townesvanfaulkner

Y'all remember this chick?

I think this is ultra impressive. Make sure you've got your speakers on because the first site plays their music. The second is an interview.

http://www.samhillbands.com/bands/quatro/index.shtml

http://richmond.net/locallife/output.aspx?Article_ID=2886955&Vertical_ID=2

Writing Style-5.4
Originality-4.7
Plot-1.8
Literary Merit(whatever that means)-1.6
Overall-2.4

I’m going to do my best to get through this review without making a play on the author’s last name.

This is the first book in a fantasy series that has a very significant cult following. So I was curious. But, after reading this one, I don’t know what all the fuss is about.

There is some pretty cool imagery from time to time. Elric is an albino, wizard king so he’s kind of a cool character I guess. The writing is actually pretty decent in places. I thought maybe I would like it at first with the initial description of the world and Elric. But the plot is simply retarded. It’s one of those books where you can tell that the author has no outline of where the story is going. So it’s just chapter after chapter of ridiculousness and disjointedness. With a plot like this, no matter how cool you think Elric may be you really can’t care much about what happens to him.

Basically, it’s about Elric’s brother-in-law trying to usurp him because he sees him as a weakling. They have a big magical battle and—spoiler alert—Elric wins.

Eh, who cares? Unless, you are a serious fantasy fan steer clear of this one.

However, I’ve also been intrigued by a book by the same author called Gloriana which may be better. And the writing in places in Elric is good enough that I don’t think I’ll totally write him off. I sense some potential there if he were working on a story that is well thought through and that it feels like the author cares more about. So, I might try some Moorcock later (dammit, I tried).

Writing Style-6.4
Originality-2.3
Plot-N/A
Enjoyability-5.9
Merit(whatever that means)-5.8
Overall-6.0

This was a Christmas present from my dad. Thanks, D!

I know embarrassingly little about our country’s birth via revolution. And this book is probably not as good a place to start as I had hoped. It covers almost literally only what happens in the year of 1776. Which seems like a pretty important year because it’s the year that we declared independence and so choose to call America’s birth year. However, the Revolutionary War continued until 1783 and this book covers almost exclusively the war and what happens to Washington’s Continental Army during this year and not the politics or social implications of the declaration of independence and why we decided to revolt in the first place. So, I guess what I’m trying to say is that it seems like a strange choice to cover only the battles fought during this year, which may indeed be a militarily pivotal year (I don’t know because I don’t know anything about the other seven years of the war), but seems more a year of symbolic importance rather than militarily.

The book starts off really well. McCullough paints a very vivid image of King George and George Washington and Nathaneal Greene and Henry Knox among other important figures on both sides. And he is a very good pop history writer. I was perfectly enthralled through the first half of the book. However, in the second half, it digresses into very repetitive troop movements, minor skirmishes, retreats, river crossings, troop morale, etc. This is the type of history that I pretty much abhor. Why do historians care so much about who outflanked who and who led this charge up this hill when and who moved the artillery where? I mean, it seems ridiculous. Here you have one of the most important episodes in world history as the new world colonies rise up in revolt for fairly vague reasons and overthrow the European monarchies and empires that ruled the world and develop a fairly brilliant new form of government and we’re talking about some minor General So-and-so who raided some outpost and made off with a couple of cannons and gunpowder. It doesn’t make much sense to me.

And it’s the same throughout history. With the Civil War and World War II and so forth. I mean it’s so interesting why we are motivated to get into these wars and how it all plays out politically and socially, but historians repeatedly choose to talk about all the minor details of the military campaigns. And in writing about these campaigns, they even manage to make something as crazy as war seem sterile and boring. I guess it’s just easier on the historian to go this route. These sorts of things are easier to document and fact check and be objective about. But, at the end of the day, what have I, the reader, learned from all this that is of any value? Not much. Most people can name a couple of generals and a couple of big battles and the years that each war took place, but how many people can talk even semi-intelligently about why we went into WWI or even WWII, or Vietnam, or why did the War of 1812 happen, or the Civil War even? At best, the average person might rattle off slavery or communism or the Lusitania or the Holocaust as answers to these querries but, are these answers really adequate?

