of mice and men. john steinbeck.

i read "of mice and men" in high school but all i really remember was lenny and his rabbits.  and the dopey voice in which i read lenny's dialogue.

but when "grapes of wrath" jumped to the top of my "to-read" list because of the penguin book truck stopping in bakersfield for a retracing of the route from "the grapes of wrath", i decided to reread "of mice of men".  okay more like actually read, i may not have read all of it in high school.  also figured it would be a nice note to end banned books week on.

i was surprised that "of mice and men" was so well written.  since steinbeck's characters are okies, i always imagine him as one.  silly, i know especially since i just learned via wikipedia that he went to stanford.  also, i am not saying okies aren't educated or intelligent people, but a stereotypical okie is a hick and i always imaged steinbeck as coming from that culture.

one thing that struck me on this rereading, was the foreshadowing of lenny's fate by old candy's dog.  as soon as the reader meets lenny, one knows he is marked for doom, kind of like piggy from "lord of the flies."  you just know they are going to die in the end.  this doom then becomes cemented with story of old candy's dog.  old candy has a dog that according to the others is worthless and a nuisance, but old candy loves him and his companionship. however, the other men decide that the dog must go and another man goes out and shoots him.

the shooting of old candy's dog frames george shooting lenny in the end.  taken out of context, it sounds horrible, man shoots best friend, however, it was not that simple.  george had to be the one that shot lenny because he loved him the most.  it was a mercy kill and could only be one if performed by george.  if curly shot him, it would not have been the same, as demonstrated with old candy's dog  it was a bittersweet ending for lenny, but better he died at the hands of a friend than an enemy. it was a difficult act but was assuaged by george's telling of their dream farm, at least lenny passed on with peaceful thoughts and images in his mind.

i don't recall the moral that we learned from "of mice of men" while in high school.  as i mentioned before all i remember was lenny and his rabbits and his inability to pet things gently.

i watch and love a youtube called "thug notes" in which a thug breaks down beloved classics into thug terms.  (if you haven't seen or heard of it, go watch an episode) and they have a great analysis of the novel.  "of mice of men" is a demonstration of how there really is no "american dream" and though motivational, it ultimately sets individuals up for failure.   for as thug notes explained that in a culture of exploitation, in which individuals lose their basic rights, dreams are unachievable.  

furthermore, these dreams result in  abuse and discrimination among the lower classes due to disenfranchisement.  in a college course, i remember discussing this in terms of the dust bowl. disenfranchized farmers, who had lost their farms to the banks, as a means to exert their power, became racist and sexist towards blacks and women.  this is demonstrated with curley's wife.  though it appears at first that curley's wife is a bit of a floozy but after hearing her backstory it is demonstrated that she is part of this cycle of abuse.  (for you "how i met your mother" fans, kind of like the cycle of yelling).  curley, who had a napolean complex in addition to being powerless by the farming system, exerts his power and his abusive towards his wife.  curley's wife, who is jaded by dreams of being pictures and thinks she deserved better in life, takes the abusive from curley but then exerts her power over crooks.   crooks though intelligent and a hardworker suffers because during that time, blacks were the lowest rung in society.  it's sad because here is a group of people that should have worked together to better their life situation but instead abused each other in order to feel powerful.  (sorry i might sound like a communist but i didn't say ban together to overthrow the government but ban together to ensure their basic rights.)

i must add that i also agree with the judeochristian undetones "of mice and men" that thug notes discussed.  though i disagree with their analysis about it being a theme of man's reason (geroge) conquering (shooting) animal instinct (lenny). i saw the shooting more as an demonstration of innocence and selfless needing to be destroyed in order to succed in a capitalistic economy.  greed is the driving force of capitalism (see: monopoly), and lenny did not have this, so he would have never achieved his dream.  furthermore, lenny was the ideal worker, he worked hard and didn't question anything, just did his work, and yet he was still crushed by the world, demonstrating that the labor force though key to the economy will ultimately be destroyed.  (wow, okay, i might be a communists).

