Monday

The Family Fang by Kevin Wilson


A good book, one of my favorites of 2011.

I didn’t give it a perfect rating, but only because I liked Wilson’s previous book, Tunneling to the Center of the Earth, so much that it’s a tough act to follow.

A lot of what came through again, however, is a lot of what made Tunneling so great. There’s a main course of dark sweetness in the characters, and oddity is a side dish.

The thing that really works for me about Wilson’s books is that he has a good handle on the bizarre, but he also has the good sense to use it sparingly, just enough that you don’t feel like a book is all about creating these insane situations. There are plenty of books out there that are all about the bizarre, and if a book is balls-out insane (see Satan Burger) I can deal. Then there are books that are bizarre, but in a more hip way that’s harder to understand. A lot of your beat generation falls into that category. That’s great for people who are into that, people who I would say are welcome to enjoy their Clove cigarettes, thin bicycles, and silly facial hair, and I will not encroach on their freedom to do so just so long as they don’t mind the fact that I can’t always stop my lips from forming a derisive sneer.

Kevin Wilson is a really talented writer because he can incorporate the bizarre, but it never feels like that’s the focal point of the story. The characters are engaged in these offbeat scenarios, but you get the feeling that the characters themselves are not super comfortable with the level of strangeness either. The characters feel so real, and you get to see a real-seeming person go through something very strange, which is the appeal of something strange in the first place, in my opinion. Using an example from one of his stories, reading about a fairly ordinary man whose parents spontaneously combusted is interesting and engaging. Spellbinding, to use movie critic terms. But if the book were about a Cyclops whose parents exploded and his only fried was a lady with three eyes, the strangeness becomes mundane, and then the story has no life.

To put it more concisely, he uses the appeal of the strange just enough to make the work interesting, but not so much that the strange becomes the norm, thereby diluting its power. It makes for good, literary fiction that can be enjoyed on a level of being just plain fun at the same time.

I love it, and I’ll be first in line for whatever he comes out with next.

Wednesday

Robopocalypse by Daniel Wilson


Loved it. World War Z with robots.

I don’t use this word a lot, but it was very creative. You might think, Screw this, I’ve seen Terminator. Well, this is better. Trust me. It takes the concept to a far more interesting place from start to finish, and there’s no complicated nude time travel involved.

It also adheres to what I think of an important rule of fiction, the Rule of Witness. Basically, how does the narrator know what he’s telling me, and why is he telling me? Robopocalypse has a really well-thought-out way of not only working around this problem that’s so common in fiction, but of integrating it into the story.

Read it. One of Pete’s Top of 2011, fo sho.

That said, there is one thing that bothers me about these robot uprisings.

In general, the scenario goes something like this:

It’s the near future, we’re very reliant on our mechano-men, and all of a sudden some bad shit goes down and they all turn against us.

Okay, I’m down with that.

But the one thing I never understand is Why Are Domestic, Helpful Robots Given the Strength of Ten Men? That part, to me, never really makes sense.

Yes, I understand that it would be helpful to have a very strong robot who could, I don’t know, haul a huge load of bricks on his back. But why not give him a human amount of strength and pair it with increased endurance? That way, the robot could easily unload the car. It just takes a minute longer, but he wouldn’t be able to punch down your house if something went wrong.

Or take for example, the problem of grip strength. Every robot has a vice-like grip that lets him crush a skull like it was nothing. For what? What scenario would require a grip strong enough to powder human bone? I would pose this theory: Giving a robot super grip strength would only be harmful.

I actually listened to this on audiobook, and I listened to part of it on the way home from the grocery store. I was carrying an overloaded plastic bag, and I just barely made it in the door before the bag shredded itself to pieces. Now, an increased grip strength would not have helped me get the bag home intact. The tensile strength of the bag allowed it to only hold so much weight, and that weight is way lower than what I’m able to carry.

In short, the objects of our world are not strong enough to test the limits of human strength, so what would be the purpose of a robot with ten times the strength of a human?

