gym class all over again.

Hey, wait, I've got an idea. I'll post it on a second thread, a place for people to add lists of books they recommend! Moo hoo ha ha!

First, things this group is not:

Honestly — and this comes first — I have nothing against Oprah.

She seems nice enough, the few times I've seen her television show. I don't know her personally, so I can't really say if that's all an act or what.

So this isn't a group dedicated to the assassination of Oprah (character or otherwise). You can find that on www.youareinsane.com, and it's sister site www.gethelpnow.com

This group isn't an excuse to spout racist or misogynistic slurs, either. I like black people and wish them well, and I like women and wish them well, so take your dastardly buggery somewhere else, and spare me the time it will take to read, mock, and eventually delete your monumental stupidity.

Rather, this group is opposed to the cultishness of Oprah's book club. It's that ticklish little feeling you get in the back of your throat when someone picks up a book simply because it's on the list of Oprah-approved reading materials, as if the Big Red O were some kind of arbiter of taste and awesomeness.

You know: the kind of person that wouldn't touch it when it was a crusty old high school English teacher recommending it, but picks it up the minute the sticker goes on.

In general, it is hoped this group will inspire independent thought among it's adherants, rather than go-team-go stupidity, Oprah-bashing, or other such churlishness.

Ultimately, I hope we all realize that there are no arbiters of taste, that red O or not, we start to appreciate novels for what they are, rather than for who or what they make us seem when we are seen reading them.

Mahalo,
Brian