Perhaps we all reappear, perhaps all our lives are impositions one on another.

I am a sucker for experimental books, esoteric as they may be -



From reading Loon Lake, E.L Doctorow reminds me fondly of Cormac McCarthy - both writers glorify violence with graceful (albeit recondite) prose that is - personally, at least - refreshing to read.

Set in America during the Great Depression, Loon Lake follows the story of Joe Paterson, a wandering 'hobo' who initially finds solace working for a circus before he, the "wiseass street kid," is ultimately "gone in love, gone in aspiration, gone in the dazzlement of the whole man, the polished being."

Loon Lake adopts a convoluted structure that bedazzles and frustrates readers. Only until the last two pages did I truly appreciate the effectiveness of the structure; the story is told with poetry, eulogies and an overall remission of chronological sequence. Although it is initially difficult to delve into, Loon Lake is ultimately a grueling and rough story of ambition, truth and one's ability to adapt.

Standout quotes from the novel:

The poem is a cry of the unborn heart. Yes, because the poem perfectly embodies the world, there is no world without poem.

I cite too the ordinary fears of mortality the inspection of a fast-growing mole on the side of the nose blood in the stool a painful injury or the mournful witness of the slow death of a parent all this is given to all men as well as the starting awake in the nether hours of the night from such glutinous nightmare that on'e self name relationships nationality place in life all data of specificity wipe out amnesiatically asiatically you don't even know the idea human it is such a low hour of the night and he shares it with all of us.

He wondered seriously if love wasn't a feeling at all but a simple characterless state of shared isolation. If you were alone with a woman your feelings might change from moment to moment but the circumstance of your shared fate did not change. Maybe that's where the love was, in the combined circumstance. [...] They knew it could incorporate passion or prim distaste, it might be joyous or full of rage, it might carry extreme concern of any kind, or unconcern, but it was presumed to survive challenge. All it was, was a kind of neutral constancy. [... It was] nothing grand, nothing monumental, and not a prison either, but a sort of sturdy structure of outlook, one that wouldn't break under the weight of ideas and longing feelings terrors visions and the world's awful mordant surprises.

Poor People

In an attempt to understand the "characteristics of poverty," journalist and National Book Award winner William T. Vollmann asks victims of poverty worldwide, "why are you poor?"

Some believe it is their destiny and some accept it as the corollary of an imbalanced society; regardless, it results in an inevitable "mutual class invisibility called segregation."

Although Vollmann's tone may at times seem egregiously pretentious and his writing repetitive, Poor People is an introspective, thought-provoking book enriched (ironically) by his distinct, poetic narrative.

“Life is an extended camping trip. With a leaky, inferior tent one runs no more risk of rain than anyone else; but if it does rain, the person in the cheap tent chances soaking in his sleeping bag, and possibly dying of hypothermia.”

Other books by William T. Vollmann: Europe Central, Rising Up and Rising Down

Now you see me

The first 4 minutes of Now You See Me were exhiliarating - the final moments? Not so much.
The cast, firstly, was near-wonderful. The Michael Caine + Morgan Freeman combo took me down a much-needed Dark Night memory lane, Dave Franco does his brother proud (oh, they are so alike, it's heart-warming) and Woody Harrelson is the absolute gem of the Four Horsemen.



I'm a bit inclined - forgive my partisan views - to dismiss Jessie Eisenberg entirely but I must grudgingly admit that he was possibly the best actor in the film. The reason for my Eisenberg-enmity is this video. The interviewer was (annoyingly) untactful at times, but there was no reason for Jessie to be such a dick/misogynist.

Back to the movie - it was gripping and full of clever plot twists... except for, of course, THE FINAL ONE. Maybe it's just me, but Mark Ruffalo's character simply was not COOL enough to be THE EYE; why expose Dylan Rhodes as an incompetent cop, label him the staple antagonist (arguable) and then reveal him to be the hottest shot possible? Alma would've been a better 'eye.' On that note, Dylan and Alma's relationship was so unshippable (forgive me, this is the only time this term will appear on my blog) that it was cringeworthy (ditto). Melanie Laurent was dreadfully undermined.

This film was - in a matter of minutes - transformed from an entertaining spectacle to a classic avenge-my-father-mission with a hackneyed and (I quote) "simply unsatisfying" denouement.

What was the big deal with the eye and all the odd letters on the cards (a Hermit, Death, a High Priestess, and a Lover)? I see the jack-death connection, but the rest are not so obvious?

This is a brilliantly entertaining movie that needs a sequel to patch up gaps.

Beethoven Romance No. 2

So, re-hiking the tortuous path to taking the SATs was certainly NOT how I intended to (disconsolately) spend my summer; however, I am going to use this as an opportunity to become an expert at managing my time so that I can pursue my original summer plans (reading until my brain turns spongy, becoming best friends with the E-string notes on my violin and upping my French).

People are afraid of what they don't understand

I watched Man of Steel this morning - shed a few tears, jumped a couple of times in my seat...
Emotionally, this film inevitably delivers, even if via trite lines such as:

You're not just anyone. One day, you're going to have to make a choice. You have to decide what kind of man you want to grow up to be. Whoever that man is, good character or bad, it's going to change the world.

Yet we must remember that when remaking a franchise as legendary, monumental and meaningful to millions as Superman, such quotes, albeit hackneyed, are also CLASSIC and need to be incorporated -

You will give the people an ideal to strive towards. They will race behind you, they will stumble, they will fall. But in time, they will join you in the sun. In time, you will help them accomplish wonders.

Because of this, it is easier to forgive the implausibilities that crop out throughout the film ('How are you, Clark, only minimally surprised to see your biological father materialize out of nothingness in front of you inside an insular ice cave?' 'How are you, Lois, only marginally disturbed by being inside an alien spacecraft?").

Likewise, it is also preferable to gloss over the minor flaws - such as the extensive fight scenes (maybe this is just me) and recurrent resurrections of Russel Crowe - and allow oneself to be absorbed by the film's spectacular cinematography and grandness.

Henry Cavill presents to us a different Superman - 'darker,' as critics are calling it - the same way Zack Snyder and the rest of his team (NOLAN) give us a deeper insight into Clark Kent's past and his scruples ... 

The film isn't solely a Superman-pity party; we are given opportunities to peer at the 'other side,' realize that (insert 'poor') Zod was conceived by AI and assigned to his patriotic fate, and sympathize. Let's not forget that he also has the best villain accent ever... something about his hard-edged tone is so boulder-y and stone-y (okay I'll stop).

James Franco wrote a review of Man of Steel too, although he somehow found yet another way to make the review 80% about himself (I still love him, though).

So, the film: Impactful? Definitely. A spectacle? Yes. But superbly honed? Debatable... yet infinitely forgivable for its flaws.