Post 364: The Ground Beneath Her Feet

The Ground Beneath Her Feet by Salman Rushdie. ISBN: 9780805053081.

I'm quite fond of existentialism for a number of reasons. I like that there is a name for wondering why we are here and what that means and that every person who has asked that question has a completely different answer that for that question. One aspect of existentialism involves the Self and how we both manifest and perceive the Self, and of course how others perceive it. Rushdie makes it sound much less Annoying Undergraduate Philosophy Major though,

"[W]henever someone who knows you disappears, you lose one version of yourself. Yourself as you were seen, as you were judged to be." Page 509-510.

These two sentences contain a fairly complex idea in a very digestible form. It touches on the topic of Self (as an identity and a being) as well as the Other and how the Self is assigned an identity and a being by the Other, which in turn influences the Self.

Yeah, I read a lot of philosophy in college despite being a history major, and this is what it has done to my thought patterns. Boiled down, I like the concept that Rushdie is presenting here because he is stating that you do exist outside of yourself. However, that existence is more of a perception in the sense that the Other has seen you a certain way and has categorized you accordingly. This has interesting implications: it means that you lose bits of your Self as Others fade away, but it also means that those bits of Self were not necessarily accurate. Still, they represented aspects of your personality or moments of interaction with the Other frozen within someone else's Self.

Okay, getting away from the philosophical speak, because it is pretentious and kind of annoying. This concept appeals to me because I have always viewed identity to be fluid. The Amy Campbell that is here today is not the same Amy Campbell that was here ten years ago (thank god), and will be a different Amy Campbell in another ten years. It is the old Heraclitus adage, "You cannot step in the same river twice." He does not mean that you can only step in the Mississippi River once, only that it is not the same river. Even as you stand in the river, it moves around you and becomes a different bit of river and will never be the same river you stepped into again. Just because there are not noticeable or drastic changes, does not mean that the change is completely negligible.

The things that do make that river seem stable are landmarks, banks, borders, and other methods of observing and measuring. This is exactly what other people do for the Self. Underneath the currents we are (or should be) constantly changing, bringing in new water and shifting sand and wearing away rocks, but the Other observes and only sees that we run North to South through such and such acreage. While this may not seem like an important service, it is actually quite valuable.

It solidifies our identity, or aspects of the Self, in our minds. Through the reflections of the Other, we are able to see more clearly exactly which attributes we have. We can instinctively know things about ourselves, but it is through the eyes of the Other that we learn what those things mean and whether or not we can or should change them so as to present an aspect of ourselves that we find more in tune with our Self. When we lose those extra versions, it can be both a good thing and a bad thing. In some ways it frees us to be more than what was perceived, but if it was validating to the Self it can be detrimental to lose them as those validations are often harder to replace than the damaging or false perceptions.

This is such a lengthy and involved novel that it is hard to focus on one thing to write the review about. However, I found Meredith Dias's evaluation of Rushdie's themes in this novel to be very helpful in digesting this epic.
LibsNote: Library copy.

Post 363: The Ground Beneath Her Feet

The Ground Beneath Her Feet by Salman Rushdie. ISBN: 9780805053081.

This is going to be another music post, but this time I'll include a quote from the text (because it's Rushdie and you deserve them).

"A nation at war deserves to hear the music that's going mano a mano with the war machine, that's sticking flowers down its fun barrels and baring its breast to the missiles. The soldiers are singing these songs as they die. But this is not the way soldiers used to sing, marching into battle bellowing hymns, kidding themselves they had god on their sides; these aren't patriotic-bullshit, get-yourself-up-for-it songs. These kids are using singing, instead, as an affirmation of what's natural and true, singing against the unnatural lie of war. Using song as a banner of their doomed youth." Page 266-67.

As little as music matters to me nowadays, what music I do listen to tends to be folk music. There are several ways to define folk music,* but for me folk music must have one or two elements. It must cover a topic or issue current to the time it was written and/or it must use instruments and techniques that are fairly accessible to the poorest of musicians. Ideally these songs can be sung with voice alone, or at the very least accompanied by a portable instrument (hand drum, guitar, etc.).

There are a few musicians out there who are covering modern topics in the pop realm, but most of these are vague enough that if you listen to Katie Perry's Fireworks or Lady Gaga's Born This Way thirty years from now, people will (at least hopefully) have no idea what they're referring to. Also they will hopefully wonder what Perry's obsession with sparkling boobs is, because I know I do.

Meanwhile, there are artists out there who are writing about current political, economic, and social problems that are easily placed within a very specific time frame. My favorite is Steve Earle. I particularly like Rich Man's War and Amerika V. 6.0 (The Best We Can Do). Earle keeps within the basics of my definition. You could easily strip away all of the music and even the least trained of singers could manage to learn the songs and perform them reasonably. He does not use a wide vocal range; one could remark that his voice is a bit mumbly and they wouldn't be wrong, but his lyrics are easily understood and relatable.