I was also struck by the casualty numbers and it got me to thinking about the evolution of war. It really stood out that he would talk about some of the fiercest fighting of the Revolutionary War and some of the pivotal, biggest battles and then in the overall tally it would be something like—there were 4 dead, 23 wounded, and over 900 prisoners taken. What? Only 4 dead and 900 surrendered? And this happens over and over again. And then you read a Civil War history and there are battles with tens of thousands of casualties. What’s the difference here? I know there are a couple of inventions that made a big difference like the muzzle loader vs. breech loader and more and more accuracy with weapons because of the bore of the barrel and bullet design and whatnot, but does that explain the huge disparity? Why do historians, again, just list the numbers and not acknowledge what they may represent?

Anyhoo, overall, other than falling into this military writing trap, I thought that McCullough was a pretty good writer. This book certainly won’t discourage me from taking a look at, say, his book on Harry Truman. In fact, the start of this book, primarily the background on King George and George Washington, might prompt me to read this sooner rather than later. But, it’s not at all a good overview of the American Revolution, which I’d hoped that it would be. It’s really the battles of 1776 from the Americans’ siege of Boston to the Battle of Brooklyn and then the “major” (read: symbolic) American victories of Trenton and Princeton. As soon as 1777 rolls around, you’re on your own.

This is interesting. Try taking these tests to determine how racist and sexist you are. Apparently, I have a slight automatic preference for white people. Which is a little embarrasing, but they say that two-thirds of white people display a strong to moderate preference for whites and that even half of blacks display a slight or stronger preference for whites. So I guess that's about as good as a white guy could hope to do.

As for sexism, interestingly enough I joined only 5% of the popultion by slightly associating female more with career than family. Two-thirds of the popultion strongly to moderately associates male with career and female with family. See what you've done to me Amy? I'm now sexist against men apparently. Sheesh.

Here's the test. Let me know how you do.

http://www.understandingprejudice.org/iat/index2.htm

Writing Style-6.5
Originality-6.1
Plot-7.4
Literary Merit(whatever that means)-5.9
Overall-6.8

This is quality sci-fi right here. A very imaginative, well written, insightful, and riveting utopian novel.

This is really very similar to a plot that I recently dreamed up and would have written if I were a capable writer. I was wondering what sort of geopolitical climate it would take to have another major revolution in the way governments are run as big as the American Revolution or the Bolshevik Revolution. And I thought, what if one day when Mars or the moon were sufficiently colonized they break away from outdated Terran governments and formed a totally now form of government. In my book, the government established would have been socialistic and the title of the book would have been Marsism.

Well, The Dispossessed is very similar to this. There is a world with a well colonized moon. The moon has broken all ties with the rest of the world except for very limited, highly regulated trade between the two. There has also been a relatively peaceful revolution that leads the citizens on the moon to develop a non-authoritarian form of socialism (to the extent that such a thing is possible).

So after nearly two centuries of cultural separation between the two worlds, one scientist, gets approval to make a trip from the moon, Annaras, to the planet, Urras. This scientist is working on a fictional sort of string theory of physics, which would be a major breakthrough in the field and technically important to any society possessing it. He wants to interface with scientists on Urras that are in many ways more scientifically advanced than scientists from Annaras, or at least their culture values science more.

So the book flip-flops between chapters taking place in the present as the main character, Shevek, goes about his journey to Annaras to chapters that are flashbacks to Shevek’s upbringing on his home world of Urras. This of course allows the reader to contrast the strengths and weaknesses of the two cultures as Shevek discovers how Annaras works and recalls his own life on Urras.

There can be little doubt that Le Guin is much fonder of the government that she has dreamed up for Urras. It’s really a strange mix of anarchism, libertarianism, communism, and socialism. The country that Shevek visits on Urras, named A-Io is for all practical purposes America. It’s shiny, superficial, and capitalistic with a dirty, sad underbelly that they try to keep hidden and ignore.

