I finished the Electric Kool Aid Acid Test. I almost didn't start reading it because after Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, I was sort of burnt out on drug books and didn't want to read another book where the characters go on ether binges. (Honestly, ether??)
But I had bought a copy of the Electric Kool Aid Acid Test and I was too lazy to get any other books, so I decided that I would give it a go….and I'm glad I did.
It turns out that this is a very important book in terms of understanding the whole west coast counter culture revolution and many of today's modern cultural references. Tom Wolfe basically follows Ken Kesey (you'll know him as the author of "One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest") and the band of Merry Pranksters as they discover LSD (which was legal until 1966). Anyway, the Merry Pranksters take a bus trip around the US, Kesey hightails it to Mexico after facing trumped up marijuana charges, the Pranksters deflate a Vietnam rally (yes, the the first hippys were apathetic), they spend a lot of time blowing their own minds, and shifting paradigms of modern society. Wolfe did an extensive amount of research for this book… from what I understand the majority of the dialogue is taken from actual recordings of conversations and/or Wolfe's own experiences with the Pranksters.
While reading Electric Kool Aid, you feel as if though you are along for the magic bus ride with the Pranksters, which is unique, because a lot of what they did was laying the groundwork for the whole counter-culture revolution…the Beatles got their inspiration for the magic bus ride from the Pranksters, the Grateful Dead got their start jamming at acid tests, psychedelic paintings emerged, day-glo was discovered, etc. Kesey describes himself as too young to be part of the beat generation, and yet too old to be a hippy, which makes him an important bridge between the two groups.
Before reading the other books that have sprung from the 1960's - 70's heads, I would recommend reading the Electric Kool Aid Acid Test first, because it will provide a context of the whole scene.
Moral of the Story: Groovy, man.
December 22, 2006
December 20, 2006
God Bless You, Mr Rosewater
I loved this novel. Loved it. L-O-V-E-D I-T.
So it's the story of Eliot Rosewater, who due to his bloodline is in charge of the Rosewater Charitable Trust. Eliot decides that the trust isn't actually helping people, and leaves his high society life in New York City as a trust administrator to go to Rosewater, Indiana, and actually help people. Everyone thinks that he has gone insane, and a distant relative with the help of a skeezy lawyer tries to take over the Rosewater Trust and all of it's assets.
This book made me laugh. And then laugh some more.
It also made me think. About the time I started reading God Bless You Mr Rosewater, I participated in the Freddy Mac help the homeless walk. Afterwards (and hell, during) the walk, my friends and I laughed about how we were helping the homeless walk...yes, each step was a metaphorical nail in a board to build a house for the homeless, not a literal nail in a board, but a metaphorical one. We weren't really building houses, we were walking so that we could raise money to help those who help. Well, I didn't actually raise any money. My company paid the registration fee. So technically, the only reason that I was there was so my company could pay Freddy Mac who would probably pay a charity who might eventually help the homeless, with everyone including myself, taking a cut of either the money or publicity. Ironically enough, the day of the Help the Homeless Walk was probably the least helpful for DC's homeless - I'm sure all of those associated with homeless charities were out in full force at the walk and not helping the homeless at all that day.
Eliot decides to cut out all of those middle men and actually just help those in need. Plain and simple. Everyone thinks he's insane. Hysterical.
In this modern day world of ours, people tend to build walls around themselves to protect themselves from caring too much. It's a sad strange fact of life. I'm just as guilty as the next person... I will gladly wake up at 7:30 am on a Saturday morning in November and truck down to the national Mall slightly hungover to walk for the homeless, but I will never just give my spare change to someone on the street that I might pass every single day, day in and day out. I wonder what the world would be like if everyone just started to care instead of caring about the few who do really care.
Like all good Vonnegut novels, this one features the external conflict between good and evil and exposes the moral weaknesses of human nature. The book doesn't contain a shred of the science fiction-ey tangent that Vonnegut can have, which I'm pretty sure is one of the reasons why I liked it so much.
So it's the story of Eliot Rosewater, who due to his bloodline is in charge of the Rosewater Charitable Trust. Eliot decides that the trust isn't actually helping people, and leaves his high society life in New York City as a trust administrator to go to Rosewater, Indiana, and actually help people. Everyone thinks that he has gone insane, and a distant relative with the help of a skeezy lawyer tries to take over the Rosewater Trust and all of it's assets.
This book made me laugh. And then laugh some more.
It also made me think. About the time I started reading God Bless You Mr Rosewater, I participated in the Freddy Mac help the homeless walk. Afterwards (and hell, during) the walk, my friends and I laughed about how we were helping the homeless walk...yes, each step was a metaphorical nail in a board to build a house for the homeless, not a literal nail in a board, but a metaphorical one. We weren't really building houses, we were walking so that we could raise money to help those who help. Well, I didn't actually raise any money. My company paid the registration fee. So technically, the only reason that I was there was so my company could pay Freddy Mac who would probably pay a charity who might eventually help the homeless, with everyone including myself, taking a cut of either the money or publicity. Ironically enough, the day of the Help the Homeless Walk was probably the least helpful for DC's homeless - I'm sure all of those associated with homeless charities were out in full force at the walk and not helping the homeless at all that day.