Hamell on Trial is a bit darker than Earle and possibly a bit more cynical. It's sometimes hard to tell when he's being cynical and when he's just using irony/sarcasm to get his point across. He also tackles issues of parenthood after having a questionable past, which is something I think my generation will have particular issues with. Listen to Inquiring Minds for a sample (that particular video and song drops the F-bomb).

So, why isn't this music on the charts? Well. It's not as easily consumable, I suppose. Topics change so frequently in this country, or at least it seems that way because it's not like we've been at war for 10 years or anything. But we're so much more ADD about it. Nothing holds our attention. But I'd like to see this change. I would like to see popular musicians take a stand with their music and unequivocally say, "Look, this is stupid, and things need to change." Maybe in the '60's we saw musicians rise to fame because of their outrageous and political lyrics, but now we need those who rose to fame because their music was digestible enough to start throwing a bit of acid into the works. We can only eat so many of your sugary pop songs before our brains turn to mush. I'm sure this is good for musicians financially, but not so much artistically. Where is the challenge or pleasure in selling music to the brain deficient?

Somebody, please write me more than a love song.

This is such a lengthy and involved novel that it is hard to focus on one thing to write the review about. However, I found Meredith Dias's evaluation of Rushdie's themes in this novel to be very helpful in digesting this epic.
LibsNote: Library copy.
*Despite the fact this is a Tripod site I decided to link to it anyway, because they use and link to scholarly resources.

Post 362: The Ground Beneath Her Feet

The Ground Beneath Her Feet by Salman Rushdie. ISBN: 9780805053081.

I cannot talk about this novel without talking about music. It is the center of the book, it's motivator and even a metaphor for the human condition and love, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah.

However, I don't really care for it.

It's not that I don't like it, but if I wasn't able to hear tomorrow, music is not one of the things I would miss. I would have felt differently about ten years ago, but it was a bigger part of my life back then. Nowadays it seems to be more of a nuisance than a life enriching art form. This might have more to do with the kind of music being foisted upon the public and sold to teenagers than anything else, but really I've just become less interested in it in general.

When I was growing up music was always playing in my house. My father had nearly impeccable taste in music: Frank Zappa, The Rolling Stones, The Band, BB King, Vanessa Williams, Stevie Wonder, Natalie Cole, and hundred of others. His vinyl collection was pretty impressive and we listened to it about as frequently as we watched television in my early years. Sundays seemed to be a day almost dedicated to playing his record collection. As I grew up my music tastes diverged a little bit: I started listening to the early rap (notably Dr. Dre, Coolio, and a few others), and while we were in Oklahoma I also listened to a bit of country. But my roots are and were still firmly planted in the early rock and roll, so even the country I listened to sounded closer to rock and roll than the more twangy cotton-mouth version you can hear on CMT.

By the time I moved to Alabama, without dad, I started listening more to the Blues intermixed with alternative music and metal (KoRn, Smashing Pumpkins, Iced Earth, Jag Panzer, Nirvana, Metallica). My classmates and teachers found this a bizarre mix. One of my teachers was especially confused about why I liked the Blues, as she found them "depressing." I found it difficult and somewhat ironic trying to explain to an African American woman raised in the South why singing about heartache and oppression was sometimes the only way to help me forget it, if only for five minutes.

Sometime during college, music just started meaning less to me. No, that's not quite true: sometime in college, most of the music that was being played on the radio stopped meaning anything to me, and the rest began causing emotional distress. So much of my early life was attached to music that I cannot now detach certain people, emotions, or memories from certain songs. It's not that I don't like these songs anymore, but for the most part I cannot handle the mental distress it causes. Songs like "Hallelujah" or "Mad World" or "Searching for the Ghost" by the Heartless Bastards never fail to put me in tears by the end of the song. Even Christmas carols get me going more often than not.

You would think this would drive me to the more insipid songs, the bubble gum pop that assumes I didn't learn my days of the week and expects me to believe that a 16 year old knows what it means to be in love forever. Instead it just makes me wish the whole world would go quiet, if only for a few days. Maybe it would give us time to think about how stupid everything is right now.

This is such a lengthy and involved novel that it is hard to focus on one thing to write the review about. However, I found Meredith Dias's evaluation of Rushdie's themes in this novel to be very helpful in digesting this epic.
LibsNote: Library copy.

Day 211: Haroun and the Sea of Stories

Haroun and the Sea of Stories by Salman Rushie.  ISBN: 9780670838042.

I mentioned in the previous post that another underlying theme in this book is about the necessity of contrasts.  This is best demonstrated by the two halves of the moon Kahani, one that was constantly in daylight and the other in dark.  The people in the dark seemed to be the ones to suffer the most negative side effects, living in silence under an oppressive regime.  They also had shadows who became more like individual entities.  These were initially a benefit, the shadows could act on their own and were treated as people.  However, as they were led by a corrupt person, people and their shadows turned against each other.   Having an enemy you have no way of getting away from is not exactly a benefit.

I almost take issue with the fact that Rushdie made darkness the "bad" side.  I wish there had been more balance in his actual portrayal of the sides, but since it is only told from the viewpoint of persons on the daylight side, we don't actually get to see if there are any advantages to living in darkness and silence, of which there must be some.