There is not simply the contrast between Annarras and Urras though. On Annarras there are many countries, some very different than A-Io. There are still pockets of communism, much like here on Earth. Also there are two alien civilizations that have made contact with the people of Annarras and Urras. Interestingly, though Annarras and Urras seem like polar opposites between themselves, these alien civilization view them as the same people from one binary planetary system.

So, Shevek finds himself torn in multiple power struggles not just between Annarras and Urras, but between countries on Annarras and between his Annarasti/Urrasti culture and the two alien cultures. Obviously, he is extremely important not only for his scientific theory but also for what he symbolizes about the people of Annaras and Urras and the fact that he is a communistic symbol for the struggling communist countries on Annaras.

While most of the novel is really about these ideas about theories of government, pros and cons of capitalism and socialism, breaking social barriers, how societies use and view science, etc with relatively little sci-fi action. It does build to a climax where these forces work to tear Shevek apart and use him for their own gains and it becomes very dangerous for him.

I strongly recommend this book for fans of smart sci-fi. I really think that this is what good sci-fi was intended to do, which is take an imagined future to have a clean slate on which to explore our current world and where it is headed. And Le Guin is a very accomplished and capable writer, not just relative to crappy sci-fi writers. The Left Hand of Darkness is another book by her that was groundbreaking in the genre. I like The Dispossessed better because the themes interest me more, but Amy really loved The Left Hand of Darkness (she hasn’t read The Dispossessed yet though).

Writing Style-5.6
Originality-5.1
Plot-5.5
Literary Merit(whatever that means)-5.7
Overall-5.6

I was really excited about this book because I loved the movie and I loved the first book in James Jones’ World War II trilogy, From Here to Eternity. But, it didn’t come anywhere near to living up to expectations.

I don’t think there are any characters that carry over from From Here to Eternity. I really think the only thing that ties the trilogy together is that they are all military stories set during World War II. Also, the first two are sort of chronological in that From Here to Eternity is about preparation for the war and The Thin Red Line is during the war.

The Thin Red Line is actually loosely based around the battle for Guadalcanal. There is a disclaimer that Jones’ took a lot of liberties with how the actual battle played out. But still, it is about a company of soldiers taking hold of an island in the Pacific from the Japanese. This is also about the only similarity that it had to the movie. I’d like to go back and watch the movie again now that I’ve read it, but from what I can remember of the film, there are a ton of differences. The film actually is a lot better and more powerful than the book, which I can rarely say about a novel adaptation. [As an aside here, Terrence Mallick, the director of The Thin Red Line has a new movie coming out this weekend called The New World centered around the love story between Pocahontas and John Smith. It looks good from the preview except for the fact that it stars Colin Farrell, not sure what that is about. Also, it seems weird that they are releasing it at this time of year when it is about two weeks late for award nominations. And by the time next year rolls around everyone will have forgotten it. This might be a bad sign, or perhaps Mallick just doesn’t care and he just finished the film when he finished it. We’ll see. I’ll let you know. I plan to see it this Friday. FYI, Amy.]

The book reminded me a lot of The Red Badge of Courage. It had a lot to do with how people actually react in combat. Not so much about a Rambo type of courage but a more real world experience. This is always interesting. Of course, The Red Badge of Courage was a nice, concise snapshot of courage under fire whereas The Thin Red Line is far too long, clocking in at over 500 pages. I realize that he was trying to encompass the whole Guadalcanal battle from landing on the island to fully controlling it, but the combat gets repetitive. I think that it would be much more interesting if he used the blueprint of Red Badge and presented a sort of combat “slice of life” only it would be updated to World War II Pacific Theater battle, which is clearly a bit of a different experience from the Civil War.

Also, related to this, I thought that I might like The Thin Red Line as much as or better than From Here to Eternity because it had actual combat and I thought maybe this would make for more exciting reading. But the opposite was true. The combat was so repetitive that I sort of became de-sensitized to the violence and horror of it. This is another argument for shortening the book as I’ve described.

I also think that Jones’ could have narrowed the focus in terms of the number of main characters. There are far too many main characters and they are all so much alike that you can’t keep them straight. If all these characters are so similar you can’t tell them apart then there obviously is no need for all of them to get across the major themes of the book.