but politics aside, at its very core, "of mice and men" is beautiful tale of friendship.  though at times george was a bit harsh with lenny, in the end, he loved him and vice versa.  it was beautiful to see to which lengths a friend will go to protect their friend.  

this book really has so many layers and it is quite short, which is prove how great of a writer steinbeck is.  this book is also a banned book.  based on my googling, it was banned for his profanity, use of the n-word, lack of traditional values, and i am going to assume the whorehouses.  but lets be honest, it is probably due to is critique of the american dream and capitalism, and of course probably having communist undertones. 

the tree of life.

i waited a year for this movie.  there were that many requests for this film that i did not get it for an entire year.  sadly i must say that the wait was not worth it.

i planned on seeing "the tree of life" in theaters.  brad pitt and sean penn!  this movie had to be amazing. my cousin erin and i even went to the theater to see it.  however, we were late and missed the first 10 minutes and decided to see "midnight in paris" instead.  the employee at the movie theater, a girl i know, even warned us that people had asked for their money back and it was actually a good thing we didn't see "tree of life."

i should have listened to that warning.  but i must add that when i heard jimmy kimmel (i think) make a joke about dinosaurs being responsible for the brother's death.  i had to see it.

this movie was bad.  not that it was bad but it was too artistic-y.  i mean i didn't need to see the beginning of time.  and the whole close ups and shots from different angles to make it feel like you were in the movie, just made me nauseated.  if i saw it in theaters i probably would have been sick.  that jerky first hand perspective was spooky in "the blair witch project" not so much here.  and that whole time sequence from the beginning of time was  bit pretensions.  it was beautiful but came across as some sad christian bragging, like look at all that my god has made.  i don't know it was weird.

the movie in itself was horrible.  it was a son justifying his hatred of his father, but i couldn't sympathize with the son.  so your father didn't like the way you picked weeds and mowed the lawn, seriously get over it.  i mean brad pitt seemed like the product of the era, that is how men were.   i mean its horrible to feel unloved by a parent but move on instead of telling on it.  i had an absent father but i didn't go around moping about, nor did i allow it to effect my self-confidence and self-worth.  it was difficult to sympathize with the son because he was for lack of a better world, a crybaby.  life is tough some time deal with it.  yes that flare up from brad pitt was bad but once again wasn't it all because of lawn work?  really???

also i couldn't handle all of the christian propaganda at the end.  seriously i hope that heaven isn't a beach because if i die and god allows me into heaven and it turns out to be the heaven from "tree of life", i will ask to be sent to hell.   and seagulls in heaven???? i hope not.  that would definitely be hell.

"the tree of life" was beautiful but lacked any real substance.  i would have appreciated it more if it was an art installation, dialogue less and project on different walls of a room.  but as a movie, it was horrible.

the bridge to terabithia. katherine paterson.

i never read "bridge to terabithia" as a kid but i always saw it at the library.  i avoided it as a kid because it seemed too fantasy for me (which it turned out not to be).  however, now i regret judging a book by its title because i missed out on a great book as a kid.  

about a year ago, i came across the movie, it was on ktla, one of those sunday afternoon movies.  i watched it, primarily because zooey deschanel is in it, and it left me in tears.  i cried my heart out and realized that i needed to read the book.  i bought it at the goodwill but it sat on my bookshelf for a while.  while researching banned books for banned books week i noticed it on the list so decided to finally read it.

and before i go, zooey deschanel was the perfect person to play miss edmunds the music teacher.  miss edmunds was described as:

her long swishy black hair and blue blue eyes.  she could play the guitar like a regular recording star and she had this soft floaty voice that made jess squish inside.  lord, she was gorgeous.

totally, zooey right?

also, i loved annasophia robb as leslie but i wished they had made her hair a boyish cut and dressed her poor (even though she was rich), which is how it was in the book.  but other than that a great adaption.

if you haven't read "bridge to terabithia" please stop by right now and go read it.  there are spoilers ahead.