I'm definitely a person who thrives more in quiet.  I find it difficult to concentrate when there's noise around.  This tends to be why I don't really listen to music often.  I sometimes make the mistake of trying to write blog posts while watching something on Netflix.  It gets done, but it requires quite a bit more mental energy to keep my thoughts in line.  My editor can probably even tell the difference between posts since I obviously make more mistakes when I'm distracted.

I think it's easier to be more creative in the darkness than in the daylight.  Darkness sort of breeds imaginative thoughts.  Just think of when you were a child.  How many permutations of monsters did your mind come up with?  How many boogeymen and scarecrows?  But also, how many wonders filled your mind when you looked at the night sky or caught fireflies or watched fireworks?  What about listening to the owls and the crickets and the coyotes?

But we can't stay in that state forever, in fact I doubt we would be so inspired by darkness if we were surrounded by it all the time.  The daytime provides us with a chance to be physically active, but the darkness is a time of reflection.  Activity is great, but we can't process without periods of rest.

An excellent review can be found at The Book Brothel, scandalous.

Day 210: Haroun and the Sea of Stories

Haroun and the Sea of Stories by Salman Rushie.  ISBN: 9780670838042.

This is one of those truly amazing stories that is so simple on the surface, but allows you to ingest a deeper meaning.  In Haroun, Rushdie refers to good story telling as being able to juggle multiple items without dropping any.  Rushdie makes this look completely effortless by weaving an incredible story on top of underlying themes about knowledge, censorship, the neglect of tradition, the need for opposites and contrasts, and what I believe is also commentary about the publishing industry "dirtying" the waters.

The fact that Rushdie is able to do this in a children's story without actually detracting from it or even pushing it on the reader is pretty incredible.  I can only dream of writing something like that.  I think I'm going to talk about the publishing industry a bit here, because lately I've been kind of disappointed with my reading options.

I don't really think there is a publishing industry anymore.  It's definitely more about marketing and Big Name Talent than anything else.  I believe that publishers are willing to and have published books purely based on how well they sell rather than on the quality or originality of the work.  And I believe as readers we are suffering for it.  I mean this.  We don't even get quality work from writers who are actually capable of producing it, because no editor wants to be responsible for having a Big Name walk just for the integrity of the work.

In the past these are the writers who would have produced only one novel because other publishing houses seemed to keep an eye on potentially troublesome authors.  Now you have people dropping publishing houses left and right for better deals or because the editors are too "harsh."  After reading some of the drivel that's actually been published, guys, your editors are there for a reason. Please, use them.  You may be able to produce amazing works with your eyes closed, but you still need someone to point out that you managed to spill soup on your tie and forgot to tie your shoelaces.  You can be a genius and just not see, "Oh, there's a continuity error that I must have missed because I've been working on this 500 page manuscript for the last 3 years with little to no sleep."

And I think this unwillingness for people Who Have Made It Big to actually listen to their editors has produced a load of less-than-what-it-could-be work.  Not to mention, publishers are buying what they think will sell in quantity rather than searching for quality along the same lines.  I will use the example of vampire novels and paranormal romance, because right now that is the big thing, and omg there is a lot of sparkling poop in that particular genre right now because people (for some reason unknown to me) keep eating it.

Paranormal romances are selling for the same reason that regular romance novels are selling: because they don't usually require a whole lot of brain cell activity.  You can just kind of read and absorb and when you're done, you still feel hungry and are willing to shove more junk in as many face-holes as possible.  There is no possible way that even a good writer is able to keep up with that kind of demand, so instead publishers try to find mediocre writers who can vomit stories faster than you can max out your credit card buying them all.

And just like in Haroun, as the Sea of Stories gets more and more polluted, as the old stories are neglected and tainted by anti-stories, the sicker we get as a people of storytellers and listeners.  What's worse is that it seems to be going by completely unnoticed.  Instead of reading something and saying, "Wow, that was a terrible book," it seems that people are instead shrugging and saying, "It wasn't as bad as the novel I read last week, maybe I'll pick up the next in the series."  Since when did "okay" all of a sudden turn into buying an entire series?  I rarely even buy books that are absolutely fabulous unless they have been so critical to my thoughts that I know I will want to refer to them again.  I also sometimes buy books based on what I want other people to read.  That's right, I'm more likely to stock my personal library for a guest (when I have a house that will accommodate guests) than I am for my own personal pleasure.

This probably has to do with the fact that once I've read a book, I own it.  It doesn't matter if I return it to the library or a friend, or drop it in the bath tub, or burn it, or sell it.  Once I've read a book, those ideas are mine to mull over and think about for as long as I want to do so.  The only thing the publishing industry does is provide me with what I hope are high quality ideas and stories, but if they don't start wowing me more often, I don't see the use of paying $5-8 for a paperback that I've already paid $.005 for in taxes.

I want more pure stories, free of anti-story poison.  And Rushdie is right, we are neglecting the old stories.  I am more than willing to retreat to those rather than read another crappy paranormal romance novel.  Dracula was a waaaaaay better vampire anyway.

An excellent review can be found at The Book Brothel, scandalous.