Book #5: Downtown Owl

Chuck Klosterman is the sort of writer I would strive to be, if I had the optimistic outlook to try my hand at legitimate writing for a living. Intellectual, but not too snarky (there IS a bit of matter-of-factedness about him, though it's rarely in the context of "you should know this", but rather "I just happen to know this. It is what it is, and I have no rationalization for knowing this seemingly trivial information), Klosterman has written books that I have devoured in rapid succession before, including Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs; Fargo Rock City; IV; and his most recent release, Eating the Dinosaur (which I finished the week before I hatched this five-year plan...bummer).

His books are an infusion of music of all genres, history, and pop culture seemingly ad nauseum. There's a catch to it, though: it's all brought up and deconstructed in a way that harkens back to earning an English degree. When debating the importance (long-term) of Britney Spears' influence on the world (or at least impressionable young girls in the earliest years of the 21st century), Klosterman takes what again seems like (and- admittedly- is, in the grand scheme of things) a trivial matter and dissects it with the vigor and technical ability of a lit. theorist. What ensues is entertaining to me because of its ability to make you think about such outlandish things.

Anyway, Downtown Owl represents Klosterman's first foray into fiction. The story acts as sort of a Rules of Attraction type of novel set in the 1980s (83-84) in rural North Dakota, where the lives of three individuals who are vaguely linked in a small town where everyone knows everyone, though in what comes across as a vacuum to someone who grew up in a town of more than a few hundred people. Part of what I like about Klosterman's style in this book is that he so easily switches from the perspectives of Horace, Mitch, and Julia, while adopting their perspectives of empty and judgmental, apathetic but curious, and bewildered and longing for more, respectively. The different characters have the same sort of dismal routines with their own reasons for coming into said routines, and while none of them are outstandingly likeable, I found myself rooting for any of them to get out of Owl and into an environment which might have been more personally gratifying or rewarding.

Of course, tied into this are the essential references to MTV, Judas Priest, and other mainstays of the 80s which take Mitch in particular by surprise...amazing to think of MTV as a so-new-it's-foreign-to-a-teen concept, rather than a network which wore itself out a decade ago. If you've read any of Klosterman's non-fiction work (I suggest Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs for starters), this will read in a similar fashion, though the task for you the reader is to take that matter-of-fact tone and apply it to three fictional characters. Either way, it was a quick and fairly entertaining read. The ending caught me a little off-guard, as if his intent was to say that the main characters- consciously or not- longed for something out of the ordinary, but when it came, they had not a clue what to do.

Book #4: The Book of Basketball

I read Bill Simmons's Book of Basketball in April, and loved it. Simmons- aka The Sports Guy on ESPN.com- took the one thing he does best in the world (talk about the NBA) and ran with it, to the tune of 700 pages. Not a light read. That said, the pages turned quickly. The discussion points (why Bill Russell is better than Wilt Chamberlain is the opening argument) certainly encourage debate, though Simmons takes his opinions and spells them out, all while humorously dismantling most dissenting objections.

What I have loved most about reading his work online is the interwoven sports and pop culture references present in just about every piece he does. It makes the reading of sports writing much more enjoyable, as other writers can be purely statistically-driven. This may be interesting material, but it certainly lacks the entertainment value that Simmons provides in his name-dropping of Red and Andy from Shawshank Redemption and how Rocky Balboa ended the Cold War on his Christmas Day fight against Drago.

The Sports Guy has made a career of presenting his arguments from a fan's perspective; in The Book of Basketball, he re-structures the basketball Hall of Fame in terms of a pyramid. The catch is that players reach certain levels of exclusivity based on their performance, which is to say Kobe Bryant deserves a more prestigious level of inclusion than say, Alex English. What this does is not necessarily make the inclusion tougher, but rather reward those who are certainly more deserving of a spot in the Hall.

The best part about the book was the fact that while Simmons' sense of writing comes off as conversational (had I been better-versed in NBA knowledge, I'd argue for or against some of these point at a bar), he speaks from a lifetime's worth of fandom. His previous effort, Now I Can Die in Peace, was more meaningful to me as a baseball fan; I learned more reading this book, though. Simmons chronicles the evolution of the sport, the highs and the lows...all in his entertaining fashion.

Problems with the book include the constant evolution of players, meaning there will be revised editions to come of a 700-page behemoth. I will probably just continue reading his work online, rather than purchase another copy of the book. That said, it's a fantastic and insightful read...and a good arm workout.

Movie #1- Pulp Fiction

Without the aid of Netflix or anything of that sort, obtaining 15 of AFI's "100 Years...100 Movies" selections will probably be costly. I'm sure there'll be some borrowing going on, but in the meantime, I took a bit of birthday money and splurged on a classic I had been meaning to replace since it went a-wanderin' sometime during freshman year of college: Pulp Fiction.

Probably the best-known work of Quentin Tarantino, Pulp Fiction is chock-full of lines oft-quoted in the annals of popular culture, which just so happens to be my specialty. Not to mention perhaps the strongest cast in the 6 Degrees of Separation game this side of the eagerly-anticipated release of The Expendables.
Shoulda been Jules spouting some prophetic shit on the cover...

