Crushes and Questions

I’m not going to skirt around the issue; I have a crush on David Dark. The man teaches high school English at a Christian school somewhere out East, causing me to curse the class-scheduling gods for not allowing me the chance to sit in his English class five days a week somewhere in my high school days, soaking up the wisdom he would have endowed on me. His book, The Sacredness of Questioning Everything is his third and, in my opinion, his best.

I saw him speak a couple times at a conference at Calvin University my sophomore year of college. I was taken up by his Southern drawl (he’s originally from the South), accompanied by his slow thoughts that eventually morph into brilliant new perspectives on familiar subjects. And this is why I appreciate the man so much, he has a way of looking at books, music, movies, politics, religion, etc and finds a way to redeem what I simply see as typical, and pulls out spiritual insights that are relevant and devastating to my ordinary point of view.

In The Sacredness of Questioning Everything, David Dark focuses on ten, for lack of a better term, subjects. Ranging from God to Government to Our Passions, a rather full spectrum is included in Dark’s analysis. While commenting on Religion, he says, “Religion is born out of questions, not answers. Only a twisted, unimaginative mind-set resists awe in favor of self-satisfied certainty” (22). It is with this mindset that Dark approaches the list of subjects, all the while using cultural references (both popular and otherwise) as well as Biblical back-up (although this is by no means a hermeneutical Bible lesson) to convey his points.

I had plans to go a bit more in depth but I realize that I’d just end up quoting the whole book and, because it covers a variety of topics, I would not be able to adequately summarize much else. So I’ll just end with the recommendation to get a hold of a copy of this book and read it.

Wait one more time, what again, is the what?

In writing, I paid no heed as to whether or not you, the reader, care if I give away "important details" of the novel. So if you are a stickler on not knowing anything important concerning plot points, stop reading when I insert the [SPOILER ALERT]. Also, I recognize that this book came out in 2006. I am in no way, punctual in my review. The story is still important.

I recently finished Dave Eggers’ book, What is the What. The novel is based on Valentino Achak Deng’s life, starting in Sudan, then Ethiopia, then Kenya, then the U.S. Although it is considered fiction, many of the events occurred in Achak’s life, or were at least events typical of boys in Achak’s situation. Achak is considered one of the “Lost Boys,” those young boys (5-12 years old –ish) who walked for hundreds of miles from Southern Sudan, East to Ethiopia, amidst the brutal civil war tearing the country apart (and remember; this is pre-Darfur crisis).

The novel takes on a first person narrative from Achak’s point of view. With this, Eggers is able to use his deep understanding of how the mind works to provide, often, candid thoughts from Achak as he discovers unfathomable violence, poverty, and, at some points, opportunity. In his memoir, A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius(the one other Eggers book I’ve read), a similar understanding of the mind’s blunt, yet honest, way of operating is on display, albeit in a much different context. This book also has my recommendation (despite Goodrich’s utter distaste for this offering).

The narrative is told from Achak’s telling in a current day setting. Switching back and forth from life in the U.S. and life in Africa, similarities arise between the two worlds. Addressing the ”What” of What is the What, [SPOILER ALERT] it more or less pertains to a tribal story in which, given the option, the Sudanese chose the more immediate gift of cattle, over the “What”: a higher place in this world. What follows, in Achak’s perspective, is that the Sudanese must then live their lives without the “What.”

Achak’s life, somewhat of an archetype for all Sudanese people, is pestered with abandonment, a lack of a home, and, at the core of the matter, a lack of identity. And perhaps even deeper than this feeling is that he feels a lack of existence. While there are moments where he is recognized (and humanized – times such as when he receives his passport or when he receives help from those in the U.S.), his status in the U.S. does not differ greatly from his life in Sudan. Wherever he ends up, he falls on the lowest rung of castes. Yet he, and those with him, persevere and tell their story. I think he comes to the conclusion that he does exist, despite what he has experienced in his life.

The book ends with Achak addressing the reader: “All the while I will know that you are there. How can I pretend that you do not exist? It would be almost as impossible as you pretending that I do not exist.”

You Had Me at Hello

Amidst the opening scene of Quentin Tarantino's newest, Inglourious Basterds, I was captivated by the slow, beautiful shots that Tarantino seems to have a knack at capturing. The German SS Colonel Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) politely makes conversation with a French man hiding Jews underneath his house. In what is easily the best performance of the movie, Waltz holds the audience captive drawing conflicting sentiments of hatred and enjoyment towards himself. In the following four acts (resulting in a full 2 1/2 hour film time), slow moving conversations drew me in, only to be interrupted by the occasional bloody scene or brief action sequence.

While very distinct from his other films (I believe this to be his only period piece thus far), the marks of a Tarantino film are evident throughout the movie: the movie is split up into five acts, the credits and framing of shots often mimic those of yesteryear, music is used abruptly and effectively to add to the scenes, over the top gore/violence run rampant.

