This ain't your daddy's western

I haven't ever read a western novel before but I can see one a mile away if you hand me the text. What makes No Country For Old Men so excellent is that it's not your typical western. Hell, it's not even categorized as one. There are no cowboys, no horse back riding through history. No 'how the west was won' theme. There are no stereotypes, no iconic characters and what not. If you were to read it, though - oh, you'd know what you had in your hands.

It's hidden around poetic paragraphs, sullen words. But it's there. You have yourself a western novel. You have the good guy and you have the bad guy, the desperado and the woman in distress. You have the horses and you have your shoot outs. Your rangers and your sheriffs and your outlaws.

But you won't find the novel in the western section at your local bookstore. Clearly, Llewelyn Moss, Anton Chigurh and Sheriff Bell don't have a place in the conventional western shelf. Their harrowing tale of a society changing before their very eyes deserves a place with the literary works of the greats. Because that's where author Cormac McCarthy belongs, amongst the greats.

Palahniuk left me choking on description, but gagging on lack of originality

"What a twist--" it's the constant joke on Robot Chicken, referring to writer/director M. Night Shyamalan. The ol' Hollywood Twist, the O. Henry tale. Writer's have been doing it for ages, haven't they? And we enjoy reading a novel, a short story - or watching a movie - that features such a twist; it keeps us on our toes.

The search for the elusive good book lead me to Chuck Palahniuk who has gain a fan base undoubtedly because of his novel (an its adaptation) Fight Club. Tumblr users are always ranting and raving, praising him for his originality and his ability to play the twist - oh, so you think you know the truth, well here it is buddy - GOTCHA! You didn't see it comin' did you, asshole? - but Tumblr has been wrong before.

Maybe my problem is I read the wrong book. Rather than reading the Holy Bible of Palahniuk, I instead picked up a used copy of Choke. The book revolves around the story of Victor Mancini, a sex addict, a scam artist who chokes in upscale restaurants, allowing himself to be saved by other patrons who will then feel responsible for him and inevitably sending him checks and birthday cards. His mother is slowly dying in a mental ward at St. Anthony's, while his best friend fills his house up with useless rocks in order to keep from masturbating. All in all, Victor Mancini's a pretty unlovable guy, a real asshole - someone you go up to in the streets and punch. When Dr. Paige Marshall enters his life, however, things take a turn and Victor Mancini is thrown into a world that's unfamiliar as the truth about his origins start to leak out from his mother's diary.

Unlike the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde story of Fight Club, Choke is a tour de force of a shitty character. Though I suppose that's Palahniuk's thing. While I've never read the book, I have seen the movie Fight Club and was let down by all the hype that surrounded the film. A predictable ending, unlovable, pathetic characters - the only thing that made it worth while is Ed Norton's acting.

But Choke is of a different thread. There's really no lessons learned and the obvious is stated the moment I leafed through chapter three. I've never seen the movie, but surely if I watch it now, I have a feeling that I'll be just as disappointed with it as I was with Fight Club.

However, the ride wasn't all that bad. While the plot and the "mind twisting" ending was all too predictable (I won't give out spoilers because I hate doing so) Palahniuk does have the key of description and he does so beautifully. Whether it's Nico bringing "her big white ass almost to the top of my dog and bans herself down. Up and then down. Riding her guts tight around the length of me," or how "[t]hey wanted Emily Dickinson naked in high heels with one foot on the floor and the other up on her desk, bent over and running a quill pen up the crack of her butt," the description was done with an in-your-face, punk-rock style.

Nothing too gritty for Palahniuk, it seems. So I'm torn: Is this a good book or a bad one? It's neither, really. It's just a book worth the read.

The Sentinel

"The next time you see the full moon high in the south, look carefully at its right-hand edge and let your eye travel upward along the curve of the disk. Round about two o'clock you will notice a small, dark oval: anyone with normal eyesight can find it quite easily," begins the short story "The Sentinel," which inspired Arthur C. Clarke to write the masterpiece - later adapted to the motion picture classic of the same name - 2001: A Space Odyssey.

What started as a typical lunar mission led one man to climb a plateau only to discover a relic left behind during Earth's infancy.

Written in a fashion that can only be produce by a master like Arthur C. Clarke, it's no wonder why this story launched an incredible series of overwhelming imagination that will surpass even the time line of the novels. Originally published in 10 Story Fantasy, the short story was left "in limbo for more than a decade, until Stanley Kubrick contacted me in the spring of 1964 and asked if I had any ideas for the "proverbial" (i.e. , still nonexistent) "good science movie.""

The short story can be found in the pages of The Collected Stories of Arthur C. Clarke. Or read it for free here.

3001: A Space Plot Hole

After spending 1000 years asleep - though presumed dead by his former shipmate and those in charge of his odyssey - Frank Poole wakes up in a strange new world - errm, time. How much has the human race changed in the last 1000 years? Quite a bit, but they're still awestruck by the large monolith that inhabits the Jupiter/Lucifer moon, Europa. Not to mention the two - wait, there was two monoliths on earth?! - that they have on Earth. So begins the final odyssey in the pages of 3001.

Poole is more than ready to return back to the planet where he met his doom, in hopes that the entity that Dave Bowman has become will greet him. It is after their 1000 year reunion that Bowman reveals to Frank the truth behind the monoliths uncovered on the moon and in Africa, something that threatens the human race.