I suppose you could say that it might be useful for a robot to grip a lugnut and twist it off when you need a quick tire change. But if that’s your plan, why create humanoid robots at all? Wouldn’t the purpose of a humanoid robot be that we wouldn’t have to create an entirely different set of tools and environments for the robots? The elegance of them is that they could do what we do, the way that we do it. So it’s either lugnut-changing robot with built-in torque, or it’s humanoid robot who can use a tire iron.

I just don’t understand the conversation between scientists who are building these robots. Is there one mad scientist who just wanted to make the strongest robot possible? Does his assistant not forsee any possible problem with this?

Even a simple machine, a nailgun, has a safety measure on it that supposedly only allows a nail to be fired when the gun is pressed against the wall. It’s not perfect, but it’s SOMETHING. Why wouldn’t robots have something similar?

I think the answer is simple, and somewhat the point of these robot uprising books and movies, which is that humans can be very lazy and quickly get used to machines doing things for them. There’s really nothing wrong with that until we lose the ability to understand the principles behind the machines, at which point we lose control. I get that, and it’s a valid point.

So I guess this is my plea to scientists: If you’re working on robot projects, please consider not making the robots a hundred times stronger than yourself. Just consider it. I know you think it would be really cool to make an indestructible robot that looks like a horrific skeleton with glowing red eyes, but I would ask that you refrain. Just don’t.

Monday

Your Wildest Dreams Within Reason by Mike Sacks


Mike Sacks is a funny guy, and if you’re into stuff like McSweeney’s online whatever-the-hell-they-call-it, you’ll enjoy this book.

The book does suffer a bit from a couple of comedy diseases that are really prevalent.

The first, Onion Fatigue Syndrome, a disease commonly found within the pages of joke newspaper the Onion, is all about how you read comedy. The Onion, like this book, is absolutely hilarious in small-to-medium doses. But if you read the entirety of the Onion front-to-back, you don’t even give a shit about the last couple articles, no matter how hilarious the headlines may be. So if you’re interested in this book, pace yourself.

The second, SSNL (Syndrome Saturday Night Live) is all about taking a hilarious premise and running with it long enough that it’s just not funny anymore. Schweddy Balls is a funny thing to hear Alec Baldwin say, but after a couple go-arounds of “your balls are so sweet” and “your balls would really please my toddler” you get the joke. Then you get it again. And then you start yelling at the TV that you get it in the vain hope that someone will hear you and move on to the next sketch. This book can go down that road in places too. Good premises all around, but occasionally you’re ready to skip to the next piece quite a bit before the end.

But hey, for one guy to have a collection this funny is pretty rare.

Thursday

Good Poems for Hard Times Ed. Garrison Keillor

Hey, what are you going to do?

It’s an anthology. The problem with every anthology is that it’s not going to please everybody all the time, which means it kind of ultimately pleases nobody, right?

Garrison Keillor, for all his lake business, does a decent job of selecting poetry. Really. This book and its precursor, Good Poems, are both filled with some really excellent material. The biggest downfall, for me personally, is the inclusion of super-traditional stuff, Bible verses, for example. And I'm not a fan of reading portions of something. I know Leaves of Grass is impossibly long, but...I don't know. I'm not an excerpt guy. But hey, it's all about balance, and if the world has to read, say, Robert Frost yet again in order to be tricked into reading Denver Butson, then so be it.

I figure the most useful thing would be to list some of the poems I liked best. This isn't a list of what I consider every good poem in the book, because a very large number are very good. They're just poems that held my attention for whatever reason. I tend to enjoy poems with concrete, real details and story as opposed to language poetry. It’s all pretty accessible stuff, stuff you could probably read without being left with that all-too-familiar poetry feeling of “Well what the hell does that mean?” If that’s you, consider taking a look at some of these.

