war and peace. leo tolstoy. (77)

in claire messud's "the emperor's children", one of the character's julius was a bit of a hot mess when it came to love. he was constantly pondering if he was a natasha or pierre and this pondering lead to my reading of "war and peace". also "anna karenina" sparked a interest in russian literature, so i decided to read more tolstoy.

as you may recall i had translation problems with "anna karenina" and in my search saw that tolstoy endorsed the maude one. however, i found out that was a bunch of hoopla. but thanks to read russia's great translation chart i went with dunnigan translation because academics endorsed it. (though i wish i read the ecco press version with more peace and less war because let's get serious i could have done without all the battle and retreat talk). the chart was right with its description of it being a small fat book. it was 1455 pages, well 1425, there was about 30 pages of intro, though i didn't realize how thick it was until anyone and everyone who saw me reading commented on its thickness. see below:

and with its 50 million pages it took me an eternity to read. or what felt like one, especially at the end, those last 50 pages were torture. it actually took me 3 months to read but i took breaks to read 7 other books that came in for me at the library and needed to be returned within the three weeks allotted for checking out. luckily for me, "war and peace" wasn't a popular library book because i was able to recheck it out after having it for 9 weeks. (you only get two renewals but if when you turn it in there are no request you can recheck it out.)

so where does one start for a blog entry on a book that was 1400 pages long. i will say that i believe that this work is better than "anna karenina". it had it all war, romance, scandal, philosophy, historical theory, political science, and religion. i think the reason it is not called "the greatest novel ever" is the fact that no one ever has the time to read it. though i wonder if it was split up and called it a trilogy with a prequel if it would do better? the book is already divided into four books. like i told grandma bea, it's not a lot of pages if you think about how many pages the harry potter series is. publishers should give this idea a spin, cash in on the trilogy trend.

so the novel:

"war and peace" is the story of five families in russia during the war of 1812 and the napoleonic invasion of moscow. i think a testament to tolstoy's great writing is that he creates such great characters. and just like with "anna karenina", i became invested in their lives. i admired all of the families with the exception of one, the kurágins. (btw it was so confusing to keep track of all the russian names so make sure you read a version that has some kind of family tree or listing). the kurágins are kind of like kardashians, you love to hate them. and though they are horrible people, they are a great source of drama so you look forward to their appearance in the book. plus they are stupid and vain, are wealthy but not as a result of hard work, and trick the world into worshipping them. (for kurágins its the russian elite, for the kardashains its america.) the family member i abhorred the most was hélène. she would be the kim, down to the point where they both tricked men into marrying them and both of their marriages ended up in fatty paychecks. i hated hélène because of what she did pierre. it made my blood boil how she looked down upon him when he had his bastard status but once he surprisingly received his father's inheritance, her family forced him to marry her! then she cheated on him not only once but twice! she even remarried even though he was still alive! and poor pierre risked his life for her, when he challenged one of her lovers, dolokhov (who was pierre's friend), to a duel. she died in the end, i forget from what, but that is partially because i imagine it being syphilis, the whore!

and then her father (who is definitely kris due to all of his plans to make his kids wealthy by forcing rich people to marry them) tried to have her brother anatól marry princess mayra (who i loved) because he knew his son was idiot and would have no great income of his own. but then he made a pass at this french lady that was mayra's BFF and thank god princess mayra was smart enough to know once a cheater always a cheater. and then anatol goes on to ruin natasha's engagement to prince andréi by attempting to kidnap her so he could marry her! and to top it off he was married at the time! what horrible people, but what good scandals! (seriously though someone should make a primetime drama based on these storylines!)

but aside from those black souls, everyone else is extremely lovable. due to "the emperor's children", i anticipated pierre and natasha being my favorites, but that was not the case. i did love pierre and felt bad for how his story started out and could not believe all he suffered especially during the invasion. all of the turns and twists in his story, had me on the edge of my seat. i constantly worried about him and wished he had a friend to help him out.

natasha was a great character as well. in fact one of my favorite quotes was about her as a girl: "natasha skipped back and jumped up and down one spot like a goat". i can just see her young and full of joy jumping like a goat. lol. nastasha keeps the reader entertained with all of her lovers. however, at times she was such a silly girl that i couldn't handle her. but thankfully in the end she did mature.

but of all the characters, my favorites were nikolai rostov and princess mayra. i don't want to give too much away but i thought they both had such sweet spirits. their love was boundless that one can not help but love them. they both put their family first and made sacrifices for their loved ones. as i read, nikolai reminded me of levin (who i absolutely loved in "anna karenina") with his admiration of peasant life and dedication to his family. their storyline was one of my favorite but do not want to give too much away.

the "peace" storylines were great and kept me glued to the book. during those parts the pages just flew by. but the "war" part not so much. it was like pulling teeth. i enjoyed the "war" parts when it included the storylines of the characters i knew, prince andrei, and the rostovs, especially nikolai's lispy friend, denisov. however, all the talk about the generals and tsar bored me to death to be completely honest. i was tried of reading about kutuzov and people's opinion of him. i think it was because it was so repetitive, especially the discussions about the retreat. it just seemed like every chapter involving that part of history seemed to be the same thing over and over. even as a history major it became too much for me. i like a little bit of history mixed in my novels but not entire textbooks excerpts. i hate to admit it but my eyes glossed over some of the war talk because it wasn't that interesting.

i did gloss over the ending. i almost didn't finish the book. the last 50 pages are tolstoy's analysis of napoleon's invasion and legacy plus and theories on history: what is power and what is power that moves nations. again even as a history major, reading it was tedious. i was tempted to not read the last 50 pages because in all honesty who would know if i didn't. but i had to be true to myself so i read the words though nothing truly stuck.

and let me clarify, tolstoy made interesting points in the last section of the book. he did pose very thought provoking questions but lacking knowledge of the war of 1812, napoleon and tsarist russia, i couldn't contextualize his theories. and though his theories were about history in general, i was wanted to finish the book and not think. he did raise questions of where does power truly lie among the masses or within leaders. (he discusses this within the book pointing out how the people who have the least prestige in armies are ironically the ones that armies are reliant upon, the soldiers. he also discussed how the courses of the battles were not directed by those in charge but by individuals on the battlefield when they were seeking immediate solutions. soldiers directed the course based on what was occurring at the moment. and furthermore, if there is no existing deity what is will and thus the will of god in the context of history? i remember in high school, impressing my history teacher with my question of "but how do we know the king was actually chosen by god? how do we know that god gave him power?" it's true most of history is explained via fate or destiny but what is this greater force? interesting stuff but not what you would expect to see in a novel, especially after 1400 pages so hopefully my glossing can be forgiven.

religion played an important in this book. pierre became a freemason and was on a search for spiritual peace. (random note while i was reading about his freemasonry, i was shocked at that this secret society was discussed. i wonder if tolstoy got in trouble for revealing secrets? i for one am not that interested in the freemasons but liked their whole finding someone to give gloves part). princess mayra was über religion to the point of letting pilgrims stay with her. even prince andrei found god toward the end of the book. however, even with all the talk about god and christianity. my theory is that tolsoy was a buddhist. i wikipedia'd it and it looks as though he was a christian and was a big promoter of non-violence. however, from what i read, he still sounded more of a buddhist. are there christian buddhists? i googled it but it looks like there are buddhist christians.

here are some examples of tolstoy's buddhist thought:

while imprisoned in the shed pierre learned, not with his intellect but with his whole being, that man is created for happiness, that happiness lies within him, in the satisfaction of natural, human needs, and unhappiness arises not from privation but from excess . . .