"bridge to terabithia" is the story of two fifth graders, jesse and leslie and their unlikely friendship.  leslie is a new kid at school and unconventional.  her parents are considered "hippies" by jesse's parents, they are both successful writers but they moved to the country to live off of the land.  at first, jesse was jealous of leslie because she beat him in a race.  he was also hesitant because she was a little different from the rest of the kids.  she didn't watch tv and was intelligent (sad how smart makes you different versus the norm) but he soon saw that she needed a friend and helped her out at school.  i should add, jesse is a little different from the other kids at school.  he is sensitive, well-mannered boy who secretly likes to draw and loves music class.  jesse saved leslie from the school bully, janice avery, and after that they became friends and started hanging out everyday afterschool (they are neighbors).

there is a woods near their home, and one day they crossed over the creek with a rope swing and created their own mythical land, terabithia.  leslie, who is well-read, likened their mythical place to nardia, and started sharing books with jesse.  leslie came up with all of these mythical creatures and areas and jesse felt less creative in contrast, but they still have fun.

they had typical kid adventures.  they get revenge on the school bully for stealing jesse's kid sister's twinkie, but then leslie befriended her and discovered that she was a bully due to abuse at home.  as a reader, you are happy for jesse and leslie and their friendship.

and then you are hit with a curveball.  i was prepared for it because of the film, but when i watched the film, it had me in tears.  jesse went to the museum for the day with miss edmunds (which in itself is creepy but i guess it was a different time?) and when he came back, he finds out that leslie is dead.  yes, dead!  it was raining and she had an accident swinging on the rope.  it was devasting reading about jesse dealing with her death.  he was uncertain about his feelings and how to mourn and what to do.  in the end, he does get closure, he created a bridge to terabithia and shared the kingdom with his little sister.

"bridge to terabithia" is a wonderful book but sadly, it is on the banned books list.  the reasons its listing are death and atheism (leslie doesn't believe in god or go to church).  two things that i think children should not be shielded from, i don't have kids but i was a kid and like i have seen in maurice sendak's books and his documentary, it's better to be honest.  

i first want to discuss the "atheism", which i actually read as being in support of spirituality.  leslie is an atheist and doesn't go to church.  but one day she joins jesse and his family.  jesse and his sister who go to church every week are bored at the service, jesse spends his worship time counting things.  while leslie, the atheist, finds the story of jesus beautiful even likens it to lincolm and socrates.  furthermore, more when leslie talks about the crufixtion of christ with jesse and may belle they focused on the gory details while she understood the higher meaning in it.  she even tells them, "you believe in it, but you hate it.  i don't have to believe in it and i think it's beautiful".  a pretty deep thought for a kid, but a demonstration of the importance of following rules of a church and being considered religious but lacking any spiritual (and i think more important) connection to god.  leslie's "atheism" then demonstrated the importance of finding the beautiful within god instead of going through the motions.

since leslie doesn't believe in god, may belle is frightened that she will go to hell for not believing when she died.  i thought this was an interesting topic because the reader knows that leslie was a good person and would not end up in hell.  again i think it reinforces the idea of its more important to have good works here on earth versus having blind faith in god.

this discussion on spirtuality may go unnoticed by a child, but the topic of death is a main focus and probably the main reason, this book is banned.  as a kid, i was frightened of death.  i used to pray at night for god to keep my grandparents alive.  i was also petrified of mankind's demise.  it must have been due to a science lesson but at night, i would imagine that the sun no longer existed and how mankind would eventually die out like the dinosaurs due to lack of food.  i never shared this with anyone but i would think about this all the time, as a 5th/6th grader.  furthermore, since adults treat death as a taboo with kids, instead of protecting them from death, it just makes death more frightening.  kids need to understand that death is a fact of life, there is no way to avoid it so we should not be frightened of it.  and if you scared of death, its okay because others are too.  

