Before We Die
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Next up! (Change to list)
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
The all-time, ultimate top top 10 list.
Monday, October 17, 2011
I want to kick the Narwhal in the face
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since Carrie’s sister had mentioned this was going to be a dry read I was very hesitant to even start it because I was like “Ohhhh this is gonna suck, can’t we just read something else?” But the minute I started reading it, I found it to be quite entertaining. Especially because my book has hilarious pictures in it, for instance the need to have this picture of a glow worm as if without the visual I wouldn’t be able to procure in my mind what a glow worm would be:
Love the detail (Bahahahaha!)
But on serious note, this novel has some amazing insights and quotes. The first I came upon on page 7 where it is stated “Either we do know all the varieties of being which people our planet, or we do not. If we do not know them all – if Nature has still secrets in ichthyology for nothing is more conformable to reason than to admit the existences of fishes, or cetaceans of other kinds, or even new species, of an organization formed to inhabit the strata sort, either fantastical or capricious, has brought at long intervals to the upper level of the ocean”
I relate to this statement so much because I still believe there is an unfathomable amount of species to be discovered in the depths of the ocean let alone in the world itself. To have someone of that time era have such insight that man does not know everything about how the world was evolving is so refreshing. It reminds me of the thought processes great scientists such as Darwin possessed at the time when not much was known about why things were the way they were. It gives me such satisfaction reading a novel based on fantasy of a narwhal with deep reflections embedded within it.
Moving forward, at first I didn’t know what to think of Conseil when he was introduced in chapter 3. He seemed like a background character that would fall out of the story. He had no depth to him until he rescued Aronnax and swam with him after the creature first struck the Abraham Lincoln. (Nice Comeback!) Ned Land’s name will forever remind me of Ned Flander’s on the Simpsons. For some reason when I envision him, I see a supped up Ned Flanders with ripped muscles and chest hair carrying a harpoon and spitting chew. It’s the strangest thing ever, I have even begun to read his name as Ned Flanders. Don’t ask me why I just do. But he’s obviously the bad ass of the story. He beats whales down like they are shrimp apparently from his description. Plus, he harpoons the shit out of the narwhal when they encroached upon it sleeping. Which while we are on the topic of the narwhal, why the fuck did it just start sleeping right in the path of pursuit after it had been swimming away from the Abraham Lincoln at like 19 – 30 mph for hours. It obviously has a tiny brain. I mean it could have slept at a lower depth or sank down and swam somewhere else then floated to the top to sleep out of sight of the boat. And secondly, why does it glow only at certain times? Does it have some sort of symbiotic relationship with the glow worms where if they glow when it wants it to and then it lets them sea gunk off it’s back? That scene was so weird to me when it stopped glowing then started glowing again but didn’t attack the ship. (Oh, and I'm not so sure the captain is the smartest man to bein charge of sailing a ship).
Anyway, those were my thought before reading the subsequent chapter only to find out that our stud Ned saves the distressed duo only to pull them up on top of the metal creature that appeared to be “human constuction”. Didn’t see that coming, I thought this was just going to be a good old Moby Dick fashioned novel. Man v. Beast. Which also answers my questions about why it was sleeping so close to the top because plain metal can’t sink that low in the ocean before the pressure caves it in. (But the question of those damn glow worms still lingers to me….) AND AND to top it off after Ned acts like a juvenile in a delirious state and bangs on the metallic thing and says “open up you inhospitable rascals”, there are men inside of it the whole time?? Is this the twilight zone?
Now I’m extremely tired, so here are some closing thoughts about the book. I absolutely see how it became a classic novel with the story line developing more now and with the immense vocab. Words such as obstinate, formidable, nyctalopes and imperturbable are not seen very much in some of the more modern books I’ve read lately – just makes me feel smart to know what ¾ words mean. (BTW nyctalopes means you can’t see very well in dim light). And I hate when they refer to hanging out in the “poop” I know it’s the “poop deck” or whatever where sea men hang out, but I can’t help imagine a stinky place where men go to brood. That might be ignorant and not very mature of me but, gross.