“For My Daughter in Reply to a Question” –David Ignatow (13)

“Starting the Subaru at Five Below” by Stewart Kestenbaum (15)

“The State of the Economy” by Louis Jenkins (27)

“Calling him back from layoff” by Bob Hicok (43)

“Working in the Rain” by Robert Morgan (45)

“Why I Take Good Care of My Macintosh” by Gary Snyder (79)

“Mother, In Love at Sixty” by Susanna Styve (166)

“My Husband Discovers Poetry” by Diane Lockward (182)

“Soda Crackers” by Raymond Carver (232)

“Driving to Town Late to Mail a Letter” by Robert Bly (253)

“My Brother” by Denver Butson (255)

A Couple Books I Won't Be Finishing

As most of you may know, I'm not good at a lot of things, but I've found my real life skill: Quitting books. As someone once told me, there's no reward for reading bad books. A lot of people feel compelled to go on, but I'm happy to drop a book before even giving it a chance. I'm like an American Idol judge who sees someone walk in and says, Thanks, but I don't care for that outfit. No need to sing, dear.

Let's start with this one, American Nerd by Benjamin Nugent.

It had a promising premise and a sort of endorsement by Chuck Klosterman ("...Benjamin Nugent is just weird enough to be absolutely right.") but it didn't really do much for me.

For one, I don't really care to speculate on the origin of the nerd. Who was the first nerd? I don't know, and neither does anybody else. Some caveman with poor vision and overzealous masturbatory habits who eventually found acceptance by creating the invention of the point, which his business partner applied to the stick and took most of the credit for.

We can speculate on some proto-nerds, but I feel like discussing Dr. Frankenstein and T.S. Eliot in the context of being some of the early nerds is, well, getting a little esoteric for my needs. Does nerd-dom need to have a history that pre-dates Eniac? I think not. Moreover, do I need to be aware of it?

The real problem I had with this book is that it read like a textbook to me, which is to say that it took some interesting stuff and bookended it with a bunch of stuff I didn't care about. Plus, the organization seemed a little off. Take this graphic demonstration of how the word ratiocinative was used in the book:

Now, if you want to choose to use a word like "ratiocinative" in a book about nerds, there might be some justification for it. I can cope. But why use it twice and then define it the second time? That makes no sense. I've already either looked it up myself or decided that I don't care to.

The sections all seem organized this way, information in piles instead of steady streams. Too much for me.

.
.
.
.
.

The second book I won't be finishing is Long Drive Home by Will Allison.

The premise is pretty good. A guy is driving his daughter home from school, and as they head into the neighborhood they come across a maniacal driver, a guy who cuts them off, nearly bashes right into their car, and then speeds around the block. As he's coming back around at about 80 MPH, the father driving his daughter decides to jerk the wheel towards the other driver and then back the other way, an aggressive driving move to try and slow the guy down.

Well, it works, slowing him down from 80 to 0 when he jumps the curb, plows into a tree and dies.

Okay, that's the first 15 pages or so, and from there it feels like it's going nowhere.

The father feels guilt, which is understandable, but he's constantly trying to keep his daughter from telling anyone what he did, but he's not even sure she knows and he mostly worries about it instead of actually talking to her and finding anything out. Also, a detective keeps nosing around like there's something going on, but what is unclear. What is he looking for when a car going 80 in a residential area crashes into a tree and the driver, without a seatbelt, is ejected from the car? How is that not case closed?

Furthermore, what is a 7 year-old going to say about her father's driving that would incriminate him in any way? 7 year-olds don't know how to drive, so what could her opinion possibly be?

There was really nothing to feel for the main character, the father, before I quit reading. He made a dumb decision, and I couldn't help but feel like, "Okay, either cop to this thing or not. But just decide and move on."

Us by Michael Kimball


This is a terrifying and very sad book. A husband and wife are in bed together one night when the husband wakes up to his wife shaking and not responding to him.

Things go downhill from there.

Michael Kimball, who wrote the excellent Dear Everybody, a novel written in the form of letters left behind by a man who commits suicide, uses his ear for speech to translate into text a book that finds power in simple sadness.

