Are You There Ayn? It's Me, Edgar.

Lately, I've been casually encountering Ayn Rand much more than I'm used to.  Perhaps it is my current residence in a far more conservative state than I've ever lived or perhaps it's the new biography done by Anne C. Heller.  Whatever the case, it has incited some converstions with co-workers about her philosophies and her literature.  My experience with Ayn goes a little like like this.

One day, in my "post-adolescent idealistic phase" I happened across "The Fountainhead" by Rand.  I can easily and unabashedly say it was one of the most influential pieces of literature I have ever read.  In truth, my experience with this book is the clearest example of how meaning often lies in the reader instead of the author.  The story of Howard Roark spoke to me about artistic integrity and non-conformity as nothing else I had ever read or seen.  As a young person who railed against such things throughout his life it was the most empowering story I had ever read.

Of course, I didn't know anything about Ayn Rand at the time I just read into the book what I read into the book.  Well, the book affected me so much that I did a little research on Ayn and let me just say I was SHOCKED to see how different, yet somehow in line with, my reading of the book was to the actual underpinnings of all her works and personal philosphies.  Being young and still rather egocentric, I still latched on to her concepts but eventually dropped them like I did most ideologies I had followed in my youth. 

I also read "Anthem" by her and, despite knowing more of her intent, I still was able to construct her themes as empowering.  I could not, however, manage to ever read "Atlas Shrugged." I have tried, really tried, several times and simply cannot do it.  Mostly it's because in AS her themes are applied to business and, well, it is much easier to see where her ideas are altruistically defunked when applied to businnes.  The FH revolved around artistic expresion which lends itself easier to support notions of indivualism. 

I still recommend "The Fountainhead" but make sure and tell people to read the book outside of Ayn's philosophies.  I don't think most people can really do that but, either way, it's still a great piece of literature. 

Ethnicity Now!

Over the past few weeks, I've read two of what you would call "ethnic" books.  The first was SENDEROS FRONTERIZOS by Francisco Jimenez and PUSH by Sapphire.  

First, let me start by saying I don't particularly approve of books that are relegated into ethnic genres like Latino, African-American, or (I would argue to include) Queer.  Mostly, my reservations lie in the fact that it is often only authors within these three ethnic/social groups whose novels, almost automatically, get categorized as such simply because they are Latin, African-American, and/or Queer.  I suppose it is ultimately a question of why their writing has to be catagorized a such when everyone else's writing is not.  A lot of individuals who draw heavily on their backgrounds/family histories (ie Irish, Jewish, etc.) are not relegated into an individualized category. 

What I read from all this labeling is that readers need to be "warned" that certain books draw too heavily on Latin, African-American, and/or Queer culture in the assumption that they will find the content at the very least not interesting or, at worst, distasteful. Frankly, I believe these non-genres (as I think of them) were created because their content often questions, if not openly challenges, dominant ideoligies. But hey, that's just me. 

SENDEROS FRONTIZEROS:

This book, above all things, was milestoner for me in that it is the first book in spanish that I have read. I've always been able to read in spanish but I've never done it because I simply cannot interact with the words and pharses the way I can with english.  It's a sad thing because, really, spanish is such a fluid and beautiful language. 

I bought this book on a whim from a dollar sale bin at a bookstore expecting a reaccurance of previous attempts to read in spanish but hey, it was a dollar.  When I picked it up, however, I couldn't put it down.  Warrented, it was relatively a small book and I kind of had to glaze over certain parts because I didn't fully grasp the subtlties, but the story kept me hooked.

It was,perhaps, your typical Mexican immigrant narrative. A Mexican family risks coming into the U.S. illegally in hopes of having a better life and lives under the constant anxiety that they will be found out and deported.  The book, begins, with this precise incident.  After several years of living as such, they are found out and taken by immigration and are deported.  The author and his older brother are allowed to return to the U.S. under working Visa's but the rest of the family has to stay in Mexico until they can come back legally. 

The driving force of the story is Francisco who strives so hard to educate himself and aspire to something more than the life that he is expected to live as a Mexican Immigrant.  The story is poignant in its simplicity.  What really drew me, outside of being able to COMPLETELY relate to Francisco, was the blissfull acceptance Francisco relays. 