It is under this context that I was approached with a slightly different movie than I had thought I was going to see. The trailers (misleading, in my opinion) set the movie up to be a care-free violent jaunt of some American Jews who don't know where to stop. They certainly take center stage but they're also joined by a cinema-owning Jewish girl who devises a plan to kill some of the Nazi leaders. If anything, it is the clever, Jewish girl that really does the dirty work for the Basterds and if anyone is heralded as a mastermind, it is Landa, the SS Colonel (well, until the very end...). Lt. Aldo Raine (played well by Pitt) served more as the comedic relief rather than someone to whom the enemy was really afraid.

As with most Tarantino films, I wasn't really sure what to do with the severity of the violence and gore. I certainly find the over abundance of blood, etc. (specifically within American movies) to have a crippling effect on our ability to be properly shocked by inhumanity in the real world. Yet in Tarantino films, the amount and degree to which he uses gore goes beyond any sort of "normal" amount. I don't know if he does this just because he likes a lot of blood (which is plausible, given what I've seen of Quentin) or if it's suppose to be some sort of commentary on other movies or if it's just suppose to heighten our sense of humanness (and the basic nature to which we often resort). Feel free to comment if you have any idea on that...

And to finish this informal review, an open letter:
Dear two girls and guy sitting in the back row-
yes, you three sitting one row behind me and approximately six seats to my left. I understand that you're in early high school and the most popular and exciting thing to do at your age is to "hang" with one's friends as much as possible. I understand that you like to spend hours together talking about nothing at all. What I do not understand is why you pay $5 for a matinee showing that is going to be packed full of people excited to see the most recent Quentin Tarantino film. I also do not understand why you talk through the entire movie, giggle at the serious moments, and, generally, have zero respect for the thirty people within earshot of your incessant girl voices. I do not find violence to bode well with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Nothing would make me happier than to punch each of you in the face.

Today's Musings

A blog for no other reason than I am bored.

I'm currently in the midst of 4 (maybe 5...) books, all of which are fantastic. Harry Potter 7 is currently taking the place of "most read" and boy am I loving it's children's book greatness.

For those interested, I'm planning on substitute teaching for a year while working another part-time job for a year. Future possible plans include teaching (English in the states) or working in higher ed... both of which require more schooling. Hopefully the next few months of living at home will help me in finding what I really want to be doing with my life. Who knows, I could also just go with my initial thought of working for a non-profit here or abroad.

I applied to work at a coffee shop today. The one downside is that it's about 20 minutes away but I loved everything else about it. It is independently owned ("damn the man"), there are great couches/tables/places to drink (I love the atmosphere), it's downtown Howell amidst other "hip" stores, the people working there seemed to enjoy their lives, the application asked personal questions, not just references/former jobs (they care more about persons than most places I've been applying to). I hope it works out...

David Sedaris is a hilarious author (memoir-ish stuff). In one of the final chapters I was listening to (he's great on audiobook...) he described an encounter with a 9 year old by in the swimming pool at a YMCA: (paraphrased)

9-year old boy: Do you believe in God?
Sedaris: No.
9-year old boy: Why?
Sedaris: Because I have hair on my back. There are people in this world who rob and kill and destroy and have no hair on their backs while I have hair on my back. That's why I don't believe in God.
9-year old boy: You're going to burn in hell.

A frequent contributer of NPR's This American Life, you should check him out if you're looking for a light read (/listen) with a sophisticated tone to it. Warning: most of his books contain R-rated material... don't say I didn't warn you.

Finally, while driving back from the coffee shop, I spotted a license plate that had a Michigan State University S emblazoned on it. The rest of the license plate held the letters AVIOR on it, resulting in a licence plate that read: SAVIOR. I'm not for sure if this was one of those over-anxious Christians who felt compelled to have their license plate somehow make reference to Jesus (and his/her alma mater) or someone audacious enough to claim to be the Savior. Either way, slightly ridiculous.

Unashamedly

I am unashamedly advertising SwagBucks on my blog (over there on the right). You can use it to build up points and buy stuff... practical stuff like giftcards to iTunes or Barnes & Noble. Simply use it as your search engine and every now and again, you'll be surprised by a new Swagbuck (it makes surfing the web many more times exciting). Click on the ad to sign up and then I'll win 'bucks whenever you do.

Have a good day.

Abso-fruit-ly!