i learned online that paterson was inspired to write "bridge to terabithia" after her son's best friend was strucked by lightning and died.  this book was meant to help children deal with death.  it is supposed to explain to them something that even baffles adults.  it demonstrates that there is no one way to mourn and that you will experience maby different feelings.  it also shows that adults have a difficult time dealing with death as well.  i can admit that even with my thirty years of life, i never know what to say when someone loses a loved one and am still scared of those around me dying.  however the only difference is that now as an adult i understand i am not the only one who has these worries.  

i am glad i read this as an adult but really wish i read it as a kid.  i also hope that kids do read this book.  by reading "bridge to terabithia", the reader learns an important life lesson and if read as child, it will last them their lifetime.

ps food for thought:  many children's books are banned because of death as a topic.  however, every disney movie has a dead parent especially in the recent years.  in "lion king", we see mufasa's death.  "finding nemo", scene with nemo's mom was intense for me and i was an adult when i saw it.  however there is never a ban on them and parents normally buy movie merchandise and take them to disneyland to ride rides based on the movie. 

the bluest eye. toni morrison. (143)

in honor of banned books week, i decided to read "the bluest eye" by toni morrison.  it has been in the news recently because an alabama senator wanted it banned from schools because of its content, rape and incest.  some

claim the ban is a protest against common core, the new system schools are adapting to standardized education in the US.  regardless of the reason, i decided to read "the bluest eye" and see for myself.

and yes, there is rape and incest in the book.  there is also sex.  but if that is all one takes from the novel, then s/he completely missed the message and point of "the bluest eye".  in fact, by focusing only upon the rape and incest of pecola, s/he commits the same transgression that all the characters of "the bluest eye" are guilty of, making pecola a scapegoat by projecting their insecurities and self-hate upon her.

there was the physical act of pecola being raped by her father in the novel but to label it pornographic as school districts do (which i think says a lot more about administrations then students if they are aroused by it) is wrong.  the rape, and i am by no means justifying pecola's father's actions, was not one of lust but rather an extreme example of how individuals disenfranchised based on race often abuse their own race to feel empowered.  pecola's father, cholly, was "raped" by white men as a young man.  during his first time having sex, cholly and his partner were discovered by two men who had him finish while they watched. his raping of pecola was revenge for what those men did to him versus wanting to be with his daughter.  again, i am not trying to pardon on cholly, just giving the context for which the incestual rape occurred.  i want to illustrated that if the rape is contextualized for students, which it should be since it is a school lesson, then students would not see it as pornography.  furthermore, it is allows a honest discussion about sex for young adults, sex is not just an act of love or lust, it can also be abused as an exertion of control and power.  and to not go completely off based but high school kids are at the age of having sex, so reading this should not come as a complete shock to them.  they also see worse in movies or hear worse in hip hop and pop songs.  as i mentioned in my persepolis post, the topic of sex for education purposes should be find, the real issue is the topic of sex as entertainment, that is what the senator should be concerned with.

back to the novel, the bluest eye was a truly sad story.  i felt bad for pecola because all she wanted was to be love and yet the world just caused her suffering.  but as toni morrison wrote in the afterward, she did not want to "lead readers into the comfort of pitying her [but] rather than into an interrogation of themselves for the smashing."  as readers, of course we will sympathize with pecola, but morrison wanted us to stop being the forces that destroyed pecola.  as i mentioned before, pecola, being poor, black, and a female, inferior in terms of class, race and sex, she was labelled "ugly" and became a scapegoat for the characters.  instead of dealing with their own insecurities, the characters projected everything they hated about themselves upon this little girl.  but where does this self hate come from?  in the afterward, morrison explained that this was the reason for her writing the bluest eye.

