Water for Elephants, Sustenance for Me

I don't know why I'm so attached to Water for Elephants. It's not over-the-top creative or still on any bestsellers lists, but it's one of the books I would take to that hypothetical desert island (Don't worry, we'll get to that later).

It's a story about Jacob Jankowski, a young Polish man who accidentally runs away with the circus after a family tragedy. Stumbling into the world of train circuses he meets Marlena, a breathtaking creature who enchants and commands a dozen horses during the liberty act. Wave after wave of new experiences crash over Jacob, but one of the most powerful is when Rosie, a mischievous elephant, is added to the circus.

Gruen made the train circus real - the roustabouts, the kinkers, the cooch tent and patches - everything felt as if you'd walked straight into the Grand Spec. The backdrop of the 1920's is vibrant; speakeasies, jake leg and liquor raids all take their place among the bread lines and hobo jungles. Gruen artistically balances quiet romance with depressing realism and I can't get enough of it.

Why I hate JK Rowling

Full disclosure: I am biased. Harry Potter is one of my favorite series. Calling them children’s books is damning with faint praise, and I’m continually surprised by how well written and well-crafted they are.

And I think that in the beginning, she was an author to respect. She was smart enough to use initials instead of Joanne Rowling. Because, let's face it, it's still a sexist world we live in and women have to write the "right" kind of book (like EAT PRAY LOVE) in order for them to sell. She committed to her world a hundred and ten percent; transforming silly words like Quiddich and muggle into everyday language. But since she has become famous, her personality has shone through. And man, is it disappointing.

First, the suing of a fan; a diehard, worshipping-her-world fan. A man named Vander Ark ran a Harry Potter fansite as a hobby. He declined to publish an encyclopedia because he didn’t want to violate copyright laws. But when the last book was published and he was approached by RDR Books with a promise copyright laws would be intact, he agreed to move forward. Rowling’s response to a fan she previously awarded? Suing him. Calling his work “inferior,” she went on and on about how she was losing the will to write. Let’s make note that this is after she has finished the world-famous seventh and final book. Yes, he is destroying her. Clearly suing him was the only option. I just have to wonder Rowling: do you not have enough money or do you have so many fans that one of your most loyal is expendable? A slap in the face to him and a warning to passionate fans worldwide.

Second, she panicked about being out of the media spotlight so she made up a controversial lie about one of her most beloved characters. I have no problem with Dumbledore being gay. If he wants to chase wands not skirts, sure. Whatever makes one of the most legendary men in the wizarding world want to get off, works for me. But make that a character trait, not a publicity stunt to draw attention back to yourself. There was nothing in any of the books (including the last one) that even hinted at homosexual attraction. You've had your 15 minutes; retreat gracefully. Oh no, wait....too late. It's a disappointment. Fans grew to love Dumbledore and whether they are supportive of his new lifestyle or not, it's still a cold shock. Again, a slap in the face to the people who live in her wizarding world.

So it seems that anytime Rowling makes news, it is to dishearten her fans. While I will forever appreciate the art and love the characters, I can only be continually disappointed in their creator.

Stand for Free Speech or Fall for Anything

“Do the right thing and stop selling products that promote criminal violence against living beings.” This bold statement is found in Tracy Reiman’s, the Executive VP of PETA, letter to Amazon asking it to remove offensive content. This is heartfelt and honest, written with the best intentions for animals and people alike. And while Reiman makes a good point, I feel that the protection of our freedom of speech, even in situations we might not like, takes precedence.

Imagine if we didn’t have this first of our Amendments. Reiman might not even be able to write her passionate, seething letter to Amazon. She might not be allowed to express her opinion without fear of repercussions.

“Censorship (is) inconsistent with American values…the Internet is, and must remain, the most open marketplace of ideas in the history of the world. Limiting its reach has a direct impact on the speech and privacy rights of all Americans.” Michael Macleod-Ball from the ACLU is clear about his stance on freedom of speech and censorship. And it’s really one or the other.

So the question is: whose side are you on?

I’m free speech all the way. Look at our list of banned books. How many on this list are classics that we now can’t imagine living without? How many works have pushed social issues into the forefront even though it’s uncomfortable? But more importantly, how are we supposed to live if we are forever afraid of offending?