Too often, these narratives are dripping with a sort of self-pitying or indignant tone throughout.  Although Francisco definately expressed these feelings in the story, his account of his life was simply that: an account of his life.  They lived in poverty and experienced a lot of suffering but, they had each other and, ultimately, lived a life like any other family. 

PUSH

PUSH by Saphire is an "African-American" fiction.  I've never really read African-American fiction because, well, I've been conditioned to not be particularly aware of it because I am not, in fact, African-American.  Despite all the opinions about the whole genre thing expressed above, I don't typically seek out this genre.  My one defense/excuse, is that I don't really read FICTION in general. So there. 

Much like SENDEROS FRONTIZEROS, I only got the book because it was an advanced reader at work but once I started reading it, I didn't put it down until I finished it.  Again, it was a relatively small book but still. 

The story is about Precious Jones, an illiterate girl who suffers through a lot, and I mean A LOT, of abuse and overall injustice.  Despite it all, she is an inquistive girl and ends up in a pre-GED class after she has already been kicked out of several schools for, of all things, being pregnant.  This class, more than just helping her to learn to read, exposes her to a whole new way of thinking; about herself, others, and the world in general.  It really is an awesome read, if many of the situations are extremely disturbing. 

More than the content, the writing style lends so much to its impact.  It writing in first person and the book progresses from the writing of illiterate Precious--misspelled words, awkward phrasing, innappropriate wording--to a literate, although not perfect, Precious. 

Anne McCaffery: Science Fiction AND Fantasy

Whenever somebody asks me what I read, I begin by saying SciFi/Fantasy, because that what everyone knows, but I make sure to say "mostly fantasy."  You see, although both are often categorized as one genre, they are most definately two. 

The key in the distinction is in the use of the word fantasy as merely a definition for subject matter or a category of content.  As simply a defintion, yes, SciFi is definately fantasty but, I would, so is any other form of fiction. The defintion of fantasy is imagination unrestricted by reality and in essence all fiction is such.  Sure, the genre that gets the official title of fiction is based on reality, it is no more real than and involves just as much imagination than any other genre.  Judge SciFi and Fantasy by their content and it is unwaveringly evident that they are different from each other. 

Simply, science fiction is, what I like to say, scientific conjecture at its highest degree.  You'll often find that SciFi authors take what we know as "real" science and simply take a leap into the what if.  While we physcially send rovers into mars to look for life forms which require to only be living organisms, Science Fiction authors take it to what if these living organisms were just like us, or like insects, or more than cellular organims.  SciFi, also, is often conceptual in nature.

Fantasy, on the other hand, often deals with what most people would consider the opposite of science: magic, and myth, and folklore, and fairytales.  In fantasy, Sorcerrers abound, fairies exist, witches live next door, and Gods truly do exist.  Some believe that magic and myth are as real as science. That, however, is a topic for another day.  Sometimes, all it takes for a work of fiction to be considered fantasy is to be set in a time in which such things are still believed to be real. 

In my travels through the lumpe together genre, I have leant toward fantasy because SciFi does not always give me what I want.  It is often too conceptual and lacks a certain connection with the real world which, ironically enough, I find more in Fantasy.  Also, despite SciFi/Fantasy having been fused to represent one genre, most authors tend to stick with one or the other.  An author who masterfully blends the two, however, is Anne McCafferey. (You thought I'd never get to my point, right?)

McCaffery is one of the most well know SciFi/Fantasy authors and she deserves all the recognition.  The single most characteristic that makes her worthy of her reknown is how well she blends both genres.  In her works, most of what we consider fantasy is based within science.  A common theme is a sort of regression of a technological world or, an abondonment of it.  In some of her pieces, we were forced to abondon our technology and survive in wholly different environments which, over time, allow us to develop into the fantastical beings with powers and such.  In others, said technolgies tap into our own minds and beings and bring out said powers.  In essence, they are usually based on both science and fantasy. 

The Dan Brown Code

This week has provided for us another book release which has people in a tizzy.  Dan Brown's latest concoction, THE LOST SYMBOL, hit the streets on Tuesday to much to-do.  I, luckily, did not have to work on Tuesday as it was my birthday. Thank You.  Combine that with O's big reveal on Friday and we're going to have us a heck of a couple weeks in book sales. 