Take, for example, this portion towards the beginning:

I didn't want to lose my wife. I wanted to see my wife lying down in a hospital bed. I wanted to see my wife breathing again. I wanted to see her get up out of bed again. I wanted to see her get up out of our bed again. I wanted my wife to come back home and live there with me again.

Kimball has a really subtle style, a way of saying things that makes the reader really sympathize with the narrator.

To get picky:

I pulled her eyelids up, but her eyes didn't look back at me, and her eyelids closed up again when I let go of them.

A lot of writers would have left off with ..."but her eyes didn't look back, and her eyelids..." but Kimball is a writer who makes lots of little important choices that make his books great.

True to form, Kimball also experiments with the structure, interspersing his own memories of the deaths of his grandparents into the story at hand. I'm not really sure why...but something that would normally be impossible to pull off works, and I'm more interested in the fact THAT it works than HOW for the time being.

Great book, definitely one of Pete's Top of 2011.

Now, it has to be noted that there was, unfortunately, a dream sequence in this book. As prompted by a friend earlier in the week, I would like to take a moment to express how irritating I find dreams in works of art and why I think they don't belong there.

For starters, I don't believe that dreams have much meaning, or certainly not hidden meaning that we need to mine from deep within the shitty folds of our dumb brains. Most of my dreams are fairly pedestrian, involve reasonably familiar scenarios and characters, and don't really make for much exciting interpretation.

Example: Dream where I am spooning some girl from high school, then I get up to go to work.

Interpretation: Though I don't think about that person often, there she was. And in the dream I got up to do exactly what I do five out of every seven days, so it would be more unusual to me if I weren't going to work.

It's my guess that brief thought will give you all the context you need for 90% of your dreams, and the other ten percent can be chalked up to your brain just doing whatever the fuck it wants.

That said, I know that not everybody feels that way. Lord knows we've all hung out with some fool who had a dream that his grandma died, and then it turned out his grandma died. Unless you're in a really bad movie, the death was on accident and not to somehow make people believe the kid was a dream psychic, and I have to believe that this was random chance.

Math: if you dreamt that your grandmother died once every month, and on one of these nights she died, assuming that you are 27 years old, your dreams were correct .3% of the time, which is a pretty shitty average. If you do that same math a different way, dreaming something different every night for a year, one of those dreams would come true. Thinking about it that way, that you dreamt SOMETHING every night, it wouldn't be that much of a shock that one dream came true. Except that the brain is a pattern-seeking machine, and it has a tendency to really highlight the shit out of the times it's right and let go of the times it's wrong.

Therefore, some idiot has a dream that comes true once, and I have to hear about it constantly. Yet I don't call them every single day to ask them what the previous night's dreams held and to remind them that those didn't come true, and also I don't butt in to point out that even though the grandma death was prophesized, there was not a bengal tiger with bananas instead of claws involved as there was in the dream.

That's my feeling on real world dreams and why they aren't interesting, particularly. If you think I want to hear about your dreams, try this first: Start by telling me the most fucked-up dream you've ever had. If I'm interested in that, I might, MIGHT listen to some others. But start with the gold.

Back to books.

I want to put this question in your head: Why?

Why, in a story that is a complete fabrication, does there need to be a dream? A made up story within a made up story?

Every single thing on the page is made up, so why does there have to be something that appears EVEN MORE made up?

I have some common reasons this happens, patterns if you will:

-Dreams are a shortcut to expressing mood in a book without actually doing the heavy lifting of, I don't know, writing a book. Instead of using factors outside the character, or painting the character as exhibiting a certain mood, the writer can just say, "That night he dreamed of a black snake. It was swallowing him whole, and as the snake's mouth covered his own mouth and nose he stopped breathing and saw nothing."

-Dreams are a way of allowing a character to do something out of character or express a repressed feeling. The corporate drone eviscerating his boss and cooking the entrails in a skillet. That way, the character can do something awful, but we don't have to risk readers finding a strong dislike for a character. Because the last thing you want is for a character to evoke strong reactions.