its difficult because it is so ingrained into american culture but the standard of beauty is based on whiteness.  to be white is to be beautiful.  i would considered myself an intelligent and self confident woman, proud of my ethnicity but i still am ruled by this standard of white beauty because it was installed before i was so self-aware.  growing up i played with white barbies and white dolls, i watched white characters on tv and read about what characters in books, as a kid you don't really thing much of it but subconciously it has its effects.  i mean those we know me, know i hate getting too dark of a tan, it happens to me every summer, and goes away every winter, but i still try to prevent myself from becoming too dark.  i know its silly but am ruled by this need to stay light.

i think the best example of this subconscious need to be white is that as a person of mixed race often forget that i am not white.  for example, when i am out with my friends, i am always extremely critical of asian hipsters, especially foodie asian hipsters, and guess what . . . if you asked the average person to described me, s/he would say a foodie asian hipsters.  i mean my friends would too but never to my face. (hipster in my opinion is a misnomer.)   where does this hate for foodie asian hipsters come from?  i think it had to do with my thinking i am a unique individual and then having to be confronted with the fact that i actually am a stereotype, i do fit into the box that society wants to label me.  but i do take pictures of what i eat, and shop at urban outfitters and hold up peace signs in pictures.  it horrible to realize that you are stereotypical but better to accept yourself then trying to avoid a label.  

this denial of nature to avoid labeling was best exemplified by geraldine, the mother of the demonic little boy who blamed pecola for killing the cat.  in the section about geraldine, there is a discussion about colored folks versus n****** (prior to reading this always thought chris rock was clever for his blacks versus n*****, but looks like morrison beat him to the punch(line)). geraldine is so determined to not be labelled a n*****, that she denied the essence that makes her black, she denies who she is.  her denial and self-loathing, is then exploded upon pecola, someone she wrongly viewed by her eyes as a n*****.  if geraldine accepted herself and not tried to live up to society's standards, she would not have wasted so negative energy on hating her own race.

another example of this race on race hate  stemmed by a white standard of beauty was the children making fun of pecola for being black.  the irony is that all of the kids were black and yet they singled her out as being the "blackest".  as morrison explained that it was the worse insult because one does not have control over their skin color.  she went on to explain, "it was their own contempt for their blackness that gave the first insult its teeth."  to be told you are worthless or ugly because of your skin color, something you have no control over, fills a person with self-hate.  since you have no control over the matter and you are denial about yourself loathing, you focus on someone like you and project your feelings on them.  unfortunately, it results in you hating your own race/ethnicity.

i wish i could say that we have professed in terms of accepting all races and ethnicities as beauty however we haven't.  we see beautiful people of all ethnicities and races in our media today but they are still treated as an exception versus the rule.  i wish i could say that hopefully times will change but i am pretty sure it won't.  i mean i am aware of the unacceptance of racial beauty yet i still promote it.  it is going to take alot to change the definition of beauty.  so it's important that we don't banned books like the the bluest eye to based on its mislabeling as pornographic and connection to unpopular educational systems.

the fantastic mr. fox. roald dahl (141)

last week in honor of roald dahl's birthday, i finally watched wes anderson's "fantastic mr. fox".  of course, anderson walks on water in my eyes so i loved it.  it was sweet and clever and filled me with whimsy, just like all of his other films.  and though the film and the book are nothing alike other than the premise, there was a scene from the movie that sparked my desire to read the book.  it involved bunce and his goose liver doughnuts!  foie gras doughnuts!!! though a villan, bunce sounded like my kind of man!  and so i wondered did this really happen in the book?  did dahl or anderson create this dessert??

and of course . . . it was dahl!

bunce is alittle on the short side but, if he made me foie gras donuts everyday, i could look pass it.

the rest of the story was of course a delight.  mr. fox is fantastic and clever, stealing food from the three farmers.  though i guess it is quite horrible that he does steal from them.  but i will justify his thievery by claiming that the farmers left mr. fox with no alternative by farming mr. fox's hunting grounds and a fox has got to eat.  mr. fox did have a family to feed.  also they destroyed his home!  they turned a hill to a crater, so here is another justification for his stealing.  also  he ashared his stolen goods with the other animals which makes the stealing okay.  he wasn't a greedy thief, more like robin hood!  

