Category: Blog Post

  • Sweet Soul Music

    always time for you.jpg

    The forest. The sea. The garden. The grindstone. The long and winding road. The moon. The stars. Sunrise. Sunset. Ecstasy. Exhaustion. The heart as metaphor. The heart as living, beating thing. Myths. Reality. Then. Now. Here. There. Beyond either here or there. ‘This pining meat.’ This ticking clock. The second hand. The hours. The days. The years. The biding of time. Its passing. Abiding. Abrasion. Erosion. Confusion. Clarity. Grace. Restlessness. Contentment. Hope. Happiness. Hopelessness. The middle passage. The middle of the night. The muddle. The crowded room. The missing thing(s). The mask. The mystery. Longing. Loss. The questions. The answers. The search. The journey. Discovery. Joy. Despair. The embrace. The surrender. The defeat. Losing your mind. Coming to your senses. Stasis. Change. Waking from a dream. Waking from a nightmare. A false start. A fresh start. A new beginning. The end. Resolve. Resignation. Acceptance. Rejection. Denial. Renunciation. Annunciation. Redemption. Resurrection. Crawling. Walking. Running. Jumping. Standing still. Love. Hate. Truth. Lies. Good. Evil. Pain. Pleasure. Passion. Sickness. Health. Torpor. Ambivalence. Indifference. Laughter. Tears. Grief. Glory. Gratitude. Keening. Lamentations. Lullabies. Fate. Destiny. Dreams. Reality. Cruelty. Compassion. Empathy. Energy. Enervation. Fatigue. Emasculation. Entreaty. Imprecation. The thresher. The threshold. Awakening. Silence. Dawn. Eternity. Imploring, pleading, begging: Mercy. Mercy. Mercy.

    What makes the engine go?

    Desire, desire, desire.

    The longing for the dance

    Stirs in the buried life.

    Stanley Kunitz, “Touch Me”

    jacobsdream.jpg

  • The Fakirs

    Folks everywhere are in a righteous huff about James Frey and his book “A Million Little Pieces,” which turns out to be full of fabrications and embellishments. Years ago, I received the hardcover in the first round of publicity. I myself couldn’t get through the first twenty-five pages, and had no idea it was as good as everyone says. It reminded me of the novels of Irvine Welsh, which everyone raves about too, but which I can’t make any sense of. I thought the cover was cool, though.

    As you already know, The Smoking Gun reestablished its bona fides late last week in a lengthy investigation that makes Frey look like a pathological liar. (Also, by the way, offering a shout-out to our pal Deborah Caulfield Rybak at the Strib for being quick to smell a rat. Well done, DCR!) Considering how much Frey has stumped for himself and protested against the “haters” and practically dared the entire english-speaking world to knock the battery off his shoulder, I think the indignation is appropriate.

    According to at least one report, Frey’s original manuscript was presented as fiction and it was turned down by seventeen publishers. The eighteenth, Doubleday, bought it but insisted on editing it and publishing it as nonfiction. Assuming the best about Doubleday, they presumably tried to eliminate all the fictional hyperbole.

    A couple of things I find interesting about this. What does it say about readers (and publishers) that a book no one would touch as fiction rides to the top of the bestsellers list as nonfiction? Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that it’s the exact same book. That means that the story’s main virtue is its sensational plot elements. It therefore hangs its entire selling proposition on the truthfulness of those elements, rather than some other virtue inherent in the writing itself. (Again, a comparison to Welsh is useful, maybe.) That kind of credibility speaks to the persistent cult of celebrity, in which the reading public and the reading industry still care an awful lot about the personality and the biography of the author. That’s natural, of course, when the author writes autobiography or memoir. The point is that we value history more than we value imagination. “True Story!” carries an extra charge of voyeuristic pleasure that you just don’t get from “Amazing fabrication!”

    Because we care so much about the biographies of bestselling authors, they must feel tremendous pressure to participate in their own celebrity. Remember what a tremendous flap occurred when Jonathan Franzen, years ago, declined to be in Oprah’s Book Club? That was just a minor, counterpositive moment in the otherwise well-lubricated machine of pop cultural coronation. You write a good book, get lucky with a few positive reviews, pretty soon New York producers are calling and scheduling you on daytime television shows, strange people become your “handlers,” you begin to live in airports and hotels, you begin to make a lot of money, lots of important and powerful people begin to make demands of you, a backlash of naysayers and skeptics develops, and so on and so on. And here, just a few months ago, you were living under a pile of dirty clothes eating off of paper napkins.