So there you have it. This is one of the many books that I liked, but would have liked much better if I could have changed things about it. I highly recommend From Here to Eternity. It has a lot more heart and soul, which seems weird since The Thin Red Line is about war and dying and violence and so forth, but that’s just the fact of the matter. If you really love the writing in From Here to Eternity and crave more then there’s no real reason not to pursue The Thin Red Line, but you don’t have to just because they are published as a “trilogy”. They can stand on their own. But, I certainly wouldn’t read Red Line over Here to Eternity.

For the first time since beginning townesvanfaulkner, I started a book I couldn't finish. Oh, how I hate to do this. I feel like a failure.

Please forgive me, but there was just no way that I could finish this book. I feel like I gave it my all. I read over 200 pages of a 500+ page book. Basically, my rules are that I must finish any book less than 300 pages. And that I won't give up on a book in the first 150 pages. These rules can be broken, but rarely ever are. The Good Soldier by Ford Maddox Ford certainly tested the first rule. And I couldn't help but break the second rule with The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie.

I recall reading a quote from Faulkner saying that he thought the best living writers of his day were Thomas Mann, Ernest Hemingway, Willa Cather, John Dos Passos, and himself. So I took note of this and thought that I still need to read Mann and Dos Passos. Well, maybe I should have started with Mann's Death in Venice. Maybe this is what I get for choosing the cheapest copy at the used book store. I don't know.

But this was just unbearable. Unbelievably wordy and the plot was going nowhere, absolutely unequivocally nowhere. It's supposed to be a fake biography of a german composer. And I read through his childhood and early musical training and early in his composing career. Maybe it gets better? Who knows? I've started boring books before and come to really like them by the end. It's possible. But, I don't think the world will ever know because I QUIT.

Has anyone else read this guy? Any thoughts? What are some notable books you've given up on? I also gave up on Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow. However, I've managed to read the Bible cover to cover and it was a struggle but I made it through Anna Karenina.

Writing Style-1.1
Originality-1.5
Plot-1.6
Literary Merit(whatever that means)-0.6
Overall-1.2

Oftentimes, Amy buys books and never reads them. They sit around the house for years and taunt me. They call out, yearning to be read by someone. Sooner or later, I get sucked in. Sometimes, they turn out to be surprisingly good. For instance, Amy bought White Teeth by Zadie Smith and Boomfell by Douglas Hobbie. Other times, they are a waste of time. This was definitely in the latter category.

I don’t see anything that can be gained from reading this book. It’s not interesting, there are no interesting themes, nothing to question, no good characters, extremely mediocre writing. Worthless in every sense.

The book cover says that Joanna Scott won the MacArthur fellowship. That astounds me. It’s really made me second guess the prestige of that prize. I used to tout Cormac McCarthy with, “He’s a MacArthur fellow.”

In Tourmaline, there’s a dude that gets obsessed with finding these precious gemstones called tourmaline and he takes his family to the island of Elba where Napoleon was exiled. And there’s a mystery when some girl goes missing and the dude is accused of it. And there’s a bunch of different perspectives to the mystery from the son, the mother, and so forth.

Eh, why waste your time and mine? This book will be out of print before I can get this post finished probably.

Best Supporting Actress Nominees:
Maggie Gyllenhaal - Happy Endings
Rachel Weisz - The Constant Gardener
Catherine Keener - Capote
Amy Adams - Junebug
Tilda Swinton - Thumbsucker

The Winner: Maggie Gyllenhaal

Best Supporting Actor Nominees:
George Clooney - Syriana
Mos Def - Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
George Clooney - Good Night and Good Luck
Matt Dillon - Crash
Matt Damon - Syriana

The Winner: George Clooney - Syriana

Best Comedy Nominees:
Wedding Crashers
40 Year Old Virgin
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

The Winner: Wedding Crashers

Best Actress Nominees:
Reese Witherspoon - Walk the Line
Laura Linney - The Squid and the Whale
Embeth Davidtz - Junebug

