I like the rain. I want to have a spring bookworming rain party full out with wellies—but not those Hunter Boots; absolutely not—, with yummy airy things like puffed pastries, meringues, mini fluffy cheese cakes, mousse dessert, macaroon, biscuits, crepe, and Earl Grey tea, definitely Earl Grey tea. and Tillandsia. We'd have lots of "air plants". Lots! And We'd read, but not anything structured. We'd bring books, trade books, read out-loud, pass books around between sentences and paragraphs. We'd leave with books we hadn't discovered.
I like books like I like my Jazz; euphoric, dangerous, occasionally a bit manic, sorrowful, bleak, raging, mood-incongruent, mournful, unforgivingly ragged, symbolic in a quiet way, warm apple pie for the soul. Give me a Plath style. Yōko Ogawa, M. Roach,
Criteria: Not rated on likability of characters. Not objective. I like Moxie Soda; chances are you don't.
time spent in that before bed reading slot:
5-until blurry eye 4-Later than I intended, but I still kept to my extended, extended reading time 3-I really should have been to bed an hour ago 2-customary 30 minutes. 1-book. side table. eyes closed.
How are common themes handled?
5-With an aesthetic that repurposes everyday themes into something fresh. Think of Hole Celebrity Skin covered by Cat Power 4-there is a comfortable air of familiarly.
3-Deja Vu 2. No deviation from its mates 1. Devastatingly trite, redundant, and stale.
Where would you keep it post-reading?
5-Next to my bed. 4-it's the center piece of my favorite bookshelf 3. On my other favorite bookshelf, but it's a bit dusty over their 2-Great cheap bookends 1-It never made it out of the box marked 'moving'.
5- Where is my teddy bear? Emotional-hangover 4- If I wasn't so emotionally stunted I'd cry. 3. Did James Cameron co-wrote this? Artfully contrived. 2- calculative emotional manipulation. This was literally written by James Cameron.1- I…feel…..nothing.
Mechanics (plot structure, voice, presentation, word choice, sentence structure, characters, writing style, pacing, and consistency):
5-Chanel 4-Prada 3-J-Crew 2-Gap 1-Old Navy
Perhaps what we have here is 'Uknowning Syndrome'; syndrome being used here to sound more sophisticated than 'we cant touch or see this shit'.
With Bonk you can relate the evidence provided with your own junk (a penis, which I'm more familiar with...or a vagina if you have one or if your of the heterosexual persuasion).
With Gulp, well as an adult you are very familiar with the start and end game of that Pint of Pilsner and a cup of chowder.
With Stiff, well maybe you have taken an anatomy class, maybe you are a doctor/nurse/whatever, maybe you have been to an open casket funeral, maybe... just maybe you have been lucky enough to step over a decaying, engorged, odorous body at a body farm.
Oh, but dear Spook I can not touch, see, smell, etc with any clarity those aspects broached in your lovely 311 pages (or whatever that translates into with a kindle). Maybe this is why Roach often approached this book with a verbose, and somewhat distracted writing style. The keenness, solid, and approachable text that she usually stamps her name to was somewhat missing here. Imagine you will if a book was the world. You start off in Bolivia's Andean high desert, Salar de Uyuni. Suddenly you are in Yekaterinburg city. Nope, wait that was only a detour on your way to Ni’ihau, which some how leads you back to Bolivia, but in a state of disequilibrium; there you are in Challapata with only faint memories of Salar de Uyuni. In other words this book is, at times, laden with research and seemingly irrelevant data. I think this is because of the previous issue; if you can't touch it, see it, feel it, prove it with empirical evidence you are sorta shit outta luck. Maybe you are right, Mary. Maybe "perhaps I am confusing knowledge and belief. when I say I believe in something, I mean knowing it. But maybe belief is more subtle. A learning, not a knowing".
maybe it's worth suspending your own rational mind, letting go—I guess you'd have to cut them—of the marionette strings that hold ever so tightly to cultural defined rules and expectations, as well as subjective experiences and perceptions. It's not in our makeup to believe in the unprovable, the unvetted, and those things that go against our world views, but perhaps it's beneficial to do this; if not just once in awhile.
The verdict is out on my side. Am I able to suspend my world view that combines a lack of religion, an absence of the occult, with the lack of people in my immediate surroundings that believe in the paranormal or the existence of the soul—a sorta,person-in-environment contagion phenomenon. say, your sister believes in the paranormal, and as such her influence superimposes this view onto your own (I don't have this)—not quite.
Do I still put my legs on the table during a scary movie to avoid the possibility—which is fairly certain at the time—of a hand grabbing me; you bet your ass. Is this confessing my willingness to accept ghosts into my everyday repertoire, again no, or sorta kinda no. There are those who don't conveniently use the table as a foot, so maybe that says something. However, my thoughts on the subject have shifted—a testimony to this book, cause I was a hard up skeptic—to a place were I am more willing to consider both sides of the paranormal spectrum. Because, after all, "belief is more subtle. A learning, not a knowing".
Now if you excuse me, in the spirit of all things Roach, I'm going to prepare and have dinner, take a shower w/ a hard cider, take a slash, and 'walk the dog'(get the euphemism, win a prize), and maybe, just maybe on this 'dog walk' have an out of body experience; though history proves this doesn't usually happen. There are no bodies laying around, so maybe I'll round things up with a read of one of Stiff's many citations.