Tuesday, December 18, 2012

“An Unpleasant Speculation”




Thinking in the shower this morning, I engaged in wild speculations about the possible future breakup of the United States. The question being, where exactly the boundaries would be between the old “Union” and the old “Confederacy.”

The thought came after reading online postings about gun control and the recent killings in Connecticut.  I’m more and more aware that people have visceral reactions to certain events and issues; and different people have wildly different reactions.

I’ve known this for a long time.  But recently I’ve become much more aware of how important gun ownership is for some people.  The idea of gun control hits them very personally.  Some people feel vulnerable and feel they need guns to protect themselves.  Other people feel threatened by knowing that people around them own guns.

For myself, I will issue a disclaimer:  Although I try to listen to other people’s points of view and understand them—and I think I do understand a lot of them—my natural inclinations tend towards the liberal side of politics.  So I have to work harder to understand the more conservative viewpoint.  But I try.

The United States started as thirteen colonies that agreed to come together as a loose confederation, then as a “more perfect union.”  We fought a bloody civil war when roughly half the country decided they’d rather opt out on what they saw the country becoming.  They were forced to remain in.

But what if the differences become too great?  The Soviet government eventually could not hold the Soviet Union together.  Czechoslovakia eventually split into separate Czech and Slovak countries.  Those dissolutions occurred peacefully; Yugoslavia became a disaster.

The Jihadis who fought the Soviets in Afghanistan take credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union.  I’ve always thought Bin Laden had something similar in mind for us, and I always thought it was silly.  We don’t have the same extremes of ethnic and religious hatred as existed in Yugoslavia.  We have a long and strong democratic tradition, unlike the Soviet Union.

But I’m beginning to wonder.  I thought the 2008 presidential election was pretty disgraceful, and 2012 was worse.  And watching the defensiveness and fear of various political, social, and religious factions in the United States, I’m not as confident as I used to be.  I used to think, “We’re all Americans, after all!”  

But the very meaning of America is becoming vastly different for different segments of the population.  Is the “American Dream” about freedom of thought and expression?  Or is it about becoming financially independent?  Or is it about becoming, to use an expression, “filthy rich?”  Is it about becoming more powerful than everyone else, so that you can thumb your nose at them?  Or is it about building a community where everyone is welcome—and where, possibly, everyone is cared for?

I don’t know.  I envision a “New Confederacy” of roughly the old southern Confederacy and the general area of the Louisiana Purchase, as well as Utah and Arizona.  What is left of the “United States” is split into three separate enclaves:  The northeast, the Pacific coast, and Colorado/New Mexico (maybe).  Not a pleasant sight.

My father once mused that the U.S. had lost its vision, and that the Soviets would triumph.  I’ve always been more worried about our own internal stresses.  I’d like to think we’ll pull through.

Thursday, December 13, 2012

(Audio) Reflection: Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Part I



Pretty funny about Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.  Now that I’ve seen the movie (did I watch it twice?), and read the book as well, the audiobook seems eerily sedate.  Or should I say, nothing in the book so far seems utterly unreasonable.  It’s amazing how much I have come to accept Thompson’s narrative of his trip to Las Vegas, even though much of the narrative is the narrative of what he was imagining and feeling in his own mind.

But does that mean that Thompson has succeeded, or failed?  The initial strangeness of the story comes from the weird things that Thompson and his lawyer are hallucinating during the trip.  And since the hallucinations not unexpectedly call forth paranoid and gut instincts, it would not be surprising that they react the way they do.  But do they?  Did they?

Because the other half of this equation is exactly what I mentioned to begin with:  The eerie sedateness with which I now react to the story.  Within the story, the characters act as if nothing is very surprising.  They’re a bit startled, of course, when hotel staff morph into lizards and so on.  But they handle it with surprising aplomb.  They never look at someone and say, “My God, you’ve turned into a giant lizard!”  They may talk to one another about what they’re experiencing; but they don’t talk to the others about it.