(buddha realized his suffering came from excess and promoted an abandonment of worldly possessions.)

in the last he had been unable to see the great, the unfathomable, the infinite, in anything. he had only felt that it must exist somewhere and he has been seeking it. in everything near and comprehensible he had seen only what was limited, petty, commonplace, and meaningless.

[. . .] now, however, he learned to see te great, the eternal, the infinite in everything, and therefore in order to look at it, to enjoy his contemplation of it, he naturally discarded the telescope through which he till then been gazing over the wads of men, and joyfully surveyed the ever-changing, eternally great, unfathomable and infinte life around him. and the closer he looked, the happier and more serene he was. the awful question: what for? which had shattered all his intellectual edifices in the past, no longer existed for
him. to that question: what for? a simple ander was now always already in his soil: because here is a god, that god without whose will not one hair of man's head falls.

(buddhism prompts this notion of looking for god in everything.)

and lastly on his deathbed, prince andrei thought to himself:

"love? what is love?" he thought. "love hinders death. love is life. all, all that j understand i understand only because i love. everything is, everything exists only because i love. all is connected by love one. love is god, and to dies and that i, a particle of love, shall return to the universal and eternal source."

(i know that christians believe in love and returning to god, but this passage implies a spirit returning to be part of a higher being, versus being human form
in heaven.)

there is a lot more to be covered from this book but instead of going in depth just thought i would highlight some of the random thoughts i had as i read:

is bulkwinkle's boris and natasha named after tolstoy's boris and natasha?

did natasha's nursing of prince andrei's remind anyone of kitty's nursing of levin's brother?

what is with all of the female taking lovers in tsarist russia?!?!

what did the painting of the king of rome look like? (i googled and that event really did happen.)

why did pierre let himself be forced into marriage?!?!

and how clever of the russians to burn their own city. i would rather leave ashes for invaders than riches for them to loot.

i think julius from "the emperor's children" was more of a natasha. he wasn't pure of heart enough to be pierre.

(that was just some of them.)

all in all, tolstoy's "war and peace" is truly a great novel. there were so many surprise twists that i literally gasped or shook my head in amazement of how life worked out for the characters. if you have time, i highly recommend it and good luck on the war parts.

the five obstructions.

in rosecrans baldwin's "you lost me there", sara, wife of the lead character victor, believed the short film "the perfect human" was the perfect movie. of course after reading this praise, i had to see it. i googled "the perfect human" and discovered it is a real film and the library had a copy of it, so i checked it out. actually, i checked out "the five obstruction" which is a documentary about jørgen leth that made the film "the perfect human". "the perfect human" was one of the special features on the DVD.

when i was done watching "the perfect human", i felt like baldwin's character, victor. it was too abstract or high brow for me and i didn't get it.

at first i thought it was discussion on how the perfect human is an oxymoron. a human can not be perfect because in order to be human one is innately flawed. thanks to eve and adam (she gets first billing here cos she is one that first bit the forbidden fruit) all humans bear the burden of the original sin, so perfection is unattainable. we see in the film that the perfect human is not perfect nor is he special. in fact, the perfect human is normal and does ordinary things. i then started to observe the film as if i was from another planet and observing human life as an outsider. i thought of how when we humans observe animals we label and characterize the mundane things they do. furthermore, we tend to label things extraordinary when they are not. and that is how i came to view the perfect human, he was not special on his own but special because we were observing him.

one scene i found interesting was when the perfect human in a room with no boundaries and with nothing, just danced. i enjoyed his dancing and dancing does make me happy, but still not sure what the complete point of that segment was.

the film closed with the perfect human saying "today, too, i experienced something i shall hope to understand in a few days' time". and perhaps this is what made him the perfect human, the fact that he understand that life is at times incomprehension and what may be confusing in the present will make sense in our future.

even after that all those thoughts, i still agreed with victor that "the perfect human" was silly. i decided to reread the section from "you lost me there" about the film. i no longer had the library copy but thanks to google books found the excerpt i needed. sara described the film as being anti-pretentious and that "the director was putting everything on the line . . .[and] he's saying there is no one you can pin down. even the perfect one's we can not know."

watching it a second time with sara's observation in mind, it did make sense. we see the perfect human doing things and things about him are explained but we still do not really know him.

oddly enough, this was also the conclusion of the documentary. or at least what i think the point of it was. it was bit over my head too.

the documentary involved the director, lars von trier challenging the director, jørgen leth to remake his short film "the perfect human" but with restrictions. i didn't realize it but von trier directed "dancer in the dark", the only film of his i have seen it. this film had the same graininess as that film but that could just be his thing.

von trier gave leth directions for his remakes like limiting scenes to 12 frames, setting it in cuba, setting it in the most miserable place in the world (both leth and i thought india), complete freedom and a cartoon. von trier wanted them to be crap but in fact he loved all of them. he also idolized leth so he was a bit biased. i for one did not care for any of the remakes. i will admit that i do not complete get the original so i may not be the best judge. but the remakes did not have the same spirit as the original. there is a simplicity to it that was lost in the obstructions. the only one i enjoyed was the cartoon one, which surprised both leth and von trier because they hate cartoons.

the fifth obstruction is directed by von trier and everything comes to light. in the end, it is discovered that von trier's goal in making this documentary was to help save leth. once he admitted this, i recalled how von trier always mentioned how happy leth looked or his depression (but unsure what was implied by that). but in the end, von trier discovered that he was projecting on leth and substituted leth as the perfect human. von trier thought he knew leth more than leth himself but turns out he did not know him at all. kinda like how sara viewed "the perfect human" in the novel.

in the end, i was just as confused as the beginning but i think that goes back to my not getting "the perfect human" in the first place. i did google to find out more but came up with no real analysis. i did come across talk about von trier doing another documentary with scorsese and de niro and remaking "taxi driver". this would be interesting and i look forward to that since i am actually familiar with the original.

cover girl.

in sandra cisneros' "caramelo", i learned that rita hayworth was mexican!?!?! thanks to madonna, all i knew of hayworth was that she "gave good face". so i wikipedia-ed it and sadly discovered she isn't mexican, her father was spanish and her mother was irish-english. the mexican rumors started because she worked in mexico, according to this website . so sad that her mexicanness was a bust, however, while reading her wikipedia article, discovered she starred in a number of movies with fred astaire and one with gene kelly. this inspired me to check out "you were never lovelier" and "cover girl" from the library.

growing up, i watched a lot of musicals with grandma bea, especially gene kelly and fred astaire movies, however i don't recall rita hayworth being in any of them. i know grandma bea had me watch "cover girl" when i was little but i didn't remember hayworth or even the movie. as i watched "cover girl", bits and pieces started to come back to me. i remembered gene kelly's "alter ego" dance (though it could have been featured in one of those "that's entertainment" specials). and as much as this makes me sound like a lush, i remember her drunken part . . . i also remembered the oysters tradition. but other than that it was a "new" movie to me.