    Some have drawn comparisons to J.T. Leroy, also supposedly outed as a “literary hoax” in recent days by the Times, which seems to have a personal score to settle. Eariler this week, I sort of defended Leroy, and I do think it’s unfair to equate Leroy with Frey. Here’s why: Leroy, whether that’s the writer’s real name or not, has done little or nothing to inflate his celebrity other than write a lot. With writing success, he was pressured to become another bean in the star machine–talk at awards ceremonies, partcipate in charities, sign books, the old grip and grin tour–and he resisted to the point of hiring performers to impersonate him in public. Again, because Leroy has a unified body of respected, published work, it seems to me more a clean case of pseudonymous writing from a recluse, rather than wholesale prevarication. I suppose I could be wrong; perhaps Leroy’s biography is as bogus as Frey’s, and therefore all that fine literary work is impeached.

    I guess I tend to look past the usual distinctions of fiction and non-fiction, and I merely enjoy a good book. I don’t take it personally if a writer makes stuff up about himself–until he becomes pathological and arrogant about it, the way Frey appears to have done. (Or when innocent bystanders are injured as collateral damage… as has been the recurring claim against everyone from Nicole Helget to Dave Eggers.) This is one of the main pitfalls of writing memoir, and no one in the industry will give you a straight answer when you ask if there is any place at all for fabrication in the world of autobiography. But I think you can be sure that if they decide you’re flying too close to the sun, they’ll make sure you fall on hard ground.

  • The Prodigy

    grape ape 2.jpg

    When Buddy Clister came up the hill that afternoon he wasn’t his usual shrill, braying self. This was a guy who’d once had a fistfight with Eddie Guster’s mother, and Mrs. Guster had kicked Buddy’s ass and bloodied his nose.

    You’d think that would be a pretty tough thing for an aspiring two-bit punk to live down, but Buddy Clister had actually managed to not only survive the experience, but to somehow spin it to his advantage. Chalk it up to childhood, I guess; you had to sort of hand it to a guy who would slug it out with a grown woman in an apron.

    Everybody probably has a Buddy Clister somewhere back in their youth: the first guy to smoke a cigarette; first guy to utter the word ‘fuck’; first guy to get his hands on a dirty magazine and, not long after that, to feel up a girl, or at least claim to have done so.

    Who knows how or why such desires or knowledge come to some so young, why some seem destined to be prodigies of decadence?

    On the lovely autumn afternoon I’m remembering, though, when the sun was hanging there like a herald just above the houses on Banfield Avenue, Buddy Clister, all of a jaded twelve years old, slowly pushed his bike up the hill and announced to the usual assembly of his stingray congregation that he had accepted Jesus Christ as his personal savior.

    gorilla hand.jpg

  • Listen to this

    I’ve been thinking about Bush’s listening in on our phone conversations and wondering just how stupid he thinks Al Queda operatives are. As has been reported, the NSA intercepted phone conversations on September 10, 2001 that, in hindsight, clearly said something was going to happen the next day. Unfortunately, they weren’t translated until September 12.

    But since Bush also had a memo and briefing in August 2001 which said Al Queda planned to attack within the United States, I guess you might infer that we can gather all the intelligence we like, but if we’re not bright enough to know what it means, what’s the point?

    What’s really funny though is the theory put forth by some in the Bush administration that the NY Times’ revelation of the wiretapping helped the enemy. First, does Bush think Al Queda really talks openly on cell phones about imminent plans? They think we’re listening, even if we aren’t really paying attention.

    But what’s even funnier than threatening the NY Times with prosecution for its story is not carrying out his threat to dismiss the people really responsible for revealing a national secret: the identity of a covert CIA operative.

    Rove and Cheney still work there, right?