Eliot decides to cut out all of those middle men and actually just help those in need. Plain and simple. Everyone thinks he's insane. Hysterical.
In this modern day world of ours, people tend to build walls around themselves to protect themselves from caring too much. It's a sad strange fact of life. I'm just as guilty as the next person... I will gladly wake up at 7:30 am on a Saturday morning in November and truck down to the national Mall slightly hungover to walk for the homeless, but I will never just give my spare change to someone on the street that I might pass every single day, day in and day out. I wonder what the world would be like if everyone just started to care instead of caring about the few who do really care.
Like all good Vonnegut novels, this one features the external conflict between good and evil and exposes the moral weaknesses of human nature. The book doesn't contain a shred of the science fiction-ey tangent that Vonnegut can have, which I'm pretty sure is one of the reasons why I liked it so much.
December 13, 2006
The Stone Diaries
I'm sorry for the lack of posts. I'm currently entrenched in The Lord of the Rings trilogy, which, in my honest opinion should count as three different books. And by entrenched, it means that I'm reading when I get a chance. Unfortunately, I also have one additional book that I'm in the middle of, and have been since before I started this journey. I'm trying to finish that before I really get started. Yes, it puts me slightly behind, but, oh well. I hope to finish it this weekend on my trip to Philly to visit with a dear friend.
Anyways, The Stone Diaries by Carol Shields. I, for one, loved it....see, I can like books. Although I can understand that many people might not like it, and I'll explain why, there was something about it that just spoke to me. It's the story, from her harsh birth, to her death, of an average woman. Her story isn't necessarily the most exciting story in the world. It's just a story.
This is where I think it can get boring for other people. It doesn't necessarily have a super strong plot line running through it. It does, however, have fantastic character development. The characters are so beautifully created and drawn on the paper that, in my honest opinion, it makes up for the plot.
This is not to say that it doesn't have a plot. It does. As much as any of us have a plot in our lives. She doesn't have some great destiny to fulfill. She isn't chasing after the Holy Grail or the bloodline of Christ. She doesn't have a lightening scar on her forehead. Nothing like that. She's just a normal person.
Probably my favorite part of the entire novel is the sharp, dark and dry humor that runs through the book. There were so many parts that just had me laughing out loud. The strongest instance that I can remember was during the introduction of her mother. As it turns out her mother was a very large woman. The constant metaphors, similes and allusions to her mother's weight were funny. Dark and sad, but funny, none the less.
To be honest, I was a little surprised when I saw that this book was included in the list, only because it wasn't the most exciting story. It wasn't a "I couldn't put it down" novel, but than, neither was Frankenstein. While I enjoyed the book, would I have included it on the list? I don't think that it would be one of the first novels that came into my mind to include. But it was enjoyable, with a nice edge of humor.
Moral Of The Story: It doesn't take a lightening scar, Holy Grail, magic ring or great destiny to make an interesting story or life. Sometimes it's the most simple people that have the greatest lessons to teach.
Anyways, The Stone Diaries by Carol Shields. I, for one, loved it....see, I can like books. Although I can understand that many people might not like it, and I'll explain why, there was something about it that just spoke to me. It's the story, from her harsh birth, to her death, of an average woman. Her story isn't necessarily the most exciting story in the world. It's just a story.
This is where I think it can get boring for other people. It doesn't necessarily have a super strong plot line running through it. It does, however, have fantastic character development. The characters are so beautifully created and drawn on the paper that, in my honest opinion, it makes up for the plot.
This is not to say that it doesn't have a plot. It does. As much as any of us have a plot in our lives. She doesn't have some great destiny to fulfill. She isn't chasing after the Holy Grail or the bloodline of Christ. She doesn't have a lightening scar on her forehead. Nothing like that. She's just a normal person.
Probably my favorite part of the entire novel is the sharp, dark and dry humor that runs through the book. There were so many parts that just had me laughing out loud. The strongest instance that I can remember was during the introduction of her mother. As it turns out her mother was a very large woman. The constant metaphors, similes and allusions to her mother's weight were funny. Dark and sad, but funny, none the less.
To be honest, I was a little surprised when I saw that this book was included in the list, only because it wasn't the most exciting story. It wasn't a "I couldn't put it down" novel, but than, neither was Frankenstein. While I enjoyed the book, would I have included it on the list? I don't think that it would be one of the first novels that came into my mind to include. But it was enjoyable, with a nice edge of humor.
Moral Of The Story: It doesn't take a lightening scar, Holy Grail, magic ring or great destiny to make an interesting story or life. Sometimes it's the most simple people that have the greatest lessons to teach.