rita hayworth was lovely and entertaining. i had no idea she could sing and dance! she also had the most amazing costume and outfits. that is one thing that i hate/love about old movies, the fashion! i love it all but am sad that i can't find it at the mall or in a boutique. though i will be on the lookout for a coat like this at my local goodwill:

it was also great to see how things have come back around. in the broadway number, cover girls are featured on different magazines and i was surprised there were so many flower headpieces that would have been right at home at coachella. there was also a huge brimmed hat (think samantha in "sex and the city: the movie") that i would give my left kidney for.

but back to the movie. so a quick synopsis, hayworth played a dancer named rusty that worked a club owned by (she was also his girlfriend). she entered a magazine contest to be a cover girl and won because she looked like the long-lost lover of the magazine owner (turned out he was in love with rusty's grandmother). so after the contest, rusty gets bigger and better opportunity and sadly leaves gene kelly. i would tell you what happens but you should check it out for yourself. the ending is very cute.

i will say that i for one would never leave gene kelly. maybe it's because i have grown up watching him as a leading man but he is like the ideal man (he might be the reason why i have a thing for boys with brown hair over blondes). he can sing, he can dance, and when his character is in love, gets a look on his face like there is no other girl in the world for him but her! swoon!!! he is so dreamy and i fall in love with him every time i watch one of his movies. and of course the same goes for "cover girl", i would love to spend my nights with him, shucking oysters for pearls!

the whole time i was watching, i was bothered because rita hayworth reminded me of someone. in the end i decided it was geena davis in "a league of their own."

also the whole time i was watching i couldn't help thinking to myself how much phil silvers looked like
stephen colbert:

am i right or am i right?

but all in all, a very sweet film and if you have't seen it, you should!

ps this DVD was available thanks to measure b!

you were never lovelier.

as i discussed in my "cover girl" post, i checked out rita hayworth movies after i discovered that she was mexican in sandra cisneros' "caramelo". though it turns out she is not, i did discover that rita hayworth is an amazing actress.

before i discuss the movie, i have to express my thoughts on fred astaire as a leading man. maybe because i was so young when i started watching his movies but in my eyes he is really elderly looking. like way-too-old-to-pursue-the-women-in-his-movies-old (don't get me started on "daddy long legs" that one always kinda grossed me out.) even in my favorite movie "funny face", i'm always like really audrey?!?! sadly "you were never lovelier" was not an exception. hayworth is so beautiful and all i can think of is why is astaire so old? and i googled it. he was about 42 and she was 26 when they made this film. and no offense, but he wasn't a hot 40 like brad pitt or george clooney or even colin firth. maybe he's not my type but never drooled over him like i did/do over gene kelly. there is no denying it the man can dance but even that doesn't help his case or should i say face.

so "you were never lovelier" is set in buenos aires and astaire has travelled there looking for work. (which is very similar to his first film with ginger rogers' "flying down to rio"). in his quest for work, he ended up landing a job when he pretends to be the secret admirer of a club owner's daughter who is played by hayworth. the club owner wanted his daughters to marry in order and hayworth was next. her younger sisters also wanted her to marry because they couldn't until she did kinda like "the taming of the shrew" (or "10 things i hate about you" for generation x-ers). but of course, with all of this secretiveness, confusion and drama ensued.

hopefully without ruining it for you, astaire and hayworth do end up together. and the ending was very pretty woman-esque or "pretty woman" has a very you were never lovelier-eque ending. hayworth is upset that she was lied to so astaire had to woo her again. as a last resort, he donned a suit of armor and rode into hayworth's home to sweep her off her feet like a poem she loved. and yes it did work. it was what gere should have done in pretty woman. also i would like to add that i love musicals because before they kissed at the end, astaire and hayworth did a dance! so cute! if only life was like that!

and of course the fashion was amazing!!! just look at these dresses!!!

that sequin ones is to die right?!?!?

after watching two of her films, i am now a fan of hayworth. though i am sad she is not mexican. but ethnicity aside, she really is beautiful. i foundjust lovelier in this film versus "cover girl" (could be the black and white). i do want to see more of films so will start checking them out from the library. (also thanks to measure b for this one too! for my LA readers, not measure b the porn one but measure b in fresno that was to give libraries funding!)

p.s. the dad used an anthology of love letters to help him write love letters as the secret admirer and this reminded me of big from "sex and the city: the movie". also because the receptionist brought the dad love letters from napoleon as well, didn't carrie read one of his in the movies? anyway, right now i am at the end of "war and peace" and reading about napoleon's war "genius". but i plan on checking out a book of napoleon's love letters so i can see his softer side!

breaking down part 2. movie version.

WARNING: THIS BLOG CONTAINS SPOILERS!!!! (you have been warned so save your bitching.)

(yes, hell did freeze over and i saw a twilight movie at a movie theater!)

i debated about blogging about this movie but figured:

a) it is based on a book and i did blog about "the perks of being a wallflower"
b) with the movie versions of "life of pi", "les miserables", "anna karenina" and "on the road" coming out, i should start the trend of blogging about movies based on books
c) it was a PDC dance moms book club event (though we didn't read the book)

i have never been interested in the "twilight" series, books or movies. my grandma said it was a bunch of teenage fluff and no offense but not interested in reading about a love triangle consisting of a girl, a vampire and a werewolf and their teen angst and sexual frustration. so never read the books. i did see part of the first movie, but had no desire to watch the movies. the movie franchise got too out of control for me to get on the bandwagon. i can admit that robert pattinson is hot, pasty and tall, swoon. i think taylor looks prepubescent so feel like a pervert when i look at him. yes, abs are hot but not on a 12 year old. and seriously kristen stewart???! ever since i saw her first vmas appearance, i can not stomach her. she is not an actress, girl is not acting. she is that weird and awkward in real life and luckily finds roles in which she has to be the weird and awkward girl. (for the record, yes i am sad that she is "on the road".)

however, i decided to break my no-twilight-rule when the PDC dance moms book club decided to see "breaking drawn part 2". i could be a team player plus i owed robert pattinson one for drunkenly harassing him at an adele concert, for this photo:

as much as it pains me to admit this, it wasn't that bad. it was actually entertaining. i enjoyed how they gathered up the different vampires from all over the world. i found it interesting how some of the vampires had special powers, even the evil ones. and that british vampire was dreamy and eye candy always makes everything better.

but here is my laundry list of what i did not enjoy:

-the "war" being a premonition. what a cop out! i got caught up in the battle, i was sad when carlisle died, and cheered when the bad guys died (btw, loved dakota fanning as a villain). and instead of rejoicing when it turned out that it didn't happen, i was disappointed. it was like meyer didn't have the balls to have a real battle. in harry potter, we (yes, we, i loved this series) lost so many amazing people in the battle against evil: sirius, remus, tonks, dumbledore, dobby!!! because guess what, life is unpredictable and unfair and sometimes we lose the ones we love so that good can prevails over evil. furthermore, the kid seemed to be okay with dying. they should have given her up. i mean harry potter sacrificed himself and that aspect is what made that story so powerful. i think the just-kidding-it-was-all-a-dream-ending prevented "breaking dawn" from being great. it lost its heart. instead it was a lame hollywood ending where everyone lives happily ever after.