  • A year without journalism

    I’m just going to point out this modest proposal by Mike Lenehan, editor of the Chicago Reader. To all of you who get your news via blogs, I know your perception may be a bit weak, so I will warn you: it’s only partly facetious. (I apologize in advance to all of you who don’t like downloading pdfs, but that’s the only format available here. Just print pages 2-3 for the article.)

    However, for those of you who get your news from the Strib, it may seem that the strike has already been on for a while now. Unless this is your idea of what a newspaper should be doing.

  • Housekeeping

    By the way, I wanted to mention that tomorrow night kicks off the new season of The Rake’s monthly happy hour of literature–the one we call “Raking Through Books.” It’s an opportunity to come to our favorite watering hole, Kieran’s Irish Pub, rub elbows with your fellow Rake readers, and, y’know, generally participate in the Cultural Conversation. (Plus: Delicious complimentary appetizers!)

    The new season brings a new format, of sorts. Our guest will be novelist Julie Schumacher. I’ll be facilitating a (hopefully) interesting conversation about fantasy literature (think Narnia, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter) and the intersection of children’s and adult literature, among many other things. Ms. Schumacher, you probably know, is also a professor at the University of Minnesota, where she specializes in monsters under the bed and that sort of thing.

    The microphone switches on around 5:30 p.m. in the Titanic Room, to the rear of Kieran’s. Hope to see you there!

  • More on J.T. LeRoy

    I read with interest Warren St. John’s continuing investigation as to the “true identity” of J.T. LeRoy. You’ll remember the little dustup about a month ago when New York magazine raised doubts about the real identity of LeRoy, suggesting a person of that name does not actually exist. LeRoy, who has been writing professionally for ten years, had recently written a lovely piece for the New York Times magazine, which had led to another assignment writing about a television show. But the Times, feeling a bit woozy from all the recent scandals among its writers and reporters, is now in the habit of drowning the dog to get rid of the fleas. They cancelled the assignment. Or, as St. John says so delicately, they “reassigned the piece.” (I’ve already bitched about this at length elsewhere. This is an area where the Times really does not cultivate much respect or sympathy from the general freelancing community, but no one wants to speak out loud and piss off editors at the World’s Greatest Newspaper. Like this: The ethical thing to do is to honor an agreement and pay a kill fee.)

    My main point here is that no one seems to have gotten the memo on post-modernism. Folks, read the text and forget the author. LeRoy has written dozens of fascinating stories, critical reviews, essays, short stories, and novels, and any nitwit can apprecite the consistency of voice and sensibility.

    St. John’s piece today provides the service of identifying the person who has “portrayed” the camera-shy LeRoy in public. St. John writes:

    “It is unclear what effect the unmasking of Ms. Knoop will have on JT Leroy’s readers, who are now faced with the question of whether they have been responding to the books published under that name, or to the story behind them.”

    I guess my view is that St. John is here part of the problem rather than the solution. If I were to attempt a translation of what he’s saying, it would go something like this: We are a culture that remains obsessed with celebrity, with the cult of personality, and a person like J.T. LeRoy exists in an uneasy limbo–celebrated for his actual work, but increasingly persecuted as a person (of whatever basis in reality) because of his unwillingness to play by the rules of modern celebrity (be a real, pinchable, and charismatic person who spends as much time as possible in the klieg lights).

    LeRoy’s agent, Ira Silverberg, is himself apparently feeling duped by the public imposter, and his point (as quoted in the Times) seems to be a more serious moral one:

    “To present yourself as a person who is dying of AIDS in a culture which has lost so many writers and voices of great meaning, to take advantage of that sympathy and empathy, is the most unfortunate part of all of this,” Mr. Silverberg said. “A lot of people believed they were supporting not only a good and innovative and adventurous voice, but that we were supporting a person.”

    The point is well taken. But, hypothetically speaking, I wonder who is more cynical: The person who claims to have HIV but does not actually exist, or the one who needs a bona-fide celebrity to be infected in order to care about the plague of HIV. More to the point, every day our sympathies and empathies are cultivated and manipulated by fictional characters in literature, film, art, and theater. It is our obsession with celebrity that has us worshipping the beautiful talking heads that pronounce the words and dance the dance of the culture’s true prophets, its (normally anonymous) artists.