Next review will hopefully be on Thursday or Friday. Until the, Smooth Sailing Mateys!
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjU_f4o6Jxelz9NMJUDqiu9Qp95XYxBCPv9JA3vidDEz8_AJqKMWziSFqHOrhZrptKZeON8u6MVOtPtweSlepwwNu7c5z__F5uS1cNQgWXIlP-Ua-GoAaW4BbkHFFDeykRsvvI_qVQNIjsE/s320/narwhal.png)
And this pretty much sums up why people thought the narwhal was a "Sea Unicorn" to begin with... I mean just look at that face.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
How about we make our OWN list??
Monday, October 10, 2011
THE OLD MAN AND THE SEA by Ernest Hemingway
CALL OF THE WILD by Jack London
OF MICE AND MEN by John Steinbeck
THE STRANGER by Albert Camus
A GOOD MAN IS HARD TO FIND by Flannery O’Connor
JESUS’ SON by Denis Johnson
FEAR IN LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS by Hunter S. Thompson
SLAUGHTERHOUSE FIVE by Kurt Vonnegut
TAPPING THE SOURCE by Kem Nunn
ALL THE PRETTY HORSES by Cormac McCarthy
DELIVERANCE by James Dickey
THIS SIDE OF PARADISE by F. Scott Fitzgerald
THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY by Oscar Wilde
ON THE ROAD by Jack Kerouac
BRIGHT LIGHTS, BIG CITY by Jay McInerney
NETHERLAND by Joseph O’Neill
LESS THAN ZERO by Bret Easton Ellis
LOST HORIZON by James Hilton
THEIR EYES WERE WATCHING GOD by Zora Neale Thurston
HEART OF DARKNESS by Joseph Conrad
TO THE LIGHTHOUSE by Virginia Woolf
THE LOST STEPS by Alejo Carpentier
A CLOCKWORK ORANGE by Anthony Burgess
REMAINDER by Tom McCarthy
THE CONTORTIONIST’S HANDBOOK by Craig Clevenger
THE BIRD IS GONE: A MANIFESTO by Stephen Graham Jones
THE CASTLE by Franz Kafka
LOOK HOMEWARD, ANGEL by Thomas Wolfe
ANNA KARENINA by Leo Tolstoy
INVISIBLE MAN by Ralph Ellison
APPOINTMENT IN SAMARRA by John O’Hara
THE AGE OF INNOCENCE by Edith Wharton
ALL THE KING’S MEN by Robert Penn Warren
FICCIONES by Jorge Luis Borges
100 YEARS OF SOLITUDE by Gabriel GARCIA MARQUEZ
THE SOUND AND THE FURY by William Faulkner
SOMETIMES A GREAT NOTION by Ken Kesey
CATCH-22 by Joseph Heller
HOUSE OF LEAVES by Mark Z. Danielewski
DARKNESS VISIBLE by William Styron
BELOVED by Toni Morrison
MOBY-DICK by Herman Melville
PORTRAIT OF A LADY by Henry James
The King James Bible by God
WOODCUTTERS by Thomas Bernhard
THE OBSCENE BIRD OF NIGHT by Jose Donoso
UNDER THE VOLCANO by Malcolm Lowry
CEREMONY by Leslie Marmon Silko
THE RECOGNITIONS by William Gaddis
ULYSSES by James Joyce
IN SEARCH OF LOST TIME by Marcel Proust
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
I understand why they consider this a classic already. Do you?
Let me explain. "Twenty-Thousand Leagues Under The Sea" is written in such a uniquely unexperienced voice and style. This point, in and of itself, is one to be acknowledged, because in order to grow, learn, wisen, mature, etc, (all the goals that have led me to consider this feat of reading nearly 200 classics before I die, however long it takes me) one needs to explore various mindsets and strategies. The bottom line is, it pays to be open-minded. By opening oneself up to unlimited perspectives, one allows for a broader perception of the world, and what is intellect if it isn't a more expansive overall persception?