Anyway, to the movie...I thoroughly enjoyed the formulation of the story, coming and going from different stories that gel at the very end. While I question whether John Travolta was "Oscar good", I will say that the exchanges between Vincent and Jules are some of the most entertainingly philosophical conversations that I can recall; almost reminds me of living with Yvan. Other than the length of the movie, and what I felt was an overrated performance by Uma Thurman, there wasn't much not to like about the movie. I should back up: Uma Thurman's performance was good. Again, I have a qualm with her turning in an Oscar good performance. But that's just me. Looking back at the 1995 Oscars, only the Shawshank Redemption sticks out as a fantastic movie (Forrest Gump is always viewed in a positive, nostalgic light....but life-altering, it is not). Quiz Show sucked, and while I can't comment on Bullets Over Broadway, having not seen it, I can assume the hard-on the Academy has for Woody Allen had a large part in it being considered one of the best of the year.

Anyway, I was happy to cross off #95 on AFI's list, and will try to aim a little higher next time. On that note, I'll leave you with a classic and my favorite part of the movie (a bit cliche, of course):

Book #3: Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Dog Days

Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Dog Days by Jeff Kinney

On a hot Friday, during a day where the kids were just as brutal as the heat, I decided during lunch to pick up a book on the nearby shelf. I had read author Jeff Kinney's first "Diary..." installment (entitled "Diary of a Wimpy Kid") last summer and found myself laughing out loud on more than a few occasions. Naturally, I thought another dose of simple, child-appropriate humor would hit the spot. And I was right. The books read so easily that I was down to the last 15 pages by the end of my second (albeit brief) break of the day, and had it done by sundown on Friday.

The diary follows the summer vacation of the 'uncool from the outside, but totally justified in being absolutely normal if you get it' protagonist Greg Heffley. The ideal summer of uninterrupted video gaming, late-night, wake-up-late lifestyle choices are interrupted early by Greg's mother, who has her own ideas of how great a summer could be. I find, in reading these books, a kid not unlike myself who wants to bask in the freedom of no school, but who ultimately doesn't get to make that choice. Looking back on my own summers, there were more than a few opportunities to relax that were blown when "plans" got in the way.
What I wish I could have been making on my summer vacation, circa 1996.

What ensues is 210 pages (which again were super-easy to read, as it's in diary format, complete with rough pictures) of worst-case-for-13-year-old scenarios: watching younger siblings, awkward family moments, nerd friends, best intentions gone awry...it seems as though the summer can't possibly get any worse for Greg. And that's what I think makes the book so endearing. At the end, when you pull yourself back from what happened and look at the big picture, life/the summer from Hell isn't all THAT bad...even if the most memorable parts were the lowlights. As an adult, I found myself laughing at my own personal experiences and nodding knowingly at the inside joke that parents/adults get.

This fourth installment of the Wimpy Kid series was delightful and lifted the mood of what could have been an adult's version of a Dog Day, indeed. I look forward to reading the rest of Greg's adventures as a relief from the real world.

Book #2: Alice's Adventures in Wonderland

Black and white? Groaannnnnn.

This post is WAY overdue. I had decided to read the Lewis Carroll classic in anticipation of Tim Burton's cinematic effort to recreate the magic of the book. While I knew the basic gist of the story, I was also aware of Disney's penchant for ahh, 'distorting' other works (see Grimm, Brothers), and so reading the original seemed like a logical decision.

Beware of non-threatening cats...and the big D, followed by 'isney'.

The first thing that struck me after reading the book (other than "what the hell was that?") was that it was relatively short. The action picked up immediately and ended abruptly as well. Carroll's eccentric mind shines through in the work, though I can understand why Disney went minimalist with the wordplay in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (AAIW henceforth): it's dizzying. Excessive.

Look, I get that back in the day, they didn't have all of the luxurious options for entertainment, and so literature had to be all-encompassing. I also understand that fantasy has its niche. Still, we could do with a little less of the nonsensical mashup of words. Well, whichever. Now, if you saw the movie, the Bandersnatch is referenced, but does not make an appearance in this book (perhaps in Through the Looking Glass). The Jabberwocky also is not a staple of AAIW, and is actually a poem of Carroll's. I like the homage. Anyway, the book is available online to read for free here.

Overall, I was left wanting more. The book just didn't grab me and while it WAS a quick read, I guess I just caught it at a time where I didn't fully appreciate the jargon and writing style of something that required a lot of outside-the-box thinking...which is unfortunate, considering I LOVED The Phantom Tollbooth. Read at your discretion.

Misc.- Go Fishing

Growing up, I rarely fished. Going out on a limb, I say I just don't have the patience for it. While patience with people is something I can handle, holding a line that disappears under the water and assuming a fish will bite it has seemed more than silly. In short, it had been years since I've cast out into any body of water. So when my buddy Mike informed me that part of his bachelor party would involve fishing in the Long Island Sound, my mind immediately went to "I wonder what sort of beer I will be drinking in the meantime" mode. Of course, I'd give it a go for Fish: we go back to elementary school and his looming marriage to longtime girlfriend, Vanessa, is something I couldn't be happier about.

