Poetry and Existentialism

Yes, I'm nearly 50. And some days I look back and wonder where my life has gone and why I haven't done more with it. There are many things I regret, but two things that I regret are not enjoying poetry and existentialism.

What, you say? Aren't there more important things you regret? Sure, there are. But these are the ones that I've been thinking about recently.

First, poetry.

I've heard and read reviews of poetry. I've known people that really love poetry. That become intensely moved and even cry after reading poetry. I'm not one of them. I look at them and think, that rhymed nicely.

Now I do become moved by stories and novels. Ask my sister, I cry all the time while watching movies. 

But I just don't get poetry. I always wonder is it me? Or did I not have the right education? Is there a class I could take to help me understand poetry? Or am I just missing a certain bit in my brain that "gets" poetry.

Secondly, existentialism. This came to me after a conversation with my mother about the book The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry. 

I told her I didn't see what was so special about it. She said it depended when you read it. That it was existential. I had to laugh. I don't really like existential films either. I just don't get what they are trying to do and say. 

It's Blowin' In The Wind

This week that old song by Peter Paul & Mary is going through my mind. 

"How many times must the cannonballs fly before they're forever banned?"

"How many times can a man turn his head and pretend that he just doesn't see?"

"How many deaths will it take 'til he knows that too many people have died?"

"The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind."

I found myself asking once again those questions after this week's tragedy. I also ask myself why it's okay for a lone white man to kill people (or at least understandable) but so-called terrorism is beyond the pale. Also, why is it not terrorism when someone  (or the police) kill black men on the street without challenge or cause? Why is it not terrorism when someone decides that women should not take control of their own bodies and kills everyone at a women's health clinic? Why is it not terrorism for people to openly carry assault weapons to do their grocery shopping? 

I use Twitter a lot these days. To keep up with news and with like minded people. I spoke out against current gun policy and asked for simple common sense reform. Well, the gun rights "nuts" were out there and their views were spewed out with contempt at me. I wonder just how many people have to die for them to change their views? Or would they have to lose a loved one?

What did I ask for?

A discussion and admission that we are having a problem. 

Now, even though I do not have a gun nor want one, I do believe that guns should be allowed. A person may want a gun - a handgun - in the home for protection. Women (especially abuse victims) may want one. Guns are used in hunting. I think these are all understandable. 

However, there are some things I think can be dealt with. Things that any sane person should be willing to talk about.

Stockpiling weapons and ammunition. Now how can you think this is alright? But the gun people on Twitter didn't seem to think so.

"How is it your concern how many guns someone owns?"

They also like to say that gun reform kills. 

They refuse to acknowledge the problem we have or that I have a legitimate concern. They preach responsibility yet they preach personal responsibility. They have the right to defend themselves, their property, their family. They do not care about the rest of us.

Another issue for me is the type of weapon. A gun designed purely for killing people and in bulk at that is not a gun for the average citizen. It is a gun used for war. These should be outlawed or, at the very least, restricted heavily. There is no reason for someone to own one.

Yet they answer yet again. "Why do you care?"

Try telling them that I care because I could be a victim. What do they answer? "No, that's the criminals that do that." Uh-huh. Right. Yet another libertarian answer. No regulation. Just punish for the crime. Or they might say "who decides what guns I can have?"

Then they start preaching the 2nd Amendment. Now, I don't believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees guns for everyone. I don't believe that should be the interpretation today nor was it the interpretation in the 18th Century. But I can't ask Mr Jefferson or Mr Adams.

However, let's just say it does. (But it doesn't.) Why does it have to absolute? Name one other Amendment that does not have restrictions. We do not have an absolute right to free speech. The Supreme Court has limited the rights of search and seizure and the right to a free trial. Not to mention the Voting Rights. So, we should limit our gun rights. 

Coming full circle, just what would it take for a gun rights advocate - nut - to admit that there is a problem? I don't know. The answer, I suppose, is "blowin' in the wind". But, maybe we should treat these people like alcoholics. The first step is to admit they have a problem. Do you know one? Maybe you should send them to a rehab clinic. (Unarmed hopefully.)

Reading Around the World - Don't Ask Questions! It's a Dystopian Oakland!

With this book, I've moved south from Davis, California, to the city of my birth, Oakland.

The book is Gun,With Occasional Music by Jonathan Lethem and it's a very strange Oakland indeed. It takes place in an unspecified future in a dystopian Oakland. As I say in my review: "It's an Oakland where you need a license to ask other people questions. It's an Oakland where drugs are not only legal, but de rigeur. It's an Oakland were "evolution therapy" has made not only intelligent animals, but also intelligent toddlers, or "babyheads"." 

This is also a noir mystery that Chandler would be proud to call home. I really enjoyed it. 

My next book I will move across the bay to one of my favorite cities, San Francisco.

Wisdom from the Quakers

I discovered a short-lived mystery series by Irene Allen. It features the Clerk of a Meeting of Quakers in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I've always been attracted to the Quakers due to my family connection. I am descended from Lawrence and Cassandra Southwick who emigrated to Salem, MA, in 1637. 

They were persecuted by the Puritans - who, ironically, fled to America for freedom from persecution - because they were Quakers. 

Back to the books, the author prefaces each chapter with a quote from a historic Quaker and one of these quotes is by John Woolman (1754):

"To consider mankind as other than brethren, to think favours are peculiar to one nation and exclude others, plainly supposes a darkness in the understanding. For as God's love is universal, so where the mind is sufficiently influenced by it, it begets a likeness of itself and the heart is enlarged toward all men."

Truly a radical concept! No wonder they've been persecuted! Most faiths, sects, and churches want to consider themselves as set apart or, as the Mormons like to say, "a peculiar people" (1 Peter 2:9). 

