readings and readers

I went to a reading a few weeks ago at KGB Bar, and I was struck by how different the two readers were. The first read a short speech about how the recent US publication of his first published novel came about, and he then read the first two chapters of his novel. The second gave a short introduction (a sentence or two) and read two nonconsecutive chapters from her novel (also her first, I believe).

He was less expressive (though I overheard an audience member breathlessly tell him that his acting experience showed in his reading ability - gag me), almost monotone, and when he read the female characters' dialogue in his deep monotone voice, I nearly laughted out loud. The style of his writing was thesaurus-use-evident, the words overly expressive, overly explanatory in content, overly allusion-heavy, overly un-lyrical. Almost hard-boiled without the crime or the detection.

She was expressive leading toward the way people read to small children - but in the most enjoyable way possible. There were a lot of characters speaking in interesting ways. It was so funny and real, and I can't wait to buy her book.

I went to the reading at KGB last night too (really, any excuse to order Baltika 6), and it was such a pleasurable experience. Gary Lutz and Robert Lopez.

First Gary lutz. So funny. And sad and seriously human and whimsical and wonderful. Such unexpected word usage and phrasing. Read a story called "Divorcer" with a dozen or so segments, some in first person some in third, and I want to reread it so I can keep track of the points of view. And because it was so lovely and pleasurable. It's funny though, thinking about his reading style, which was unpolished but very comfortable. He knows that piece and he has practiced, has read it before, but his voice is a writer's voice, not a performer's.

Favorite line: "She moved to the devouring city, though it barely nibbled her." So beautiful.

Robert Lopez's book of stories, Asunder, just came out, and he read a few short pieces. He read also like a writer, but like a writer who is the only authority on how his fiction should sound. How it sounded when it came to him. When it hit the keys. Phrasing and emphasis that might not jump off the page at the reader. His reading added a layer in the most wonderful way. There was one place where it particularly delighted me: the way it came out: "there was spittle on his chin. And beard." As if there was beard on his chin and not spittle on his beard. I'm actually not sure which way it should be...

Favorite line: "She wants me to touch her places." With the emphasis on places.

Something also so human about Lopez's prose but in a more pointed way than Lutz's. More aggressive somehow. I want to read more of both of them. Really enjoyable evening.

There's more where that came from.

the game cheats

This is long overdue, but when I was visiting my family at Thanksgiving, my sister and her husband and I were playing Carnival MiniGolf for the Wii (is it the Wii or just Wii? I don't even know these things), and we were taking turns playing to unlock something - at one point he would get the ball to bounce just right so it went into a hen house and then hand the controller to one of us to try catching the eggs and medallions, or something like that - it was a lot of fun - and then there was another part where you play against the character, and someone - I'm not sure who - decided that he was cheating. The character.

And I tried to explain that saying "the game cheats" is completely illogical, but I think it was completely lost on them, not because they couldn't grasp it but because they didn't care. To me, it was very important. (This is your brain while studying for the LSAT.)

The game can't cheat because the game is a set of rules. The game can't violate the rules because if it does (it can't, but let's just say), then that violation is one of the rules, in which case no rules have been violated and the game didn't cheat.

Actually what I have in my notes: "the game cheats" is a nonsensical statement because the game sets up its own rules and therefore can only abide by them. If it is "cheating" - i.e., benefiting from actions the (human) player is (highly) unlikely to be able to perform - it is still playing by the rules because by definition it can only play by the rules - meaning this ability to outperform the player is a rule and therefore cannot be construed as cheating.

I believe their exact response was, "No. It's cheating." Use your words.

still researching

I was reading this article by Haruki Murakami, and where he writes, "In an age when reality is insufficiently real, how much reality can a fictional story possess?" I couldn't help but think of my research of apocalyptic fiction in the mid-twentieth century. I find myself wondering if this threshold crossing that he feels so acutely is a personal journey and not a global trend.

Or, perhaps more accurately, I'm wondering if this wasn't very similar to the way certain novelists felt in the years after World War II - Vonnegut comes immediately to mind - and it's just that another global/local tragedy was what did it for Mr. Murakami.

I have to admit here that I've never read his fiction. I've read a few of his essays. (The list just keeps getting longer, doesn't it?)

But, conversely, perhaps one of the reasons I've been interested in mid-twentieth century apocalyptic literature (and backshadowing and the representation of memory and all that) has to do with my own specific historical experience. Maybe the chaos I feel in my historical moment is what led me to the literature of that era. Who knows?

On a sort of tangentially related note: I watched Alejandro González Iñárritu's lastest, Biutiful,last night, and I wrote a little review for it on my magazine's blog. Good times.

literacy and efficiency

On the train this afternoon, I was reading an article in the New Yorker about energy efficiency and the Jevons paradox, which is basically that greater energy efficiency will not lead to as much of a reduction in energy use as might be assumed because it will lead to greater demand and greater productivity.

Doing some reading around the internet when I got back home, I came across a review of Dennis Baron's book, A Better Pencil: Readers, Writers, and the Digital Revolution, which examines the technological improvements in written communication over the last few thousand years.

And I really feel like the two have something in common, or at least that my opinion about the second can be expressed using the sentiment of the first. Yeah, there's a lot of noise out there. Yes, I spend far too much time on Facebook.* And yes, I am extremely fortunate to not only have my own computer, but two computers and an iphone, which means that I have access to the internet at virtually all minutes of the day, and there are a lot of people who don't have the kind of access I've become dependent on. But.

Computers allow us to write more, to write a lot more, to self-publish, to read more, to read a wider array of things - nonsense or otherwise - and all this reading and writing makes reading and writing more widely available because of the increase in productivity and the subsequent demand for more reading and writing. So arguing that digital media in some way impairs literacy doesn't really make any sense when you get down to it.

*I wish to point out here that most of what I'm doing on Facebook is reading the articles that my friends post, seeing if anyone's playing or reading or publishing or showing or whatever, and all the posts about your baby being sick or the laundry you are or are not doing, I don't care. I'm just kidding, I care deeply. And also I'm stalking you. And reading your blog.

Read my magazine.