-in regards to this happily ever after ending, everything cleaned up waaaaay too nicely. seriously jacob and their kid ending up together?!?!? that was gross and the story should not have gone there. in what universe would this be okay?!?! what about an ending showing jacob okay with being single the rest of his life and hooking up with chicks for all of eternity? wouldn't that be more realistic for a werewolf in a vampire movie? lol

-the sex scene 30 minutes into he movie?!?!? i could have lived without watching them christian their house. and the talk about, "wow you were holding back" and "how will we stop ourselves from going at it all the time". seriously, spoken like someone who has been sexually repressed their entire life. (see: meyer is mormon. this sounds harsh but i was raised mormon, i know). people having sex when they want and for as long as they want?!?! these concepts are neither ground-breaking or revolutionary, in real life or the vampire genre. i think twilight's original message of abstinence is important for teens but it does send the wrong message that once married, the lead character turns into a sex fiend. bella was first the virgin temptress and then the horny sex addict. women should not be restricted to only two sexualities the virgin or the whore. we can have healthy sexual appetities without feigning innocent or craziness. we should try to break the virgin/slut whore versus reinforce it!

-instead of abstinence, safe sex needed to be discussed. if half-breeds could potentially pose danger to the world, shouldn't they have been more careful in terms of birth control?!?! edward should have wrapped it up or bella should have been on the pill. just because you are married doesn't mean you are ready to have kids or that you should have them, so you should still take precautions. again another indication of their sexual immaturity.

-lastly, how did the writers let that loch ness monster line remain in the movie?!?!??

so those are my complaints and oddly enough i might read the series but that is just so i can have proof for my avoidance of this series instead of just my snobbiness.

have you seen marie? sandra cisneros. (75)

i discovered that cisneros had written a new book at her talk but was waiting to finish "war & peace" before i put in a request. the other day while picking up tickets to see barry manilow at the rabobank arena. i convinced my mom, that we should check out the beale library. and since i stumbled upon "have you seen marie?", i decided to check it out.

i didn't know much about it. but it was not as i expected. it is short book and has illustrations. (i would find out later that cisneros intended on the book being an children's book for adults, which explains the illustrations). the book opened with marie running away. this scared me because i imagined marie as a young girl, but it turned out marie was a cat. if you know me and pets, i would not worry about a missing cat.

in fact, i didn't enjoy this book at all. it read like a bad parody of the p.d. eastman classic, "are you my mother?". i understood what cisneros was trying to do, her story was about loss and how everyone suffers from some sort of loss. the narrator's mother had just passed away and the story demonstrated how even though she is suffering from it, others are suffering too from loss of family members or sight or memories. however, the book did not remind me of the children books of my youth nor did it arouse in me a sentiment of love or sadness. it felt too forced, the book was trying too hard to be something it was not.

i wasn't a fan of the illustrations either, there were only two drawings i enjoyed.

in this part of the story, the river explained to the narrator how it would take her tears and carry them along all the rivers in the world and that everything mix together.

i also loved his drawing.

in this passage, her mother's spirit whispers to the narrator via the wind, the clouds and that stars her mother is with her.

these examples are the best part of the actual story. the heart and soul of this book and what makes it great is the afterword.

in the afterword, cisneros shares with the reader the backstory for this book and after reading that i had a deeper respect for the book. it should be a foreword instead of an afterward because it helps contextualize the story. the story, the reader discovers, is a true story. the cat did go missing and the story is about their search. the neighbors are really her neighbors, which i found cool, imagine being immortalized in a cisneros book. and knowing that it was based on life made the story more interesting.

in the afterward, the reader also learns that cisneros lost her mother and wrote this to deal with the grieving.

she wrote:

"in the spring after my mother died, a doctor wanted to prescribe pills for depression. "but if i don't feel," i said, "how will i be able to write?" i need to be able to feel things deeply, good or bad, and wade through an emotion to the other shore, toward my rebirth. i knew if i put off moving through the grief, the wandering between worlds would only take longer. even sadness has its place in the universe.

i wish someone has told me that death allows you the chance to experience the world soulfully, that the heart is open like the aperture of a camera, taking in everything, painful as well as joyous, sensitive as the skin of water.

[ . . . ]

i wish somebody had told me love does not die, that we can continue to receive and give love after death. this news is so astonishing to me even now, i wonder why it isn't flashed across the bottom of the television screen on CNN."

i appreciated how cisneros discussed how it is okay to be sad. i enjoy being sad because it makes me feel human. i think it's healthy to be sad, we should not feel this constant pressure to be happy. sadness is as valid an emotion as any of them.

i also loved the last paragraph i quoted. it is true, we do need to talk more about how love does not die and that it continues on. and it's true, when i talk about my grandma jimmy, my heart does fill with joy because his love still exist in the world even though he may not.

so how with that passage can i say that story was bad. because cisneros was unable to capture the beauty of her afterword in the story. i would almost recommend to those that pic up to not even bother with the story and just read the afterword. or make the afterword a foreword.

i believe that the way cisneros discusses death in the afterword is what makes a worthy book. it is sweet and thoughtful and i can imagine it providing comfort to anyone who has lost a parent or loved one.

the casual vacancy. j.k. rowling. audiobook

before j.k. rowlings' "the casual vacancy" came out, i thought i would be super smart and put in an early request for it at the library. i was so excited because i was number 13. i was also excited when it came in. but talk about a letdown when it turns out i requested the audiobook version. (i really feel that this was the error of the library, i don't remember audiobook being on the page i requested. though i have to admit that i have done this before for books for grandma bea.)

i don't drive, so audiobooks have never appealed to me. i can't imagine sitting in a room just listening to words, my mind would wander too much. (how may you asked did i survive lectures in college? well i had to take notes so that stop my mind from wandering). the only way i would be able to listen to an audiobook would be if i had a physical book in front of me so i could follow along.

but since i accidentally checked this version out, i decided to give it a try. the book was narrated by tom hollander, and my what a dreamy voice he has. (i googled and turns out he played mr. collins in recent movie version of "pride and prejudice".) so listening aside it was quite enjoyable.

the story started off interesting. however, i couldn't focus, i kept on thinking about harry potter and even checked my phone a handful of times so i gave up. i really do need the visual word in front of me in order to process it. it's how my brain works. in college my studying consisted of me copying passages from textbooks to help me remember material (and often times could give direct quotes and figures in my essays thanks to it!)

i have not given up completely on audiobooks and will give them another go. my friend lawrence told me that tina fey's audiobook is hilarious. i also want to give mindy kaling's audiobook a try too. but i will check out the physical book along with the audio versions to help me pay attention.

the fairy tales of oscar wilde. illustrated by p. craig russell. (73 &74)

just like christian from "clueless", i'm oscar wilde-loving, no i'm not gay (though i am friends with a lot of friends of dorothy), but i adore oscar wilde. "the picture of dorian gray" is one of my favorite books because he is so damn witty! so when i saw that he wrote fairy tales, i had to check them out. his wit in fairy tales, they had to be brilliant.