also the farmers did shoot off mr. fox's tail (poor guy) so stealing their goods was sweet revenge in my book.  and really did  bean need that much cider???

all in all, this book was a delight and if you have never read it, pick it up.  let me know if boggis, bunce, and bean are still waiting by the fox hole.

gone girl. gillian flynn. (140)

***warning:  this blog has spoilers***

last year, when "gone girl" was everywhere, my hipster tendencies kept me away.  but my cousin brandy recommended it, so i decided to read it.

i must add that my friend, dustin, told me that he loved it up until the end, which made me skeptical.  i assumed that the author may have cleaned up the story too nicely and quickly, realizing that she had so many pages, so i expected the writer to disappoint me.  

as i read, i kept waiting for the other shoe to drop . . . but i loved the writer!  after reading the first chapter, i texted brandy that i loved the references to the heat miser (nick's hair, "snow miser" is one of my favorite christmas songs) and cat from "breakfast at tiffany's" (i have always wanted to name my cat, cat, but i hate animals).  the only thing that bothered me was amy's first diary entry, so annoying!!! it was like she was trying too hard to be interesting.  i also texted my cousin that "the tone of amy's journal is too poppy but that could be cos it's prolly how i write! lol. i write like i talk but am annoyed with authors do that.  lol." to which she wrote that it would make sense later.  it did.

random digression but i have to praise flynn for turning "the giving tree" into a verb:  "he giving treed me."  seriously genius! i wish i had thought of that!!

so i rarely read mysteries, as a kid i read nancy drew books but that was more because my mom used to read them.  the reason i can't do mysteries is because i want to be smarter than the book, i want to solve the mystery before the author gives me clues to point me in that direction.  i blame television, specifically, "law and order".  "law and order" has turned every average watcher into a whodunit expert.  but it's all probably some mind trick, they make the episode easy to solve which makes us feel smarter and as a result watch more to enjoy your our faux smug intelligence.  well played, dick wolf.

due to this "law and order" effect, i had a bunch of theories about what happened to amy.  first i thought it was nick, like after the first page, it was one of those mind tricks.  it was so obvious that you were like it can't be him, and then it turned out to be him!  i also thought amy was a drug addict or faked her journal after reading her first entry.

other theories (the actual texts i sent to my cousin):

-my next theory.  nick's dad killed her!  lol. i am only 60 pages in.  get ready for more random theories. or it's all some hoax set up by her because she was feeling neglected and it was their 5th anniversary? lol

-last theory before bed . . . a crazed "amazing amy" fan that is obsessed with the series and can take the fictional one getting married!  (this was before the introduction of hilary and desi, but i am not that smart, 2 pages later, they were introduced)

-so i am in page 140 and the book we are reading "gone girl" is actually "double lives", nick's book proposal.  (a book within a book kinda thing)

as you can see i really got into the book.  lol.  but i must admit that though i wasn't surprised by amy's faking her death, i was shocked by how bat shit crazy she was.  the woman was insane.  nick was an asshole, he cheated, took the last of her money and forced her to live in middle america, but still nothing compared to what she did, and not only to him but to hilary, tommy, and desi.  i mean i am still in shock over what she did.  it's funny because when amy was robbed by jeff and greta, i felt bad for her, but then i added up all the evil things she had done and realized it was her just desserts. i mean amy was a sociopath, nick made mistakes like a regular person but amy was demonic, pure evil.  though i was frightened of amy, i loved reading about how sick and twisted, she was and of course, her outrageous and extravagant plots against people.