The Winner: Reese Witherspoon

Best Actor Nominees:
Joaquin Phoenix - Walk the Line
Terrence Howard - Hustle and Flow
Lou Pucci - Thumbsucker
Eric Bana - Munich
Philip Seymour Hoffman - Capote

The Winner: Philip Seymour Hoffman

Best Director Nominees:
Ang Lee - Brokeback Mountain
Christopher Nolan - Batman Begins
George Clooney - Good Night and Good Luck
Stephen Gaghan - Syriana
James Mangold - Walk the Line

The Winner: Ang Lee

Best Movie Nominees:
Brokeback Mountain
Capote
Walk the Line
Syriana
Wedding Crashers

The Winner: Brokeback Mountain

Most Disappointing Movie: A History of Violence

Most Surprisingly Good Movie: November

Best Music: Thumbsucker

Best Foreign: Paradise Now

Hottest Dude Nominees:
Heath Ledger - Brokeback Mountain
Brad Pitt - Mr. and Mrs. Smith
Jake Gyllenhaal - Jarhead
Christian Bale - Batman
Eric Bana - Munich

The Winner: Christian Bale

Hottest Chick Nominees:
Rachel Weisz - The Constant Gardener
Angelina Jolie - Mr. and Mrs. Smith
Embeth Davidtz - Junebug
Naomi Watts - King Kong
Maria Bello - A History of Violence

The Winner: Naomi Watts

Writing Style-8.7
Originality-7.2
Plot-7.1
Literary Merit(whatever that means)-8.4
Overall-7.9

I’m a huge Flannery O’Connor fan. I believe with the completion of The Complete Stories I’ve read pretty much all that she’s done. The Complete Stories is, guess what, all of her short stories; and I’ve also read her two novels, Wise Blood and The Violent Bear it Away. Am I forgetting anything?

Even though she’s my favorite short story writer, I still like her novels better simply because I prefer to read novels as opposed to short stories.

The Complete Stories presents all of her published short stories in the chronological order in which they were published. So it starts with stories that she wrote in college, which are pretty good but not nearly as good as they get later. You can tell when she really hones her southern gothic voice.

For those not familiar with O’Connor, she was a devout Catholic born and raised in rural Georgia. She’s known primarily for her short stories. Even her novels read more like a bunch of short stories with the same characters mashed together to form a novel, particularly Wise Blood was like this. Her stories are usually deeply religious, but they manage to complicate the religious issues and morality so effectively that even a devout agnostic, like myself, can love them. Her ability to do this reminds me a lot of Dostoyevsky.

She can make you empathize with horrific sinners and hate a community’s most upstanding Christian. A common theme throughout these stories is pointing out religious hypocrisy. Often, the main character, or a major character, will be a devout Christian but O’Connor will sometimes subtly, sometimes not so subtly, bring you to the point of asking, “Just how Christ-like is this Christian, really?”

Other common themes are racism and classism, pretty typical stuff for southern literature.

I can’t recommend O’Connor enough, especially for Southern Lit fans. Most people probably read “A Good Man is Hard to Find”, one of her most popular stories, at some point in school. The main character is an old lady (a devout Christian) who is reading in the news about a serial killer. She becomes terrified of this character, or this type of character, as old ladies are apt to do when reading or watching the news. So, while traveling with the family on vacation in Florida, the car breaks down, and they are confronted with a serial killer fitting the same description. Does this ring any bells? If not, this is a pretty good place to start. Plus, it’s a whole new world when you don’t have to read something for school. Then, if The Complete Stories is too daunting you could move on to Everything That Rises Must Converge, a great short story collection. Or, if short stories aren’t your thing then try one of the novels. Certainly, don’t eschew the novels just because you think of her as a short story writer, they are also top notch. And who knows what she would have gone onto if she hadn’t died at the age of 39 (I think?).

This is my dog, Flannery:

Hey, I got my home recording studio tricked out this Christmas. Thanks to the lovely and talented AMY. I gots me a Tascam 8-track with a 40 gig hard drive and a Groove Tubes GT-55 condensor mic that is INCREDIBLE and very good, studio-quality Sony headphones for monitoring and mixing.