to my surprise they weren't. the special thing about these volumes are that they are comics and illustrated by p. craig russell. but even this element does not make the fairy tales more interesting.

the fairy tales featured were "the selfish giant", "the star child", "the young king" and "the remarkable rocket". the first three stories mentioned were kinda jesus-y, and that was the reason i did not enjoy them. not that i have anything against jesus, i just don't like stories that are blatantly preachy. the first is about a selfish giant that did not want to share his garden with the village's children. as result of his selfishness winter was all year round, but the children had the ability to bring spring. one day he saw a child in a corner with winter and goes to help him and this warmed his heart. he then decided to share his garden but never saw that child again. until one day the child appeared with wounds in his hands and feet and then the giant died but in peace. the moral is good, but really jesus showing up like that?

the other two stories are about princes. the first prince is jesus-y in that he falls from the sky like a star, and two woodcutters find him. the second prince wears a crown of thorns. both have similar morals about being humble and losing your ego and loving thy neighbor and all that jazz. no offense, but wilde was on trial for sodomy, i mean i can't handle him
being christiany. it's like how katy perry used to be a christian singer, the girl wore a bra that shot out whipped cream!!! seriously. all of this jesus talk, didn't feel like the oscar wilde i love. i'm not saying that he (or gays) can't have morals, but when i read wilde i want to be entertained, not lectured. he does have wonderful lessons and morals but i prefer when he presents it as food for thought versus forcing a bible down my throat.

i did enjoy the firework tale, which was about an egotistical firework. it was filled with little quips that reminded me of "dorian gray". for example, one of the fireworks said "any place you love is the world to you, but love is not fashionable, the poets have killed it. romance is a thing of the past." or how when the egotistical told the other fireworks, "you should be thinking of others. in fact you should be thinking about me." so clever and funny . . . and not about jesus.

but one out of four, kinda bad. as much as i am oscar wilde-loving, he needs to save the fairy tales to the grimm brothers and hans christian anderson.

a book vending machine and "my ideal bookshelf".

i have often debated about whether i should post links to book-related things that i find. i decided not to because most of the time i would be posting links to flavorpill. (if you aren't on their mailing list you should join, they are a great source for neat stuff if you love books, art, music and film.) but . . .

my friend joann emailed me a link to an NPR article about the monkey paw's book vending machine! and it has to be shared. how cool, right?!?! i am a sucker for $1 book bins. so this is right up my alley. i also love the randomness of the books. you never know what you are going to get it! and i do agree this would be great for kids because it's almost like they are getting a toy. my brother will carry around a 25¢ vending machine toy like its gold, so i am sure the same would happen with a book. i would love to see this in bookstores. hmmm they should get on kickstarter.

i also decided to post a link to a flavorpill article about the ideal bookshelves of famous readers. the article is about the book "my ideal bookshelf" by thesslay la force and features adorable drawings of bookshelves. in the flavorpill article, james franco is featured. seriously can the boy be even more dreamier? he sat with marina abramović and loves "one hundred years of solitude" i mean can we say ideal man?!?! i mean the acting thing doesn't make me swoon but ho's art realm persona does. but back to the book, what a great idea? i might draw my ideal bookshelf for myself!

once.

i remember "once" playing at the landmark but i never saw it. i have seen the swell season, at the hollywood bowl, it was a beautiful show. but i thought the band existed first and they happen to be chosen for the movie. but when i googled it, the movie actually came first than the band. which is cool, life imitating art.

when i saw them at the hollywood bowl, i didn't know their music. i went because she & him were playing. but swell season was definitely the highlight. it was the perfect setting too, the night sky and their beautiful songs. i remember it being emotional or it could have just been that my friend nina was in tears their whole set. i also remember that some of glen's songs made me feel like i was in an irish pub. so thanks to the hollywood show, i was familiar with the music in the movie.

it was a very sweet film. glen was very charming in the movie, i loved how he sang his life's love story on the bus. he also was handsome, boy could we rock a grandpa sweater. markéta was endearing, especially how she made life happened and wheel and dealed. i also loved how she dragged that vacuum around town. i did think she was too young to be married with a child (how old is she?). also her eliza doolittle job was a little too much for me. but they were great together and i was a little teary-eyed at the end. it was sad that they couldn't be together but that is life. and it would have ruined the film if they got their hollywood ending. though how did he afford that piano?!?

i think if i watched this while on my period, i would have been in tears every time a song played. i started to get teary-eyed during te piano scene with "falling slowly" that song just brings me to tears:

it was a great film and i am disappointed with myself or waiting so long to see it. however, now i want to see the broadway production of it:

the artist is present. marina abramović.

while searching the library catalogue online for art books, i discovered that there was not only one copy but two copies of marina abramović documentary, "the artist is present"! no offense but with its limited release, i figured "the artist is present" was not on the san joaquin valley librarians' radar. but i was wrong. so in hopes of doing my part to help the continuation of the library investing in future art documentaries, i checked it out, even though i saw it in theaters. (if you are reading this and saw it in theaters, check out the DVD, there were a handful of interesting segments that ended up on the editing floor.)

a bit of a backstory. so in 2010, i went to new york because my friend mona was doing a residency. my trip just so happened to coincide with the tim burton exhibit at the moma, and thanks to my amazing friend ivan and his membership card and it being a raining day (so the museum was extra packed), i was able to sneak in. i also have to give a quick shout out to juliana, she was in nyc at the time too and she was the reason i went that day. so yes tim button was amazing (though i would go on to see it about 4 more times when it came to the lacma.), but the absolute highlight for me was participating in marina abramović's "the artist is present."

prior to my visit, i had never heard of marina abramović. to be even more honest, i was so focused on getting into burton that i may have missed her piece on my way in. however, on our way, juliana and i came across abramović's atrium and her piece "the artist is present". the piece consisted of an area being marked off by tape on the ground and surrounded by lights. there were two chairs, one with marina in it and the other empty for museum visitors to sit in and a table. from what i read in the wall description of the piece and from what was going on in front of me, marina was to sit there during museum hours and not speak or eat or get up and people were invited to participate, by sitting across from her.

for those of you who know me, you know that for me life is about experiences and after discovering i could be apart of an art installation at the moma, i had to do it. (there is a special features called "the audience completes the work" and at the end a young boy expressed this sentiment of being a part of work of art, perfectly.)

so i got in line and waited for my turn. i was surprised because it actually took a while. i sat there for a couple of hours. there was no time restriction for an individual's sitting and some people would sit for hours. i found out from others that people sat for a couple of hours or tried to outlast her, which in my opinion is silly. marina is sitting for how many days, you won't win.

as i was sitting, i realized i was going to sit with her but i knew nothing about her. but, i was lucky and the woman behind me in line, held my place so i could walk through her retrospective. since i was unfamiliar with her and her work, i gave myself a quick tutorial and went through her life's work all in one walk through. and her life's work was amazing and what was even better was that there were reproductions of her pieces with actors (nude actors). one reproduction, "imponderabilia" consisted of two nude individuals in a doorway and you had to walk in a narrow space between them. i remember thinking to myself, which sex will i face, the male or female, i think i faced the male as i went through. another reproduction that i thought was beautiful was "relation in time" in which two individuals sat back to back with their hair tied together.