Or do they talk to one another?  Maybe—they could talk softly to one another, under their breath, about the weird goings on all around them.  And maybe they do.  But how would we know?  Can we trust much of anything that Thompson tells us in this narrative?

In Part I of the book, he’s gone to Las Vegas to cover a desert motorcycle (and dune-buggy) race.  My research says he’d nailed an assignment to write 2,500 words of captions for the photographs.  He did so, but his contribution was rejected by the magazine.

If we are to believe the book, the race began, and within 30 minutes the entire surrounding area was enveloped in a huge dust cloud.   That’s the last he saw of the race.  Part I of the book, far from 10 pages of captions, runs 100 pages, describing some possible facts but more often the anxieties of Thompson and his attorney.

Believable—if we believe that covering the race and subjecting oneself to Las Vegas in the wrong frame of mind could call forth one’s inner demons, especially under the influence of every conceivable illegal substance.

But would a journalist covering a two-day race really take along a trunk load of highly illegal substances, with the intention of becoming utterly bonkers even before arriving, and staying that way for the duration?

It’s an interesting proposition; possibly even true.  Thompson was certainly “unusual”—and an engaging writer.  Welcome to his potentially unnerving world.

The audiobook, by the way, features Ron McLarty and is available from Recorded Books, LLC.  Curiously, the copy I am listening to, from the local library, becomes generally unplayable about half-way through.  “Coincidence???”

Sunday, December 9, 2012

Anticipation: On The Road, The Film (2)



Still mad about the whole business of On The Road coming out everywhere else first—and then in the United States!  This quintessential American film comes to the United States last of all.  Well, technically not “last”—it will come out next year in Spain, Hungary, Argentina, and Hong Kong.  But it’s come out in twenty-one other countries first (and one more, if it really showed at the Marin Film Festival in October, which I can’t confirm.  Hey, my friends in Marin—Did any of you see it then??)

So all these “anticipations” of the film as we move up to the December 21st U.S. release date probably seem pretty silly to folks in areas that have already gotten the film, months ago.  I know it premiered at Cannes in May, with a lengthy press conference.  I know it was in the running for awards there—but won nothing major.

I also see that it has now been trimmed a bit.  According to the IMDB (International Movie Database) it originally ran 2 hours and 17 minutes.  It now has been cut to 2 hours and 4 minutes.  Well, The Business does what it must.  Until I get to see both versions, I’ll be missing those additional thirteen minutes.

But that was always an issue with Kerouac, as with some others.  Whereas my other favorite writer, Christopher Isherwood, asks himself “Why am I telling them this?” Kerouac simply tells.  In his first published novel, The Town and the City (which I still have not read), Kerouac edited and rewrote extensively.  But after that he held to the ideal of “no revisions.”  I can see why some people would prefer to trim On The Road.  It can seem rambling and even pointless to some.

I notice, incidentally, that the film is described as “Action/Adventure/Drama.”  Well, PR has got to call it something.  I just hope that people new to Kerouac don’t come expecting something like Indiana Jones!

Oh, I feel a train wreck coming, but hope I’m wrong.  Just read a review on the IMDB that was not encouraging.  But of course I have to see the film just to find out.  I often disagree with reviewers.  And so we plunge on, towards finding out the truth.

It will be interesting in some way, no doubt.  I see opinions about sociology and demographics.  Hm.  Guess I’ll hang on for the ride!

Friday, December 7, 2012

Anticipation: On The Road, The Film (1)



Finally found out where On The Road, the film, will be premiering in the U.S. on Dec. 21st:  New York and Los Angeles.  But so far I have not discovered where exactly in Los Angeles it is showing.  It’s tempting to drive down—400 miles—to see the movie, and drive back—400 miles.  But no; I think not.

It actually may have actually been shown at the Marin Film Festival back in May—it was advertised, but I cannot tell that it actually was.  There is probably a story behind that.

I stumbled on a story from early this year, speculating on the distributors chosen for the U.S. release.  The thought was, they aren’t known for large releases.  It was suggested this means that the film won’t make as much money as it might have.  But I’m not familiar, at this point, with this aspect of the business of the film industry.