Don’t be hypocritical. Either stand for free speech or move out of its way. If we bend and cave for every unhappy party, we will find ourselves living within the pages of Fahrenheit 451 before we realize it.

Oh, and fyi, I was totally going to read The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure. I bet you’re not surprised.

Can't Stop Looking at the Birdie

Vonnegut's posthumous work Look at the Birdie is refreshing. I miss Vonnegut. His passing ended a long list of controversial classics. Look at the Birdie is a collection of short stories, some rougher than others. In the forward by Sidney Offit, he says that there are no unpublished stories by Vonnegut because he is so precise, and I agree. These were not published for a reason, for whatever imperfection Vonnegut felt they still carried. But in his infamy, nothing is safe. His fans, and I am one proudly, hunger for anything in his voice. So here they are and what they say to me:

Confido - human nature is a poison.

FUBAR - heaven is found in your little corner of the world.

Shout It From the Housetops - the truth is unbearable unless you accept it.

Ed Luby's Key Club - an example of how the world treats those who are honest within it.

A Song For Selma - our judgments are easily influenced.

Hall of Mirrors - we build our worlds to destroy ourselves.

The Nice Little People - unconscious desires will always work their way out.

Hello, Red - we can choose our futures.

Little Drops of Water - habits make the man.

The Petrified Ants - we allow our own demise.

The Honor of a Newsboy - our weaknesses will destroy us.

Look At The Birdie - the powerlessness of life.

King and Queen of the Universe - life's purpose finds you, not the other way around.

The Good Explainer - our past is forever woven into us.

One of my favorite moments in the whole book: "My conclusion was that the man was crazy, and I was about to drive off when I heard what sounded like a scream from the back of the house. I thought maybe I'd interrupted him while he was murdering his wife, thought he'd gone back to it now." From Shout It From The Housetops, this is uniquely Vonnegut. Grim, witty and unexpected. The pages are wrought from this quirky genius and show us that even when it's imperfect, it's still impactful.

Once or twice I felt as if a short story was a nugget filed away for future use, a seed which would grow into another post-apocalyptic nonsensical revelation about our world; not incomplete but without the room to flourish. I found a few of them were heavy handed in their message; perhaps why Vonnegut shelved them. Two of them were so poetic I had to stop turning pages and grant them a moment of silence. But throughout there is the quirk and charm that Vonnegut has wooed so many with. If you have not peeked into his reality, Look at the Birdie is perfect for a few curious glimpses.

Afterwards, perhaps you will feel as I do upon closing his works: that I "had finally seen a little something of life."

Unique, Freaky and Long-Winded

I’m not a business major, economically curious or even slightly inclined in that direction. But Freakonomics was presented as the book for me; a non-detail intensive look at curiously intertwined realistic situations. A combined effort between the ideas of award-winning economist Professor Steven D. Levitt and the pen of New York Times writer Stephen J. Dubner, the book jacket claims it “will literally redefine the way we view the modern world.” My interest was piqued.

207 pages of unique economic questions lay before me, but it was the introduction of the “characters” that I found addicting and refreshing. In truth I would probably enjoy Dubner’s New York Times Magazine article about Levitt more than I enjoyed their book. Levitt’s a curious individual, humble and extraordinary; Dubner is a skilled writer, intuitive about human nature and poetic in its’ portrayal.

From the beginning, I saw that Levitt’s ideas were unique. I mean, who thinks to connect legalizing abortion with a decrease in the crime rate? Certainly no one else I’ve heard about. Levitt’s theory is this: the women who appreciate abortion as a legalized option are primarily low income, less educated and low socioeconomic status. Children born into these conditions are much more likely to commit crimes (he gives statistics). Now, consider if these mothers can choose to not have these children and all the children statistically inclined to commit crimes are not born; ergo crime decreases. A brilliant idea. But really, a paragraph such as this is all that is necessary for me to appreciate it. Freakonomics continues the idea for five or so pages, five more pages than necessary.

I liked the idea, but felt they missed their mark. Trying to make economics interesting to the mass, business-uneducated population is a lofty goal. They gave it a heroic effort, but ultimately overshot by about 157 pages.