there were so many pieces that amazed me. "rhythm 0" in which marina laid 72 objects on a table and allowed the audience to use her as they pleased. one item was a gun, and someone had her hold it and point it at herself but another spectator had her take it down. "rhythm 2" in which marina took medication that is used for treatment of acute catatonic and schizophrenia to see the effects. there was one with ulay in which he held one part a bow and she the string with the arrow pointed at her heart! i could go on and on, but you should watch the doc to learn more. i will add, i was also amazed just by her physical and mental strength to perform and complete her pieces.

after my quick tutorial, i got back in line. i remember being worried because the museum was closing soon and i would not get my turn. i discussed with the woman behind me that if i got in, i would only take 15 minutes so that she could get a turn as well. by the grace of the museum gods, within the last hour of the moma being opened, i got my turn.

i remember being very nervous as i went in. its is overwhelming at first because of the lights and you are aware that others are watching (you have just finished being a spectator). but i began to focus on marina's face and then had an internal dialogue with her. well she didn't speak in person or in my mind, but in my head i thanked her for everything. i thanked her for her art and for the opportunity to be apart of her piece. i also gushed about her art and shared with her what my favorite pieces were from her retrospective. it was odd too, because i forgot about everyone else in the room and sitting with her was like this spirit cleansing, she calmed and centered me. i was just overwhelmed with joy when i was done. i wanted to sit there longer but didn't want to be greedy so left for others to have a turn. (also the lady was even nicer and took pictures of me as i sat). (also james franco gives a great description of how it is to be aware of everything but connected in the doc.)

(sorry that was a long backstory). so when i heard a documentary was made about her piece i had to go. danny and i made a lovely evening of it and saw it at the nuart. it was amazing to learn more about marina as an artist and a person. in addition, it was great to get a behind the scenes look at the piece too. it was even more amazing because in a small way since i participated in it, i felt connected to it. on my first viewing, i remember being in awe of her youthfulness, she is a very young looking sixty something. and second, being surprised that she allowed her reunion with ulay to be recorded. they had a very intense relationship and to allow the cameras in on that segment was very brave. however, i do think it was easier for her than him, she had developed into this great woman and artist and perhaps she would have never reached this, if their relationship did not end. it is interesting to think of her restricted to the female realm; especially since now she is so strong and independent. to hear marina explain what she had to learn to do, when their relationship ended, demonstrated how much she was restricted by their relationship. so as much as their art together was great, to be who she is today, they had to end. i still can not get over the beauty of marina and ulay's last piece together; walking from the ends of the great wall of china and meeting in the middle only to depart forever. if i ever marry and then get divorce, i want to do the same thing.

[random pop culture tidbit: gaga being the great thief that she is, was supposed to walk from new york to nebraska ala marina and ulay, but she didn't. but that is why there is that random walking at the beginning of "yoü and i" music video.]

with checking it out from the library and viewing it again, i was able to get more insight. i was also able to share my experience with grandma bea.

the special features were great to watch. there were many great things that klaus biedenbach shared that completed the documentary for me. (the film as is is brilliant, but these additions are just as they are named "special features"). one thing they should have kept was his description of marina as an urban legend. this is very true, when i explain who she is to others, i always mention the great wall of china, the aborigines, and the sex and the city episode. he also discussed the original concept for her retrospective with seven platforms which would have gone through her works via props and she would walk down from each. just the scale of it would have been daring. i would have loved to have seen that but still believe the piece she did is far superior. lastly, it is interesting how they had thought that the chair would be empty most of the time, that the occasional person would sit versus a line. but what a line there was. i had gone in the earlier months so there was no running like in the doc.

i think the part that should have been kept in was marina's belgrade homecoming. i think it completed marina as a person and as an artist and gave new depth to her piece. in this doc, it is discussed via sound bites, how marina filled the void from her childhood with love from her audience. but in the interview with her aunt, this notion is more obvious. the stories from her childhood as told by her aunt demonstrates the absent of love better. biedenbach explained how marina is in love with the world, and how she made everyone in the atrium believe she was in love with them. and it's true, for that moment i felt that she loved me. i was also happy to give my love to her.

also there was a great story shared by her aunt about when marina was a child. marina's grandmother would leave marina sitting at the table with a glass of water while she went to get food. the grandmother would be gone for 2-3 hours and when she came back noted that marina had not moved! her sittings go back further than night sea crossing.

one last story of my experience. i was confused when they moved the table in the documentary because in my head there wasn't one. i felt so close to her that i didn't remember the table, but since i went in march, it had to be there. i had to reference pictures and as you can see, yes it was there. but that is how intense it was that i didn't remember it.

and to the guy in the doc that said what is going to happen next that someone will be shot in the face and it will be called art. well someone in fact has, google "chris burden, shot", though it was his arm.

*quick PSA on supporting your local library. this DVD had a sticker on it stating that it was "paid for by measure b". it is the second item i have checked out that was funded by that measure. so please continue to vote for measures like that because it does purchase great materials for libraries.

[a special treat for reading this entire entry: link to my portrait from
sitting with marina. my hair was frizzy cos it was raining. http://www.flickr.com/photos/themuseumofmodernart/4479857644/in/set-72157623741486824]

you lost me there. rosecrans baldwin. (72)

after reading and loving "paris, i love you but your bringing me down", i decided to read baldwin's debut novel. though i did not find it as delightful a read as "paris" (this subject manner was heavier), "you lost me there" was still a good book.

"you lost me there" is the story of a neuroscientist, whose research focus is alzheimer's, and his struggle to remember the details of his now-deceased wife and their marriage. it's ironic because as much as victor studied memory and the brain, he misconstrued the past and created false memories of his wife. his misconstruction also leads the reader to wonder if he has fallen victim to the very disease he is trying to cure/prevent.  the book moved randomly through victor's inner thoughts to present life to memories, which also make a reader weary of his mental health.  and of course, his meltdown episode on the rockerfeller's boat was a red flag  (his dead wife did speak to him from beyond the grave).

random digression while we are discussing memory loss/mental health. but one night victor's goddaughter cornelia brought up a case study H.M. that she studied in school. H.M. was a gentlemen who suffered from epilepsy as a child.  in an attempt to cure him, scientist removed parts of his brain.  though his epileptic seizures did stop, he lost his short term memory.  he could not not remember the present. his memory was restricted to twenty seconds.  something would be taught to him but twenty seconds later it would be gone, his mind unable to create new memories.  a extreme version of "50 first dates".  i was familiar with this case study because i saw a wonderful video installation of this case study at the whitney in nyc.  the piece was by kerry tribe.  tribe created a film, which she ran simultaneously side by side as a duplicate, but with a twenty second delay (the time frame of H.M.'s short term memory).  at inital watching, i did not understand the delay, but once i discovered the biography behind the man feature in it the film, it was quite profound.  it was sad how quickly he lost what had just occured to him, and how he was unable to create new memories.  luckily, his long term memory was not effected so he still had those memories and was not completely alone in his mind.  it makes one realize how much we take our memories for granted because life without it would be sad, lonely, and scary.  (to read more info on H.M. click here.  to learn more about the video installation click here.)