and i mean the plot against nick was nothing compared to desi.  she killed a man!!! i was nervous and worried for nick that entire time.  i was so excited to find out how the book ended that i skimmed some of the last chapters.  when nick started choking amy, i was triumphant, i was happy that bitch got her ending.  i thought it would have been perfect, he, initially accused of killing her, then being cleared, only to end up killing her and saving the world from evil.  a sad ending for him but a just one for her.  but flynn didn't kill that psycho bitch!  then i thought the book i were reading was nick's book, a book within a book that righted amy's wrong.  but no amy had another plan! 

sidenote:  why would amy being pregnant ruin his book? i am pretty sure people would still want to read it.  i mean wouldn't the pregnancy help?  it would be like why did he write that and yet have a child with her?!?!

and in the end, amy gets away with it all and i hate the book!!!! hate it!! seriously!?!?!?!? nick becomes complacent and they bring a child into the world???

all that love and interest, i had, straight out the window because i absolutely hated the ending.  i will always appreciate flynn for the verb giving tree, but will not read any of her books!  i am so bitter, i might not see the movie, partially because i don't like reese witherspoon as amy.  she is too wholesome (see:  "cruel intentions", "legally blonde", "sweet home alabama"). i think kate hudson would have been better, she is more city/cool girl (see:  "how to lose a guy in 10 days", "bride wars").  

but yes, hated this book.  damn that ending!!!

i wear the black hat: grappling with villans (real and imagined).chuckklosterman. (139)

as you may have seen in a previous klosterman post, i used to love him.  i use the word "used" because his last novel was horrible.  i thought he would redeem himself with this new book but sadly this new collection of stories added more to my dislike then my love.  

in his first book "sex, drugs, and cocoa puffs", he discussed a theory on growing up and mtv's "the real world".  if you watched "the real world" there was always a season in which the cast was horrible and you stopped watching.  klosterman's theory was that the cast wasn't bad (mtv had the same stereotypes in every season) but the viewer matured and outgrew the show.  when i read that back in the day, i had a total oh! moment, because i realized that i had in fact outgrown "the real world".  the season for me was "new york", i couldn't handle loudmouth coral, who in the past would have been one of my favorites. i did love melissa from miami. and then when vegas happened i was like what the hell is wrong with these people?  but lets be honest, 16 year old me, would have loved trishelle.  

i really hate to admit this, but i disliked this book. i guess dislike is the wrong book, i didn't offend me, and it wasn't horrible.  there were many moments where i secretly laughed or admired klosterman for his random pop culture references, but i didn't love it like i normally love his works.  his articles normally leave me with ah-ha moments were i ponder my life with a new perspesctive thanks to his article but this time i found myself disagreeing with him.  his arguments were weak and i felt like he kept on stating his opinions as fact.  for example, he wrote about kareem abdul-jabbar, being hated.  i grew up in a family where they loved him so i kept on wondering what public hated him? i mean he was on an episode of "full house", would those producers have on a hated basketball star? i mean dennis rodman was never asked to be on.  i felt klosterman constructed things to fit the scenario he needed, which i guess essayists do, but his felt far-fetch.  i can admit this change of opinion can be that i this was the first time i disagreed with him whereas with his previous books i agreed with him so saw his perspective.

another thing that rubbed me the wrong way was his hatred of the yeah yeah yeahs.  i love karen o!  he wrote:

the yyys aren't faking anything, they are that brilliant!!! (this also could have put me in the mindset to hate this book out of loyalty to the yyys.)

but anyway; this book was about evil and pretty much klosterman's attempt to show that evil people can be good and good people can be evil and that he is neither evil or good just a person.  it wasn't interesting the whole time just during parts of it.  i enjoyed his articles on clinton and his sex scandal, o.j. simpson (i didn't know he wrote a book about how he couldn't have murdered nicole only to theoretically include how he would have killed her), n.w.a., and a vigilantes.  but nothing completely enthralling, probably because there were a lot of sport references, i didn't get.  

i will add i am sad my love him is fading, i am going to go back and read "sex, drugs and coco puffs" to remind myself why i love him.  hmm, i should prolly take him off of my likes on my okcupid profile.