Saturday, May 22: Set out of PK at 6:00 a.m. for Connecticut. By the time we arrived and threw down some greasy egg sandwiches, I was feeling good. The guy collecting fees for the trip convinced me to drop an extra $2 for the Biggest Catch pool. "You've got more confidence than I do," I said, "but I like your sales pitch. Count me in." And so we set off in the foggy morning for deeper waters.

There's something about the sea and its mysterious underlying depths that intrigues me. As we headed out to deeper waters, we had a good time chatting and learning the tricks of the trade, like baiting up a fish and why you bring a towel (stinky hands). Our first drop, the line went out wayyyy past the bottom of the sea, and so when we reeled up, a guy on the boat let me know that it was, in fact, not a good idea to let the line out that far. Anyway, as I'm reeling the line in, there's a bit of a tug. "It's caught on the bottom," I was told. Alright. So I kept reeling the line in and lo and behold, there was a little something on the line! No way! I managed to catch the first fish of the day! An 8 lb. striper later, and I didn't quit while ahead. Oh well. For a slow day on the boat, I was pretty pumped to have something to say for my adventure at sea...

While the fish didn't win me the pool (a larger fish was caught on the last drop of the day), I had a blast, though I will say the company on the boat made the trip more fun than the actual catching of the fish! Now the only thing I have to ask is whether striper counts as a new meat....


Winner: Keith. Hook, line, and sinker.

Book #1: Malcolm Gladwell's "What the Dog Saw"

In my first book review, I will briefly discuss the pros and cons of Malcolm Gladwell's latest effort, What the Dog Saw: and other adventures. For those that are not familiar with Gladwell, he is the author of other books (generally of the same nature), "Tipping Point", "Blink", and "Outliers". That said, let's get right into it...

Part of what I like about Gladwell's approach is that it is written in a very conversational manner. It comes down to the readers familiarity with Gladwell's topic du juor when assessing just how enjoyable his books can be. In "What the Dog Saw" (WTDS, henceforth), Gladwell has grouped together a number of his essays in the New Yorker magazine, for which he has been a writer since the mid-90s. While each of three sections of this book deal with three generally similar themes, each chapter is its own, and stands on its own when read a chapter at a time. This, in my opinion, is a mixed bag when dealing with this book. While one chapter may be really interesting, the next- or another within the same scope of each of the WTDS's sections could be a bit laborous to read through (I was strangely intrigued by the 'science' behind the near-monopolization of the ketchup industry, whereas my attention and tolerance for people who make their money in animal psychology is admittedly short).

Talking to animal's spirits? Understanding their behavior? Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

The benefit is that if you have any interest in the topic of any particular chapter, Gladwell's seemingly effortless way of making a scholarly study conversational forces you to take a (made easy) look at the topic he's writing about and form an opinion of it. Even if you don't agree with the premise or the idea that he's hawking, you're at least getting the picture presented in a thorough fashion. THAT, in my opinion, is the best thing about Gladwell's books: if you read them, you will at least gain an understanding of people who think in that manner, whether you agree or not. And it's in small doses, so if you really can't philosophically stomach what the man's selling, you can take it one effortless chapter at a time.

This chapter-by-chapter approach to selling a larger product isn't necessarily a bad thing, as fiction is a larger-scale crapshoot when calculating interest and retention of readership. I did get the feeling, however, that I had read some of these articles before. I would imagine that part of that inevitability comes from having read Gladwell before. I haven't read Tipping Point, but THOROUGHLY enjoyed Blink, and Outliers, Gladwell's 2008 book about "diamonds in the rough", how rare they actually are, and whether coincidence plays as large a role in success as we may be led to believe. By comparison, the looser theme-- seeing things from a different perspective to understand how the minds of some work to create and breed different levels of success-- left me feeling a little bit like I had missed something.

I guess I just felt like I was getting bits and pieces from Gladwell's past to make sort of a "best of" book, which requires some work in tying it all together. I'm an album man, and I prefer listening to a full body of work, even if the best-of album is full of the big hits. It's fairly nitpicky, as there are many things I enjoy about this writer, but the concept of understanding the mindset of others and how it comes together to form a bigger notion is better-suited for the New Yorker. Serve that up every few months. When he transfers that notion to, say, Blink, and zeroes in on the first thoughts upon interaction with a person/place/thing (your conditioned thought process, and what goes through your mind in the blink of an eye), the focus- to me- was better laid-out.

While the book picked up steam towards the end (and after re-reading the Preface, which I breezed through before diving into the WTDS), the at-times lack of focus worked against my desire to plug through the book. It will be re-read, for sure, but that sort of difficulty should be expressed.

On the whole, Gladwell turns in another fine effort, even if it was expected as a collection of hits from his day job. I certainly recommend it if you are in any way, shape, or form a fan of non-fiction/psychology/sociology/popular culture (yeah, pop culture shows up)...but I recommend Blink a bit more.