back to the novel.  i think why i lacked a connection to this work (and an indication of baldwin's great writing skill) was because victor was cold and distant.  he was a very difficult character to sympathize with because he was cut off from everyone.  all of his relationships seemed superficial (even his marriage) because he never was 100 percent there for the other person.  i often became frustrated with him because he never seemed completely focused when interacting with others (this could also be a sign of his alhezimer's).  he would balantly ignore others that were having conversations with him.  it was rude and i could not imagine how his wife survived this or why regina put up with it.  and sadly he was often forgiven for it because of his brilliance.

i will add that this book does hold a valuable lesson.  it demonstrates that regardless of how brilliant a mind can be, our minds create biased or flawed memories.  incidents in one's history may not have been accurately recorded by one's mind.  victor thought he knew his wife but in fact he did not know her at all.  and that is because at times we take bits and pieces of stories that better fit the perspective we want. when i think of all the arguments i have ever had, i can always restructure it so that i am the victim, even though i am the one at fault.  every memory we have, which we may want to call capital t truth, is in fact something that has been framed by our perspective.

it's interesting because victor shares how he had an epiphany one day of how he and his best friend may have different perspectives of the world.  this inspires him to study neuroscience, yet he is unable to apply it in his actual life.  he can't understand how his actions effect others or understand others may have a different point of view from him.  and as one becomes frustrated with victor's narrow-mindness, the reader discovers that they should strive to be more open-minded.  

before i close, i will say that as i read this, i casted the movie version in my head (every book is turned into movies now).  as i read about victor, i pictured colin firth especially scenes where he was in his lab.  regina would be played by olivia munn (she kinda played regina in "magic mike").  and his wife would be rachel weisz.

as a special treat for reading this, i included a came victor played with his wife.  they would describe a movie with just three sentence.  i got the first two but can anyone help me with the last?

southern lawyer has a way with kids. can't get an innocent off the hook. boo.

vito shouldn't buy fruit. michael won't talk business. diane keaton?

men embark on spaceship. spaceship disembarks men. sorry, dave.

caramelo. sandra cisneros.

since i planned on attending sandra cisneros' talk at csub, i figured i should read more than just one book so i picked up her second novel "caramelo" (and for a dollar!). though i did not finish it before her talk, it helped me understand her talk and life a little more.

to be perfectly honest, i didn't like "caramelo" at first. i kept thinking to myself, this is no "house on mango street" but i realized it shouldn't be. that is always the challenge with the sophomore novel (and also the sophomore album for bands). i once read an article about the yeah yeah yeah's sophomore album in rolling stone, which discussed the challenge of the sophomore album, especially when the first is a huge success. the audience wants the band to replicate their first work but then it can't sound completely the same or they will be upset by that as well. i think it's the same with books, the sophomore novel needs to replicate the first but not be the same. and to me it felt that cisneros at first was trying to replicate "the house on mango street" but then it transform into something completely different but still very cisneros.

i always think of "house on mango street" as a collection of poems however i would describe "caramelo" as an epic. this is cisneros' "one hundred years of solitude" (which i was reminded of as i read, in addition to being one of my favorite books of all time).  "caramelo" is the tale of three generations of the reyes family, grounded in cisneros' actual family history with a hint of mythical magic like garcia marquez' work.  as i discovered at her talk, cisneros' life served as the basis for this novel, she grew up in chicago, the youngest of seven brothers and her father was a upholsterer, just like celaya in the novel.  but like her wig analogy, the novel is real life stories mixed in with fiction so it is non-fictional fiction or fictional non-fiction.

i guess it is the historian in me but i love sagas.  i always have.  i hate to admit this but as a tween (though this term was not invented back then) my favorite sweet valley high books were the sagas because i loved discovering the family histories.  i loved seeing the sequence of events that caused life to follow a certain path; how moment a lead to moment b which explains how c ever came into occurrence.  and this is what i loved about "caramelo", reading how the stars aligned to form the life that celaya led.   for me, "carmaelo" did not become an interesting read until we traveled back into time to learn her families' history so we could understand celaya as a person.  and that was the lesson of the novel, to understand oneself the best and who one is, s/he need to understand her/his ancestors.

 cisneros' emphasis on the importance of knowing the past is not limited to personal histories but extended to capital h-history.  my favorite part of the book was the historical tidbits that cisneros included.  her characters randomly interacted with important cultural figures.  thanks to her i learned about josephine baker*, maria sabina , senor wences, tongolele, and cri cri.  i also learned that some famous hollywood starlets were mexican (see:  rita hayworth).  another fact that surprised me was the story of emperor maximiliano and empress carlota, i didn't know that they were puppet monarchs nor did i know that bette davis played her in the movie.  i also finally discovered the title of the song "cielito lindo".  as i read the lyrics to "cielito lindo", i oddly knew the melody from years of hearing it growing up though  i never knew it was called "cielito lindo".  the tidbits were great because aside from being an entertaining novel, it was also educational.

the novel was also filled with cultural observations.  for example, how taquerias smell like pine-sol.   or introducing the updated version of the aged old question, which came first real life or the telenovla?  there were also sad and harsh observations like how chicanos treat mexicans who claim their spanish roots.  another sad observation is how the INS treats veterans like illegal immigrants especially when those individuals gained their citizenships by serving in a war.  and lastly how mexican mothers can be overbearing and strict but that is really because they are lonely.  there was a handful of times i had ah-ha moments because cisneros shed light on mexican and mexican-american cultures or explanation to certain stereotypes.

in addition to sharing truths, "caramelo" was filled with cisneros' poetic flair, which i have come to love. my favorite were:

"a person of independence, who does not need nor want us, inspires our admiration, and admiration is love portion.  a person who needs us too much, who is weak with neediness, inspires pity.  and pity, the other side of admiration, is antidote to love."

" a dream is a poem the body writes.  even if we lie to ourselves in the day, the body is compelled to speak its truth at night."

"for a long time after, i'd just burst into tears, if anyone even touched me. [ . . .] anybody touched me, by accident or on purpose, i cried.  i was like a piece of bread sopped with gravy.  so when something squeezed me, i started to cry and couldn't stop.  have you ever been that sad?  like a donut dunked in coffee?  like a book left in the rain."

lastly, two of my favorite images included food; feet as tamales and mentions of clean towels that fresh tortillas are kept in.  both of which all made me extremely hungry every time i read about them.  also does anyone know where i can get a tamal sandwich?!?!?!

imagery aside, the most important aspect of "caramelo" is that it shares an experience that is not always told. during my last year at ucla, i took a seminar about the american immigrant experience and we read autobiographies. the class focused on autobiographies not only as a counter to the dominant history (or white male american history) but stories that need to be integrated into the dominant history so that it can be complete. america is not america without the immigrant experience. furthermore, since so much land of present america was once a part of mexico and with mexicans going back and forth across the border; the american experience would be incomplete without the mexican/mexican-american experience being told. and though things can be labelled as a specific racial, cultural or religious experience, at the heart of it all, it is simply a human experience. this is true of "caramelo", it can not be reduce to just mexican lit, chicano it or womens lit because it holds a valuable lesson for everyone regardless of how one labels oneself. that lesson being the importance of everyone knowing their family history and roots. though "caramelo" was filled with a very specific cultural experience, it still possessed universal truths.

like cisneros i will add una pilón.

i loved this part because it reminded me of my grandmother, not so much because we have had the same conversation.  but because my grandma bea, like ceyala's little grandmother, keeps it real.

when discussing her running away with ernesto, ceyala explained:

"-but i saw god when we made love."

to which the little grandmother responded:

"-of course you did.  you think that's a miracle?  smell a flower and you'll see god too.  god's everywhere. and yes, he's in the act of love too.  and so?  that boy's not the only one who can love you like that.  there'll be others, there ought to others, you must have others."