With this upgrade, I'm looking to sell my Fostex 8-track. I've had it for a little over a year and it is in perfect condition. It uses Flash card media and came with a 128 meg card. I also bought a 512 meg card for it, which would come with it. Most Flash cards are incompatible with it, so it won't work with most standard ones you may have lying around the house for digital cameras or something. The 512 meg card holds 92 minutes of music and if you linearly interpolate, the 128 meg holds 23 minutes. For all practical purposes you can record about 1 song on the 128 and about 4 songs at a time on the 512 (this assumes roughly a 4 minute song with 4 or 5 tracks).

I've still got the owner's manual for it (I think I can find it) and it comes with a power adaptor. I'd be willing to work my Shure SM-48 dynamic microphone into the deal if so desired. With this package all you would need is a mic cord, mic stand, and some headphones to begin your own home recording!! Oh, and maybe an instrument or two and the ability to play them (optional).

Here's the product page for it at Musician's Friend ($249):
http://www.musiciansfriend.com/srs7/g=rec/search/detail/base_pid/240239/
Here's the Flash card ($89):
http://www.musiciansfriend.com/srs7/g=rec/search/detail/base_pid/700636/
Here's my mic ($69):
http://www.musiciansfriend.com/srs7/g=rec/search/detail/base_pid/270105/

The 8-track and 512 meg card I'd sell for $220. If you happen to want the mic too, say $260.

This is an extremely easy and cheap way to start recording music.

Let me know if you or someone you know might be interested or have questions. Musical trades considered. (I'd like this to fund the purchase of an autoharp or bass guitar to add to my repertoire)

This is big news around the blogosphere today.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0104061jamesfrey1.html

I would refer you to a quote from my original review of the book:
"The characters that he is surrounded by in rehab are really too good to be true. So good in fact, I wonder if there were some embellished aspects in places."

Parts of it really didn't sit right with me, but I'm cool with taking SOME artistic license and juicing it up a little. The question is how far did he go? I'm still digesting this expose though. I may comment more later. This also gives a clean post to comment about the book on.

Writing Style-2.0
Originality-7.3
Plot-N/A
Enjoyability-5.5
Merit(whatever that means)-8.1
Overall-5.2

Ah, we finally have our first TVF non-fiction selection. Don’t worry, others are on the way. I just haven’t been as in the mood for non-fiction the last few months.

I think the Communist Manifesto is a pretty intriguing selection to kick off the non-fiction section of townesvanfaulkner with. I’ve been wanting to read it for some time now to see what all the fuss is about. I’ve often wondered, am I a communist?, am I a socialist?, am I a social-democrat?, am I a democrat?, am I a capitalist?, etc. In other words, I know that I’m pretty far to the left, but just how far, I’m not sure. So naturally, I’m intrigued by the philosophy and history behind leftist governments. And I must confess I’m pretty new to the subject, but I thought this was a pretty good jumping off point. So here goes.

Ok, my first impression is that throughout the book I would find myself reading one paragraph and going, “Yes, that’s exactly right! Amen, comrade.” And then the next paragraph would totally lose me and I’d go, “Dude that would never work.” or, “No, I don’t agree with that at all.” So it’s pretty much what I had expected going in. I dug the down-with-the-Man-up-with-the-common-worker sentiment, but then it would take it too far or wouldn’t give a realistic road map of how we go about setting up a society that truly fairly distributes wealth and/or power.

But, at least, it’s a step in the right direction. At least it recognizes the inherent evil in societies and governments that actively work to maintain social castes and power structures as they are. I sort of feel about communism the same way I have felt about the space shuttle for years. Sure the space shuttle is way more expensive and way more dangerous than they planned for it to be. And it doesn’t take off nearly as many times per year. And it doesn’t produce very good science. But, the long term goal of sending people into space reliably may very well pay off for mankind. So, there’s a learning curve there. We can look at the shuttle and say it’s a piece of junk and that humans have no business in space and forget it or we can chalk it up to the fact that it was the first try at a non-disposable vehicle. I sort of feel the same way about communism/socialism. It’s been a disaster so far, but there are lessons to be learned there and we shouldn’t give up on the goal of a fair (for lack of a better word) society.