    It seems to me that reaching a final verdict on the reality of J.T. LeRoy is a reductive process of slowly subtracting Big Truth in order to sell a smaller truth, one that will fit in a Monday morning newspaper. It is still an interesting whodunnit, of course. But I worry that the current environment of vigilantism in journalistic circles will unnecessarily put an end to the career of a worthy and interesting writer, whatever his or her true indentity.

    Full disclosure, for what it’s worth: I’ve spoken to J.T. LeRoy, and I think I know the answer to the Question At Hand, but I intend to keep it to myself. Why? Because it’s not particularly useful to anyone–not me, not LeRoy, and not his readers. Is LeRoy who he says he is? To me, it is not an essential element of the narrative, except among the most superficial sort of literary ambulance chasers. I suspect most of LeRoy’s acquaintances feel the same way, which explains why this modern mystery has persisted for as long as it has.

  • Or: Think Of It This Way

    pile of birds 2.jpg

    A man finds himself stranded halfway across a bridge that he suddenly realizes is taking him nowhere.

    He pauses for a moment in the darkness to catch his breath and notices, for the first time, a river rolling along far below him.

    The river is alive. It is moving, going unimaginable places, traveling ultimately to the sea, to which, after its long journey, it will be married. It will give itself away while at the same time becoming a part of something even greater and deeper and more mysterious and tethered to the moon.

    In such an instance, faced with such a choice, what kind of fool would not choose the river?

    Come on: Jump.

    pile of gophers.jpg

  • A Serious Question, For Paul

    blind rabbit.jpg

    How long, I wonder, was the world’s longest suicide note?

    And, however long it was, do you suppose it was long enough?

    rabbit in a jar.jpg

    It was January, a Friday night just like this one.

    It got dark early, and it got so dark.

    The darkness didn’t even fall; it just seemed to spend half the day creeping slowly in and settling and swallowing up the city. It might have been a grim state of affairs. He could see how it might drive people to despair, or push them into dark hiding places; how it might lead them to will the telephone to ring, and then to recoil from its ringing.

    What would they say if they did answer the phone, and could find their voice?

    “Come over,” he supposed, or, “Come here.”

    The darkness could easily shove people so far into themselves that they would never find their way back out. He saw it in the faces of the people around him –this fear, this process of retreat already well advanced– and tried hard to avoid the suspicion that he caught the occasional glimpse of it in his own reflection in the mirror.

    He was lonely, but he didn’t yet wish to be left alone, though alone he so often was. He wasn’t yet ready to renounce human companionship or its possibility, the prospect that his life might still yield surprises, although he had no idea what they would be or even what he would hope them to be. Actually, he did have some idea, at least regarding the first question.

    He believed he had a spirit, a soul, some purpose to his life that he had not yet fulfilled. His life, he had long imagined, was a long road that rolled toward him from some unseen place in the future and carried his destiny to him in halting and unpredictable installments.

    He believed he was a decent man.

    He could not, unfortunately, believe in angels.

    All of these thoughts went through his head –very orderly– right up until the moment when he turned his back on the bridge and gently pushed his hands free of the railing.

  • Sounding the Alarm

    A while back, I was saying I thought my old friend Ana Marie Cox deserved to be writing IN the New York Times, rather than being written ABOUT in the New York Times. (I haven’t seen her novel yet, but the fact that she even wrote one hints at the fact that she has some facility with the language that goes somewhat beyond the clever 50-word anal-sex jokes.) This week, she managed to do both, on the same day! Nice work, Ana Marie.

    Close readers of everything ever printed within the last five years will know that the last time Ana Marie wrote longform for a print publication, it was here in The Rake. Hereby claiming our bragging rights, I think we’re entitled to our little portion of celebrity fairy dust, to sprinkle on ourselves here in the outback.

    Media alert: For those of you who know that the second best thing to do on a Friday night is to watch TPT’s Almanac and imagine Eric Eskola wearing ONLY his scarf–I’ll be representing the Rake in a couchsit with other more interesting local media folks, including the gracious Dylan Hicks, the lovely Heidi Raschke, and the witty Claude Peck. Topic is reported to be a look back to 2005, and a look forward to 2006 in the wonderful world of art and entertainment. We’ll appear at the end of the program, so probably be getting bombed in the green room…