Truth.
It's absolute.
Commentary:
"There is no such thing as nonfiction. There is no such thing as truth. People who really know what happened aren't talking. And the people who don't have a clue, you can't shut them up. It's the same with your own stories, the ones that circulate around with your family and your friends. We're all part of the same hypocrisy" _Tom Waits
"Of absolute truth, none of us are knowers. And we often aren't especially good with the truth we do know" _David Dark
^"12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known" _I Corinthians 13:12
"I've got a stranglehold on this decision
All those opposed can rot in hell
Any day now the words will form a sentence
You'll be reduced to nothingness"
_Artist:Menomena Song:Rotten Hell
"³³"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' ³⁴But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; ³⁵or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. ³⁶And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. ³⁷Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one" _Matthew 5:33-37
"1. truthiness (noun)
1: "truth that comes from the gut, not books" (Stephen Colbert)
2: "the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true (American Dialect Society)"
Thought of the day: God is true and is absolute and I see dimly. I'll let my yes be yes and no, no and try my best to avoid any sort of truthiness. Not knowing may be the first step to knowing.

sins and mistakes and the distinction

Taken from a comments section of a blog I regularly read (BurnsideWriter'sBlog). Interesting thought that I had previously never really considered:

"... it drives me nuts when people refer to sins as "mistakes"; if you cheated on your wife, or posed for pictures you now regret, or embezzled money, or used a racial slur, you didn't make a mistake. A mistake is when you misspell a word, or when you say "Jerry Lewis" when you meant to say "Jerry lee Lewis". A sin is a sin, not a mistake. I should know. I've sinned a lot. Calling it a mistake is a way of minimizing it."

Books and Movies

"It is a guarantee that whenever it is announced that a popular book is being turned into a movie, white people will get upset. This is partly due to their fear that something they love will be made accessible to more people and thus enjoyed by more people which immediately decreases the amount of joy a white person can feel towards the original property. Yes, it’s complicated."
-StuffWhitePeopleLike

Speaking of which, who's ready for a mediocre rendering of Harry Potter 6 tonight?

I don't even really like Beck that much...

Part of a conversation between Tom Waits and Beck Hansen (http://beck.com/irrelevant_topics)

TW: ... Where does this "Best" thing come from? Is that human? Is that American? Is it all over the world? Everyone wants the best eye surgeon, the best babysitter, the best vehicle, the best prosthetic arm, and the best hat. There's also the worst of all those things available and they're doing rather well. (Laughs.) Denny's is doing great. It's always crowded. You have to wait for a table.

BH: Also this obsession with ranking. All the "Best of" lists. I get asked to write "Best of" lists occasionally. An emphasis on ranking things. Having a hierarchy and having it be written in granite, written in stone.

TW: It's economic. So you can charge more.

BH: Yeah, it must be. But maybe it's just a need to have some order that's been established, and that everybody has been notified. I don't know.

TW: There's too much of everything.

A Surprising Inversion

The movie, Brothers:


My Dad has been in Poland since late May. Today, I drove my mother to the airport. She'll be in Poland for a while. Jorjette left to go to Michigan's prettier coast on the West side. What I'm getting at is that brother Kenan and I are home, bachelor padding it for a week. We do nothing better than watching weird, indie movies (okay, the occasional blockbuster sneaks in too). Tonight's selection was a movie called Brothers.

Brothers is a Danish film from 2004 that garnered a little bit of acclaim from Cannes and Sundance but as far as I know, probably went unnoticed on the whole. It was certainly the first Danish spoken movie I'd seen. I checked out the trailer before hand and noticed a couple things, 1. it was a Focus Features movie (good), 2. the name of the movie was Brothers (uncertain), 3. one of the brothers was very stereotypically "rough" looking (bad), 4. the song playing over the trailer made me feel like it was a good movie even though I was only watching the trailer (does that make sense?).

[Fyi ... I won't give away any specifics, but I may hint at general themes that may act as spoilers]
The basic premise of the movie revolves around two brothers, one of whom starts the movie being released from jail and the other has a wife and two daughters but is going back to war. There's tangible tension between the two brothers and the parents are obviously disappointed with the jail bird brother. As you can see in the trailer, the good brother is thought to be killed in war but returns a few months later to his distraught family. Leading up to watching the movie and throughout the first third of it, I expected a simple redemption story about a "roughneck" brother who turns around his life when he's called upon to be there for his family.

What I appreciated about the movie wasn't that the "bad" brother showed signs of "good" (the "ragamuffin with the heart of gold" character is hardly a new role) but rather that the "good" brother showed signs of "bad." A pivotal moment depicting "good" brother's "badness" halfway through made me realize that this movie had an extra layer to explore. The idea that the best of us are capable of evil is a poignant one, especially for those of us with relatively clean records. It is easy to fall into one's assumed role of being good, bad, or otherwise (fill in the blank) yet we must make decisions on a case by case scenerio. We are living, breathing, organisms that are constantly capable of a host of varying actions. Reputation plays its part but we are larger than others' perceptions.

I can't really go any further without dropping plot points but I appreciated that the brothers' morality (I'm over-simplifying a bit with the term, morality) moves in an inverted motion. I encourage a viewing of this movie, specifically before the Hallmark-ish American version is released this December. Go!View!Think!