Okay, some other criticisms of the Communist Manifesto. At times, it is terribly hard to follow. Unless you know some serious European history, I think that you will have trouble grasping some of the historical examples entailed. The book is rife with sweeping statements about some bourgeois society in some age in some country and then they move on to some other sweeping statement. I found myself wanting concrete examples to illuminate their points. For instance, they might make one of these statements and then tell how in France in 1752 King So-and-so did this or that and it was bad, thus proving our point. But they never do this. It comes across more as ranting and raving without firm historical examples to back up their assertions. They use language to make it feel as though they are speaking with great historical knowledge or a great deal of logical/scientific forethought, but the concrete examples or logical proofs just aren’t there. I don’t know much about Marx and Engels’ backgrounds but, it sort of feels like it’s written by lawyers instead of political scientists or historians.

Next, let’s look at some quotes and some examples to illustrate what I’m talking about. First, I think the greatest thing about the book, again, is the recognition and importance placed on class antagonisms and their history and the goal of doing away with them.

1. “In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed—a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piece-meal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market.

Owing to the extensive use of machinery and to division of labour, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him. Hence, the cost of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for his maintenance, and for the propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labour, is equal to its cost of production. In proportion therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases.”

I’m particularly impressed with this second paragraph. It seems very prescient coming from a book published in 1888. We’ve seen the charm and pride in work decrease steadily from the days of tradesmen to industrial labourers. And with this, so goes people’s self-esteem and so goes family life and so forth. It follows with:

2. “Modern industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist. Masses of labourers, crowded into the factory, are organized like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois State; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the over-looker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself. The more openly this despotism proclaims gain to be its end and aim, the more petty, the more hateful and the more embittering it is.”

3. “No sooner is the exploitation of the labourer by the manufacturer, so far at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.

The lower strata of the middle class—the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants—all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialized skill is rendered worthless by the new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.”

Again, I am particularly impressed with the second paragraph here. It foresees a disappearance of the middle class when laissez faire capitalism has been allowed to run rampant. Here’s more insight into capitalism’s flaws:

4. “Modern bourgeois society with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells…”

5. “It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put on its trial, each time more threateningly, the existence of the entire bourgeois society. In these crises a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity—the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilization, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce… …The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand inforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.”

I’m reminded here of the Great Depression that occurs 41 years after this was written. Where a great economic boom in the 1920’s led to a concentration of wealth, which in turn, led to the market’s destabilization and then a necessary destruction of “productive forces”. I also key in on the statement that to avoid this, capitalism must constantly be in conquest of new markets or exploit old ones. For instance, it is no longer adequate for companies to simply turn a profit. They must constantly improve upon last year’s profits to stay viable. For instance, as huge and successful as Microsoft is, it is not satisfactory in this economic climate to continue to sell Windows PC’s at the same rate year after year and have their stock price hover at $25-$30 per share. No, they must constantly be expanding and return a profit, not on what they produce, but on the investments that people have made in them. Their options become either exploiting new markets (hope that the xbox 360 sells considerably more than the original xbox) or exploit their employees through layoffs or benefit cutbacks—or the third option of pulling an Enron and misleading investors into thinking they are doing better than they really are (but when the cover is blown here, all the employees lose their retirement savings). The capitalist in me would argue that this competition creates cooler video gaming systems, but still, it’s pretty scary really what companies are pushed to do in the name of returning profits on investments. I mean how long can the market continue to expand? And what drastic measures does society have to take in order to preserve this expansion? For instance, expansion into other countries or more exploitation of the proletariat, dwindling of the middle class, concentration of wealth, disaster.

So what is the communist solution?

6. “The immediate aim of the Communist is the same as that of all the other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.”

Okay down with the Man. I’m cool with that. And then:

7. “…the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”

Huh? Does this mean I have to share my new Xbox 360 with my neighbors?