December 10, 2006
Cat's Cradle, Kurt Vonnegut
Like every Vonnegut novel I've ever read (this would be all five), the themes of Cat's Cradle are fairly obvious. The story is of John, the narrator, wanting to write a novel about Dr. Felix Hoenikker, one of the fathers of the nuclear bomb. John researches Felix, and in doing so ends up taking a crazy adventure with his three children. It turns out that the nuclear bomb wasn't even Felix's most dangerous invention, rather it was a substance called ice-nine, which he trusted to his children. The obvious theme is that of the fact that humans have the ability to make technology which although not intending to destroys life. Basically, our technology becomes bigger than us, and we are too stupid to properly manage it, due to a lack of moral strength, wisdom, etc, which really leads us to the argument... are humans inherently good or inherently bad?
With the conflict in Iraq, Darfur, and other global events, you can't help but wonder if left to their own devices, people will ultimately do something destructive and stupid. And if they have more money or power, the more destructive they'll be. Even on a day to day basis, this is something that occasionally gets me down... I basically have built a career on telling people what they are doing wrong, and it seems like everything I look at, I find problems, which then have to be explained, documented, argued over, etc (ah, the life of an auditor). But at the same time, I don't think that I am one of these people. If I had a money or power (speaking of which, if you know how to get me any, hook me up already), I would do bad things. I would like to think that I would do good things with my position. I think I would make moral choices. I don't think that my friends or family are inherently bad people either. Even if they didn't do good things, I don't think that they would destroy humanity as we know it either.
Anyway, back to Cat's Cradle. The book is basically the story of people equipped with very destructive technology who are terminally stupid and irresponsible. There are some compensating controls in place, such as love and a made up religion called Bokononism, but they are not strong enough to save the world from human nature.
Having laid all of this groundwork, I didn't really like this book, which is hard for me to say, because like most angst ridden high schoolers, when I was first exposed to Vonnegut, I loved Vonnegut. I like to think that the vast majority of people are inherently good, but I understand that the struggle of mankind is of that between good and evil. The main reason why I didn't like it was the fact that the story-line was unbelievably farfetched. What makes Vonnegut a good writer is that his novels generally have a tinge of reality and a high degree of absurdity. After the first few chapters, Cat's Cradle takes you right to koo-koo-ville, and that's where the novel languishes, as the Hoenikker children destroy a different planet where there is no reality. Ugh. I'm not arguing that it isn't a "good book" - obviously with the strong social commentary on nuclear weapons and stewardship, it's probably a book that every government official should be required to read, but it just didn't do it for me.
Moral of the Story: People are generally stupid, and if given half a chance, will probably do something stupid, like thinking Cat's Cradle would be a good read.
1001 Update: I have finished all four Vonnegut books on the 1001 List. Sort of disappointing that I won't get to read any more Vonnegut for a while, but maybe after Cat's Cradle, a break won't be a bad thing.
With the conflict in Iraq, Darfur, and other global events, you can't help but wonder if left to their own devices, people will ultimately do something destructive and stupid. And if they have more money or power, the more destructive they'll be. Even on a day to day basis, this is something that occasionally gets me down... I basically have built a career on telling people what they are doing wrong, and it seems like everything I look at, I find problems, which then have to be explained, documented, argued over, etc (ah, the life of an auditor). But at the same time, I don't think that I am one of these people. If I had a money or power (speaking of which, if you know how to get me any, hook me up already), I would do bad things. I would like to think that I would do good things with my position. I think I would make moral choices. I don't think that my friends or family are inherently bad people either. Even if they didn't do good things, I don't think that they would destroy humanity as we know it either.
Anyway, back to Cat's Cradle. The book is basically the story of people equipped with very destructive technology who are terminally stupid and irresponsible. There are some compensating controls in place, such as love and a made up religion called Bokononism, but they are not strong enough to save the world from human nature.
Having laid all of this groundwork, I didn't really like this book, which is hard for me to say, because like most angst ridden high schoolers, when I was first exposed to Vonnegut, I loved Vonnegut. I like to think that the vast majority of people are inherently good, but I understand that the struggle of mankind is of that between good and evil. The main reason why I didn't like it was the fact that the story-line was unbelievably farfetched. What makes Vonnegut a good writer is that his novels generally have a tinge of reality and a high degree of absurdity. After the first few chapters, Cat's Cradle takes you right to koo-koo-ville, and that's where the novel languishes, as the Hoenikker children destroy a different planet where there is no reality. Ugh. I'm not arguing that it isn't a "good book" - obviously with the strong social commentary on nuclear weapons and stewardship, it's probably a book that every government official should be required to read, but it just didn't do it for me.
Moral of the Story: People are generally stupid, and if given half a chance, will probably do something stupid, like thinking Cat's Cradle would be a good read.
1001 Update: I have finished all four Vonnegut books on the 1001 List. Sort of disappointing that I won't get to read any more Vonnegut for a while, but maybe after Cat's Cradle, a break won't be a bad thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)