Meanwhile, I continue to fret about the screenplay, the adaptation, the actors.  How will Kristen Stewart do?  I’ve already seen two quotes from the film that aren’t in the book.  Dean Moriarty, in the film, apparently exhibits a conscience, self-doubt, and even (perhaps) remorse.  This changes the tone 
significantly.  I’d been wondering how they would squeeze the events into a movie time-frame.  What would they leave out?  But the movie apparently runs about 2 hours and 20 minutes—that should give them a fair shot at a reasonably complete treatment.

Still, I see characters listed that I don’t remember from the book.  Perhaps they have simply given names to some of the characters who aren’t given actual names in the novel.

My suspicion is that I will leave the theater disappointed—and then, slowly, the film will grow on me until I buy my own DVD copy and watch it semi-regularly.

I think of other films, the blockbusters, that are advertised for months ahead of their release; and think of how little PR I’ve seen for this film in the months since it was released in Europe and South America.  I hope it does not sink upon release.  A lot of folks are deeply excited and looking forward to it.  The novel, deceptively simple, has become a meaningful part of our lives.  We want to film to succeed.  But then, ever since the book first appeared, in 1957, it’s been loved by many and dismissed by many.  And maybe we shouldn’t worry so much about such things.

Monday, December 3, 2012

Kerouac is Back



I’ve been reading a lot of Jack Kerouac again.  For one thing I stumbled, a year or more back, on an audio book of On The Road.  Now it seems there are actually three audio books of that novel, plus an audio book of the “original scroll,” the version that Kerouac famously typed onto a single long roll of teletype paper, with no divisions into chapters or even paragraphs, using the real names of everyone who had inspired the novel.

I’ve now listened to all four of those audio books, several times each.  They each have their own personalities in part, of course, because of the different personalities of the readers.

One reason I’ve been so interested in these audio books is because On The Road has finally been made into a film, which premiered at the Cannes Film Festival earlier this year and was then released in much of the world—but not yet in the United States.  It is scheduled for release on December 21st “in selected theaters” (is this why some people believe the world is ending?)  Hopefully “selected theaters” includes at least one theater in San Francisco—and hopefully one in the San Jose area.  I don’t really want to have to fly to Los Angeles or even further to see it.  Of course, I could simply wait…  But what would Dean Moriarty do??

Meanwhile, several women who knew Kerouac have written memoirs—I haven’t read any of them yet.  How wide should I let my Kerouac obsession roam?

New films and books inspired by Kerouac say something about a writer who many people had written off by around 1962.  Kerouac is enjoying a renaissance, including publication of several early works—novels that turn out to be more interesting and well-written than I’d anticipated.

And The Hippos Were Boiled In Their Tanks, co-written with William Burroughs, is now available not only in print but as an audio book itself.  That’s pretty good for a novel written in the early 1940s, unpublished for over sixty years, and dismissed by one of its own co-authors (William Burroughs) as a “not very distinguished work.”

I was expecting it to be “not very distinguished,” found myself surprised at the quality of the writing, and listened to the audio book twice.  Very enjoyable.  I was only a little disappointed at the abruptness of the ending.

Kerouac’s very first completed novel, The Sea Is My Brother has now also been published.  Written only a year or two before Hippos, it is not nearly as well written; but it is enjoyable and interesting enough that I have started reading it for the second time, almost immediately after my initial read.  Certain stylistic points annoy me, and, like Hippos, it ends rather abruptly; but enjoyable all the same.

I originally intended to review them immediately.  I did have initial gut reactions.  “Stylistic patterns in The Sea Is My Brother annoy me.”  The Sea is My Brother simply stops; it doesn’t really end.”  But I’m reevaluating my initial reactions.  It’s true:  If it hadn’t been Kerouac, or Kerouac and Burroughs, I wouldn’t have read them.  But these guys had something that continues to appeal to me.

Hang on for those reviews (I’ve also just read Naked Lunch)—and watch for that U.S. opening of On The Road, the film.  Only eighteen more days.