Also, it shows the truly evil concept that is "American exceptionalism". I've always disliked it because it seems that people, instead of being proud of the values and accomplishments of our great nation, instead use it to claim that they don't need to abide by the same treaties, agreements, and standards as other nations. 

Any thoughts out there? Please comment below!

Reading around the world -- reading Jane Austen in Davis, California

Moving south from Lassen Volcanic National Park in northern California, I have arrived in the Sacramento Valley in Davis -- "the most bicycle friendly town in the world". 

For Davis, I read Karen Joy Fowler's book The Jane Austen Book Club. Other literary Davis natives are Peter S. Beagle (The Last Unicorn), John Lescroart (the Dismas Hardy novels), Deborah Madison (cookbook author), Kim Stanley Robinson (the Mars trilogy), Sean Stewart (Resurrection Man trilogy), and Zach Weiner (webcomic Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal).

The biggest employer in Davis is the University of California which has campus there. It is also the home of the California Northern Railroad.

The average temperature (year-round) is 47.8-74.7 Fahrenheit. The highest temperature ever recorded was 116 F in July 1925 and the lowest was 12 F in December 1932. 

Indeed, in the book, the climate is described as follows: 

"The climate in the Valley was classified as Mediterranean, which meant that everything died in the summer. The native grasses went brown and stiff. The creeks disappeared. The oaks turned gray."

The book is very entertaining, especially for a fan of Jane Austen like me. The book even came with a couple fun appendices, one all of quotes of people's opinions of Austen and her works.

The sense of place in the book was very good in places, not so good in others. Essentially the book is a book of people all linked by the wonderful Miss Jane. 

Please check out my review at Goodreads!

The mere habit of learning to love is the thing.

~Jane Austen

Reading Around the World: Northern California's Lassen Volcanic National ParkThe

I've moved out of the Beaver State and into the Golden State - California.

When I searched for a book to read for Northern California, I was always directed to the Bay Area - San Francisco/Oakland and the environs. Yet, looking at the map, that seemed more like Central California. 

So, I looked at a map and one of the most northern places in California is Lassen Volcanic National Park. And, sure enough, Nevada Barr sends her character Anna Pigeon there in book #4 of her series that take place in national parks. 

What's more the book takes place in a wildfire at the national park.

In this book, Anna is working as an EMT for firefighters fighting a wildfire at the park. She and a group of firefighters get trapped after a flashover when a murder occurs. (Don't you hate it when that happens?) As she's trapped, she also has to investigate a murder while keeping herself and her fellows alive. 

Apart from the plot, which I really enjoyed, the scenery of the park and the description of fighting wildfires take central stage. Lassen Volcanic National Park is one of the oldest in the national park system and will celebrate its centennial next year. The volcano, Lassen Peak, last erupted in 1914-15. A fire actually occurred at the park in 2012. 

There are a few lakes near the area and quite a bit of geothermal activity. Lassen Peak is the dominant feature and the largest plug volcano in the world. There is also the Cinder Cone volcano. Additionally, there are boiling springs, mudpots, and fumaroles at the park.

I really enjoyed this mystery and can't wait to read more in the Anna Pigeon series. You can find my review of the book at Goodreads. Next I will be travelling south to Sacramento!

A Soapbox Moment

Okay, I'm going to get on a soapbox and you may be offended. Every time I talk about this I get people all uptight and they decide that I'm being sanctimonious or pushy or that I want them to do what I say. 

Is this about people vaccinating their kids? 

No.

Is this about the war on women? (There is one, you know.)

No. 

Is this about the separation of church and state and the fact that the Founding Fathers most certainly did NOT found the United States as a Christian nation?

No.

No, it's about books. More specifically, the books that people say they will positively will NOT read. Now, I get in a lot of trouble when I post about this. If you want to see examples, there are two threads on the Goodreads site, I will refer you to:

The Shining by Stephen King

Ultimate 2015 Reading Challenge

Now, when I was a kid, I was a very picky eater. Many times I would have food put on the plate and say "Ick!"

I didn't want to eat it and would say I hated it. This would really upset my dad - especially if he knew I'd never tried it - so he would give me an extra spoonful. 

So, when I hear someone say that they won't read science fiction or romance or horror or that science fiction, romance, horror, crime/mystery isn't REAL literature, that is the first thing I think of. Obviously, they need an extra helping.

Now, maybe they don't want to be told what to read, maybe they think they must know best...

Maybe they've tried and think they're right. Maybe they've had a bad experience. I can understand that. I had a bad experience with a book written in the first person once and didn't read books in the first person for DECADES afterwards. (Hey, I think I can be forgiven in a murder mystery when the narrator turns out to be the one "whodunit".)

But it just seems some people are just doing it for the same reason I wouldn't eat Brussel Sprouts. However, with one big difference, I didn't eat many vegetables (and bean sprouts) because I didn't think I'd like it.

It seems to me many people won't read science fiction, romance, horror, et al, because they feel they are better than that. That, in some ways, they are low-rent fiction. That they are for entertainment value only. 

Another problem I have is that, yes, you may have had a bad experience with science fiction after reading one or two books. But, do you know how many sub-genres there are? Wikipedia lists 49 different types of science fiction genres: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Science_fiction_genres

How about mystery? Westerns? Horror? Romance? 

Can you rule out all of romance because you hated 50 Shades of Grey? (Full disclosure: though I read quite a bit of romance, I refuse to read this because I have a philosophical objection to BDSM.)

Do you have any comments? Are there any books you won't read? Why? Do you rule out entire genres or subgenres? If so, what is your reasoning? 

Do you think I'm unreasonable? Sanctimonious? Is there a better way to get on my soapbox without upsetting people? 

Comment below or reach out to me via social media:

Twitter

Google+

Facebook

Goodreads