-Dreams are a way for writers to feel like they can cut loose and get a little sloppy with their words. If it doesn't make sense, it's fine. It's a dream, it's not supposed to make sense. I really dislike that logic. It goes against the entire purpose of writing, which is to make someone understand something, whether it be an action or an emotion or whatever. But a sentence like, "He broke through the tallgrass walls and fell bellyfirst out of a thick, blue membrane of sleep and into a different world, a world where his feet were his feet but also part of everything else" is just annoying. It's like hearing someone describe, badly, what it's like to drop acid.

-Dreams are, in some of the more egregious cases, used to solve mysteries in the book. A detective-type will be looking something over for hours, and it’s only when he has a dream about the papers flying out the window and rearranging themselves on the ground that he figures out the code. That, my friends, is complete bullshit and you know it.

-Worst case scenario, the dream is put in front of the audience as reality, and it's only after the dream is over that we find out It Was All a Dream. This is a completely idiotic way to tell a story. First, how does your audience know to trust you? A real person would never say, "Here's what happened to me in real life yesterday" and the proceed to tell you a dream. It's a completely false presentation, and your audience should not trust you afterwards. Second, it undoes all your hard work. Famously, in Super Mario Bros. 2, the game ending shows Mario in bed and after he wakes up it turns out that the entire game, all those turtle shells and radishes and all that bullshit, was all a dream. THEN WHY THE FUCK CAN'T YOU JUST JUMP IN THE VERY FIRST PIT IN THE GAME, WAKE UP, AND GET THE EXACT SAME MOTHERFUCKING ENDING!?

Here, in another list-y format, are some more reasons I really hate the use of dreams in all formats of fiction:

-You never know where you stand with a dream because rarely does the dreaming character say anything about the dream in particular or express it fully to another character. Therefore, the reader now knows something that other characters may potentially know and may not, for all intents and purposes, exist at all in the fictional universe. If a fictional character cannot or does not remember a dream, it becomes a complete waste of time, no different than if a writer wrote a chapter and then followed it up with, "Just kidding, ignore that chapter, let's move on."

-On that same note, setting the tone with a dream is sort of like being a lawyer and asking a question that you know will be overruled. You didn't get the answer, but the jury can't just pretend they never heard it, and they can't help but speculate. A dream puts a seed in someone's brain, but it's not earned.

-I want to see characters do shit. I don't want them to dream about stabbing someone. I want them to stab someone. Or have sex with someone, or wreck their car, or do whatever the hell it is this book has been promising me so far. A novel is entirely an exercise in "What would happen if..." so you might as well make it worthwhile. There was a famous writer who suggested a technique that I remember as "Snake in a Drawer." The idea is that you throw something incongrous into the story and see what happens. Not something impossible, a pirate doesn't show up out of goddamn nowhere, but maybe someone opens a dresser drawer and there's a snake inside. Cue action. Take the snake out of the dream and put him in a drawer. Get out of my dreams, get into my car, damn it.

-I understand that dreams can be used to try and avoid cliche, using a dark dream instead of a dark sky, but the dreams end up falling back on cliche anyway. The language of dreams is less universal than the language of, um, language, and a dream has to be a lot more pre-explained and pre-loaded with what we already know in order to make any sense.

Okay, it's out of my system.

There's a time and a place for dreams, sure. Certain genres, certain types of books, can pull it off. I'm not a fan of hallucinations in any kind of media, but Fear & Loathing would not make a whole lot of sense played straight. Nightmare on Elm Street has to be the way it is, and it works because the distortion between dreams and reality is the whole point, not a throwaway scene. There's a scene in the terribly dated Empire Records where a character has a hallucination that he's at a GWAR concert being eaten alive by a giant plant, and it's funny because the character is watching himself on the TV and the audience sees his expression change as things go south.

In summation, dreams are a very specific tool, not a damn Swiss Army knife.

About Me

My photo
Cover My Ass Time: This is all happening in a magical, fictional universe. Any resemblance to anything ever is strictly the product of a weak imagination, for which I apologize.