8. “You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.

In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.”

Yes, I am horrified. And, I’m sorry, what about my xbox?

The Communist Manifesto is rife with paragraphs like this second one, where they don’t really make an argument they simply shrug you off saying, “Enough with your bourgeois attitude, your complaints mean nothing because you are of the bourgeoisie. Moving on!” Another good example of this:

9. “The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical, and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.”

10. “It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.

According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything, do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labour when there is no longer any capital.”

Here’s a good list that the Manifesto offers of steps that a Communist government would take:

1. “Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes”
2. “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax”
3. “Abolition of all right of inheritance.”
4. “Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels”
5. “Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.”
6. “Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.”
7. “Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.”
8. “Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.”
9. “Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.”
10. “Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.”

Some of these I’m cool with and some are just plain crazy. And this leads us to the greatest critique of communism—that it leads to despotism. Check out this quote:

“Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.”

And there it is. The fatal flaw. In other words, with Communism, anything goes for the sake of the cause. Individuals don’t matter. A great read that I should recommend here is Arthur Koestler’s Darkness at Noon. It’s about precisely this.

One final critique—who the hell is the audience here? I mean I understand that this book has been influential and all, but if it’s supposed to be a wake-up call to the proletariat shouldn’t they have made it a little easier for an under-educated working man to follow?

So in summation, what we have here is a beautiful, rousing call to action on the part of the proletariat to seize power from the bourgeois. Then we have a very insightful, cogent, prophetic critique of capitalism and it’s particular, peculiar flaws. But, what I don’t see, is a comprehensive solution. Instead, I see a blueprint for how a despot can take advantage of demagoguery to seize power and then do whatever he pleases in the name of the long-term cause. I also see a comical reluctance to answer critics of Communism who have some pretty valid points.

I don’t know if this is really a book review anymore. Not sure what the hell this is. But fuck it, it’s my blog bitches.

WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!

Writing Style-8.1
Originality-8.1
Plot-8.0
Literary Merit(whatever that means)-8.4
Overall-8.2

Man, this book was awesome. Maybe not quite Grapes of Wrath awesome, but still incredibly awesome nonetheless.

This is one of those books where you savor every single sentence. It doesn’t matter about the context, you just love the way each word is put together. Steinbeck’s writing has a very southern quality to it. You could rip the cover off this book and change the setting from California to Yoknapatawpha and I could easily believe that it was Faulkner’s.

There are a ton of stories in here and a ton of characters and a ton of themes. It’s a very meaty book. But not difficult to read at all.

Unfortunately, I’m behind in my reviews so it’s been awhile now since I read this and some of it escapes me now. But, essentially there are two families, the Trasks and the Hamiltons, and it covers a couple of generations of these families. The story of the Trasks is really a bit more important to the central theme of the novel and certainly more compelling.

There are many biblical allusions, as there were with The Grapes of Wrath, but the most obvious is the story of Cain and Abel. First, Cyrus Trask has two sons named Charles and Adam. Then, Adam has two sons named Caleb and Aron. Both generations involve an intense, very intense, sibling rivalry and each set of brothers strives fiercely for approval from their father. In both cases, the “C” brother is more mean-spirited and extremely jealous of the “A” brother, not just for the fact that the fathers favor the “A” brother but also for the love of a girl.

I think the main theme here is your ancestry and where you come from developing the type of person that you are in life. But, it’s not so much the “sins of the father” thing as it is “approval of the father, sins of the mother” in this instance. It’s kind of murky, I’m not sure if the ending affirms that we can break with the past or not. Or, if it’s more about the source of the strife or evil in mankind and where that comes from. Do you blame Adam or Caleb/Cain (or Cathy/Eve)? Not sure. But, I think the point with stories like this is not so much about what the author’s philosophy or intent is as much as the universality and identifiability of the characters and their actions. I’d love to hear some thoughts from anyone who’s read it.

At any rate, don’t let this deter you from reading it. I think that everyone should give this one a try. I don’t like it quite as much as Grapes of Wrath, but it might actually be a more enjoyable read for the average reader.