Let me just say that I am not a Dan Brown fan.  I ain't a hater, I'm just not a fan.  I will read the book but I can hold out until I can get it at the library or loan it out at work.  I did read the Da Vinci code, just cuz, after it created such a storm in the world.  I won't say that it was a "good" book but it definitely fell under the page-turner category. 

I literally read it in a few hours simply because the action was so fast paced I couldn't put it down and wanted to find out what was going to happen next.  I don't think the writting was particularly advanced but, I suppose, it did the job of giving people what they want and, as a bonus, create such a hubbub in the real world about the controversy/blasphemy of his "theory".

A word about the theory he proposed in the book.  Frankly, I was inclined to lean more towards accepting it.  I, myself, have dabbled in several pagan spiritual paths and, not for nothing, am usually at odds with christianity.  I won't say his logic and "evidence" is really what won me over but it is not so much of a stretch for me to believe that such an awesomely patriarchical institution like the christian church would go to so much length to cover up something that threatened its authority.  If nothing else, he played well with most people's distrust of the church and included enough of "truth" to make you, at least, understand where he was coming from. 

That being said, it is just fiction folks!  To this day I cannot understand what in the hell (ahem) made the actual church and all its supporters get so adamant about trying to discredit him.  Again, no matter how much he may or may not have derived his theory from reality, as far as his books are concerned, they are just fiction.

All in all, I think he make the mystery/thriller genre work by providing such a thrill ride for his readers.  I, personally, am not inclined to read books that keep me reading simply to find out what happens next because, well, once you find out that's it.  His stories hinge so much on the suspense of finding out that you don't even have the time to really connect with any of the characters. 

I was also rather surprised, but not really, that they would make the book into a movie.  All the story had going for it, really, was the element of suspense and if you had already read the book, the movie kind of boring.  The acting was sub-par and it stuck so closely to the book that, again, you already knew everything that was going to happens so it was damn near torture to have to sit through a three hour adaptation of it. 

On Youth And Media: I Digress

Currently, our country, dare I say culture, is caught in a youth-centric loop.  A lot of what is being produced on the big screen, in books, and on television is being driven by the arguably newly invigorated teen demographic.  I consciously leave music out as it has always been a form of media that spoke succinctly to youth unlike a lot of the other media that never quite caught on, until now, how fanatical--therefore lucrative--youth can be about various forms of media. 

I, in particular, have always been drawn to a sort of youth media studies.  Being a person who constructed, or misconstructed, a good portion of life expectancy from media (mostly television), I've a constant critical impulse to understand the current interaction of youth and media.  Although youth media has been around for a while, it has never been as directly targeted or produced as it is today.  It's easy to see that pop-culture is being practically dominated by it.

The problem that any person that looks onto media with a critical eye is that we easily fall into a critical loop similar to the proverbial chicken vs. egg saga.  The ultimate question being is whether the media are simply reflecting the popular culture of the time or constructing it?

I recently watched the first few episodes of the new show GLEE.  It is, perhaps, a very typical television format in which a group of socially ostracized highs choolers find solace, and perhaps a chance at high school fame, through the glee club.  Your typical sort of high school antics ensue in that, by recruiting the high school quarterback into the club, the high school caste system is thrown into turmoil.  It's a tried and true formula and, frankly, still works; the show is thoroughly enjoyable.

It is precisely this tried and true formula which sucked me into the critical vortex that I currently find myself in.  Adding Glee to things like High School Musical, and not being in high school anymore, I found myself wondering if it was still really like that and, if so, was the constant tongue in cheek assurances by the media that it is allowing it to continue? You can see why that particular question got me all caught up.

My high school experience was nothing like that portrayed in any of the typical high school oriented productions.  Sure, I was well aware of the whole clique thing and, yeah, transgressing it was rather unusual but, really, it wasn't that big a deal.  I knew several people that intermixed through several social groups without anybody really caring.

Ultimately, I don't really have an answer to it and don't think a conclusive one is out there to be had. I firmly believe that media and what is represented impacts the real world construction of the young, but I also believe that media often really is a reflection of society and culture.  I am comfortable, for now, simply asking the question.