By way of example, plaese consider for a moment the manner in which Verne writes. This can be observed simply by scanning the book's pages and noticing that dates - more often (in today's writings) written as such: "On August 30th, 2001" - are communicated most concisely as: "On 13th April, 1867." I find this strategy clever and refreshing, nonetheless interesting. Thus, if you are anything like me and unaccustomed to this style, we have already discovered a new way of being and doing something as essential as documenting dates. I feel more intellectual already!
Furthermore, I find myself smiling at several stops along this book's journey and pausing briefly to reconsider concepts I might have otherwise overlooked. The narrator states he was "well up in the subject" he was asked to research - the possibility of a mysterious monster wrecking ships. The few paragraphs in which the narrator rewrites his response to inquiries on the subject is enlighteningly eloquent and insighful. He shares, "The great depths of the ocean are entirely unknown to us. Soundings cannot reach them. What beings live, or can live, twelve or fifteen miles beneath the surface of the waters we can scarcely guess."
I think of my sister and her new husband Omar when I read over this passage. One particularly important "Aha!" moment in my life came when my sister, supported by the insights of Omar, demanded it impossible for any one person, or even any number of people working together, to determine the world's purpose. From that point, we conceded that nothing can truly be asserted, not even the notions we were indulging in at the present, without even a moderate shadow of a doubt (if one were to allow the slightest humility, at least). This quote via Verne supports that gesture. Thus, this book is considered a classic, it would seem, because it is thick with universality. As an English major/minor, universality is taught over and over to be a goal of writers if they wish to be successful. If a piece of writing includes concepts that are universal - those that can be understood and applied to various experiences in everyone's life - it will be successful, because each person that reads it will recognize truths in the writing that can be applied to her own life. This passage gifted me with such. What passages have done so for you so far?
The last sentence I will praise is this: "...and not to give too much cause for laughter to the Americans, who laugh well when they do laugh." I just love this. What an assertion! Is it true that Americans "laugh well?" Is Verne suggesting that Americans are heavily indulgent, even in such simple matters as laughter? Whatever is being suggested, I appreciate Verne's subtle confession.
Oh! And...another neat thing: the version I am reading (1973 The Felix Gluck Press) has sorted the paragraphs into columns reflective of newspaper format - three thin, justified columns per page. When studying poetry, or marketing even, you are taught the power of intention.The style of voice Verne uses in "20,000..." is similar to the style used in reporting - factual, concise and with great sentence variety. Thus, Verne's clear acknowledgement of the power of intention is to be respected.
Alright, that is all I have for tonight. I felt inspired. I hope you, too, soon feel inspired by this mountain of reads.
Day 5 into 20,000 (Leagues...that is...)
Hopefully y'all are off to a better start than I.
But can I just say, however dry this book may turn out to be, how intriguing are the words "occasionally phosphorescent??"
Here's the Wiki definition of phosphorescence:
Phosphorescence is a specific type of photoluminescence related to fluorescence. Unlike fluorescence, a phosphorescent material does not immediately re-emit the radiation it absorbs. The slower time scales of the re-emission are associated with "forbidden" energy state transitions in quantum mechanics. As these transitions occur very slowly in certain materials, absorbed radiation may be re-emitted at a lower intensity for up to several hours after the original excitation.
Commonly seen examples of phosphorescent materials are the glow-in-the-dark toys, paint, and clock dials that glow for some time after being charged with a bright light such as in any normal reading or room light. Typically the glowing then slowly fades out within minutes (or up to a few hours) in a dark room.
Yeah...THAT was dry.
So basically this creature they describe within the first few paragraphs of 2LUTS sometimes looks as though it could be radioactive?
What's your take on this unique beast of sorts?
Apparently, "it must be a narwhal," or... one of these:
Kinda cool, kinda frightening. Let's read on.