*josephine baker is amazing.  i googled her and read her wikipedia entry (click and read it!).  and she is simply amazing.  she started off dancing on the streets then became this international sensation.  then became an international spy during world war II!!!! and was the first angelina jolie and adopted 12 children from different racial/national background.  amazing right?!?!?

the house on mango street. sandra cisneros.

the kern county library has a program called one book in which i am assuming the community reads one book and there are a bunch of related events. in celebration of national hispanic month, sandra cisneros' "the house on mango street" was chosen as the one book for september-november. and even more exciting cisneros is giving a talk for the program! when i found out about the talk i decided to reread "the house on mango street" in preparation if i attend the talk.

i think i read "the house on mango street" in high school. it was assigned and i actually read it. (it is short). but i bought a copy after i read in then. i actually read my own og one versus checking it out, though i did notice that the library had new copies due to the one book program. (random: i recently came across another copy with a different cover at a $1 bookstore and purchased that one because i sadly do judge books by their covers.)

i remember loving this book in high school. the part that stuck with me all these years is when the discussion of her name "esperanza". i loved the metaphor of her name as silver chewing gum wrapper because its hard to pronounce. the actual line goes:

"at school they say my name funny as if the syllables were made out of tin and hurt the roof of your mouth."

i remember being so impressed with her imagery. i have difficulty pronouncing spanish names and words and it does feel like chewing tin. since i have a name that is always mispronounced, this part left such an impression on me.

this line also exemplifies what i love about cisneros, her poetic flair. cisneros really is a poet. each chapter reads like a poem instead of a short story. her book is filled with clever and beautiful imagery:

"our laughter for example. not the shy ice cream bells' giggle of rachel and lucy's family, but all of a sudden and surprised like a stack of dishes breaking."

"in english my name means hope. in spanish it means too many letters. it means sadness, it means waiting. it is like the number nine. a muddy color. it is the mexican records my father plays on sunday mornings when he is shaving, songs like sobbing

"you can fall asleep and wake up drunk on sky, and sky can keep you safe when you are sad."

her words really are lovely.

i also connected with this work, culturally. thanks to grandma bea i am 1/8 mexican but a very americanized one. a coconut. however thanks to growing up in delano, i am mexican culturally. people are always shocked that i can cumbia, know about the cucuy and eat elote. growing up in delano, you are inevitably mexican. and though i didn't grow up in the slums of delano, i understood how esperanza felt growing up. the insecurity of not having the right shoes at a family party, understanding the power of rubbing a egg when you have a fever and feeling safe in the dingy part of town. and though there were some things i do not know first hand, i can empathize because i know someone who has. (well maybe not the sexual abuse part.)

the part that had a bigger impact on me now than in high school was the chapter "papa who wakes up tired in the dark". the reason for the change is that my grandpa jimmy passed away in the time between my two readings. in this chapter, her papa told her that her grandfather passed away and she saw for the first time her father vulnerable and sad. this reminded me of how at my grandpa's funeral i was struck by the thought that though this was difficult for me, i could not imagine how my mom and aunts and uncles felt because that was their dad. and that it is sad to lose a grandparent, losing a father is greater lost. cisneros described it as:

"and i think if my own papa died what would i do. i think if my own papa died what would i do."

and i guess this is what i loved, is that she captured life. there is an openness and honesty in her work. it felt very autobiographical (all fiction is in some way or another). but she wrote about life and how it is not alway ideal but the human spirit perseveres.

(if you are in delano or bakersfield, pick up a copy. it's a short read. and check out her talk this thursday, 11.8.12 at csub.)

something wicked this way come. ray bradbury. (71)

a couple months ago i picked up "something wicked this way come" but after reading its jacket cover and saw that it was about halloween coming early, i decided to save it for october. so when october came, so did my reading.

the first thing that amazed me was that the book was dedicated to gene kelly. my first thought was not the gene kelly, but i googled it and yes that gene kelly (i know there really isn't another). turns out that bradbury wrote a screenplay for kelly to direct but they couldn't find backing for it so it never happened so bradbury turned it into a novel. but it still made my heart happy to know they were friends. my friend cody used to do this thing where he imagined what dinner parties with kay-z, beyonce and chris martin and gwenyth paltrow would be like. so this made me wish i could have attended gene kelly and ray bradbury dinner parties.

the second thing i noticed was that this story takes place in green town, illinois, which is the setting of "dandelion wine" and since i loved that book, i had high hopes.

i hate to admit this but "something wicked this way come" will not be listed as a bradbury favorite for me. it's not that it was bad, it just wasn't for me. well for me now, as i was reading i couldn't help but think of the nickelodeon show "are you afraid of the dark?" and r. l. stine's "goosebumps" and "fear street" series, all of which i was obsessed with as a kid. twelve-year-old me would have been crazy about this book, but twenty-nine year old me enjoyed it but wasn't on the edge of her seat reading.

it was still well written. there were things i enjoyed. it did inspire me to write a whole blog devoted to women as time (see: "time (is never time at all . . .). and it was filled with the poetry that is bradbury's writing:

". . . the air so cold they ate ice cream with each breath"

"oh, what strange wonderful clocks women are."

"her nose breathes in the air of the world that i know, therefore i love that nose."

and since this is a library blog, i loved that bradbury had the library play an important role in the book. it is described as a mystical place that allows the boys to travel over distance lands and times. he describes how one could adventure to tanganyika in '98 and at the time he wrote it, that would be the future but me reading now, it is the past. the library was also a safe haven and where the halloways and jim gain the power and knowledge to fight the wicked that had came. i may even create a list of books (ala flavorpill) of my favorite stories that feature libraries and this would be one.

last but not least, there is a carousel that played a very important role. it symbolizes immortality which i am okay with not having. i am
very happy with going through the stages of life and one day growing old and dying. however the carousel reminded me of a piece i saw at the new museum, new york. charles ray's carrousel. it was an optical illusion, i remember standing by it to listen because you could hear the motors. but the top moved forwards while the bottom moved backwards so it looked like it was standing still. and in the context of this book and time, it's kind of amazing. life can be propelling forward (planning for the future) and backward (dwelling on the past) so quickly in time that sometimes it looks like we are just standing still but life is actually going on.

but still not wild about the book. i will recommend it to others and have my future kid(s) read it. it was creative and interesting and loved the father-son element, but would have rather seen it as a film directed by gene kelly.