Where does this take us? Well, down another path of space exploration that only Arthur C. Clarke can take us. However, the finale falls short of its predecessors - with the kind exclusion of 2061. While it's not a complete disaster, it does leave plot holes open that leaves readers scratching their hands in wonder. The one that strikes me the most is the complete clash with the ending of 2010, which flashes forward to the year 20,001. If the events were to take place in linear time, then Clarke screwed it up himself.

However, like he explain to us in 2010 and 2061, he repeats himself in the Valediction essay at the end of 3001: "Just as 2010: Odyssey Two was not a direct sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey, so this book is not a linear sequel to 2010. They must all be considered as variations on the same theme, involving many of the same characters and situations, but not necessarily happening in the same universe." Just like the last two sequels, the final odyssey is far from linear to 2061 in the sense that we learned that Heywood Floyd was also taken apart (much in the same sense that Bowman and Hal - now called Halman in the pages of 3001 - were taken apart, leaving behind just their consciousness. However, Floyd only graces the pages on this final chapter through video recordings and topics of conversation. Otherwise, he is completely left out of the mix.

It's hard to judge the book as a sequel as the author takes the case that it's not linear and shouldn't be read as such. Clarke still possess the power of creating a future - a world - where it all seems possible to us 1000 years in the past, something he never failed to provide to us in the series, even though 2061 seemed to flop miserably. It's a power, I hope, that graces his other novels (which I plan to read in the future). A power very little writers of the genre possess.

2061: A Space Blunder

I'm slightly crestfallen with this sequel to 2001 and 2010. It starts off with Heywood Floyd, a man who is 103 years old, passing an physical exam in order to ride aboard the spaceship Universe which will rendezvous with Halley's Comet. Meanwhile, his grandson Chris (named after his father who was just a child in 2010), is aboard the sister ship, Galaxy. When the second ship is hijacked, the crew and passengers of Universe rush out to the Lucifer system to rescue Galaxy which has landed on the forbidden planet of Europa.

Much things have changed in the last 50 years since the new sun was created, one that leaves you wondering if evolution can take place that quickly.

Unlike with the previous parts, Arthur C. Clarke seemed to have lost his edge. Before I was glued to my seat, turning page after page of the novel. It was only through the sheer fact that I promised myself that I'd read all parts to the Space Odyssey series that I continued onward (I have 3001 sitting on my desk as we speak, looking straight up at me as if mocking me profusely).

The entity that was once Dave Bowman and the consciousness that was once Hal, the computer from the ship Discovery, only present themselves at the end of the novel, which was a good decision. How much more of that pair can we possibly take? However, Heywood Floyd is also split in two, which is as much as a spoiler as you'll get from me.

I understand greatly that the character could not be used again in a later sequel, what he was doing here was puzzling enough but that plot hole was quickly sealed with the fact that he spent the last years of his life in space and suspended animation.

There were even parts of the book that felt like bad humor, such as the whole Beatles reference. Okay, I understand that the Beatles may not be so popular in the last half of this century - and that's a possibility I hope not to live to see.

The writing also seems like something poured over the weekend with a large amount of coffee - though I'd imagine that would be greatly disorganized and this at least followed some structure. Nevertheless, my faith in Arthur C. Clarke will not die with a bad sequel. The fact that he has proven to write two pieces that I instantly fell in love with is proof enough for me that the man has some talent. Let's just hope for my sake that his final chapter of the Space Odyssey series goes over well.

2010: Odyssey Two

I was disenchanted when I started reading 2010: Odyssey Two as it read as a sequel not the the novel 2001: A Space Odyssey but to the film of the same title. While I've seen the film, 2010, the novel wasn't too spoiled for me. Obviously, the detail is fuller.

Nine years after the mishap aboard Discovery, Soviet and American explorers return the abandoned space ship to recover any information that might be used to conclude just what happened to the Hal 9000 unit, and what became of the spaceman, David Bowman. Most of all, to figure out the origins of the huge monolith.

Upon their race to Jupiter, a Chinese space ship launches toward their destination, intending to get their before their Soviet and American counterparts. Upon Europa, where the Chinese ship lands upon, an awesome discovery is made - there is life upon the cold, frozen moon of Jupiter. The dangers that lie for the ship and its crew is made apparent.

Aboard the of the Soviet ship, Alexei Leonov, the crew makes all efforts of uncovering the truth about the monolith and Discovery; meanwhile, the entity that was once David Bowman is headed toward Earth on a mission.

Like the novel before it, 2010, is cleverly written and author Arthur C. Clarke has once again proven he is the master of his genre. Creating well rounded characters and a worlds that surpass imagination. The novel never fails to keep you glued to pages, anticipating the next step toward the discovery of our origins.

When Reading Becomes Writing

I completed the final revision "The Poet Story," which is now called "Digging Graves." Just because I'm done with the revision, doesn't meant that heavy editing is also finished. Every word must serve a purpose and if something stalls the flow of the story, it must be cut.

I'm not sure how much paper and ink I wasted printing several copies of the revised version for editing process - while I can type a story on a computer, I cannot for the life of me revise and edit one while I'm staring at a screen. The first version I printed out was the second revision. I worked on a third and that was printed out as well. When the fourth came, I was happy with the story. I just need to smooth out the kinks and then edit the document and print again. This time, hopefully, I catch all my mistakes.

After seeing the third version of the story marked in red ink, my mother asked if all those books I've read about writing were the cause of it. I told it was the cause of reading most of my life. If I didn't read so much, I would still be romanticizing how easy writing is.

Just for the record, blog posts rarely get a rough draft. Rarely.

Too Many Books

Is there really such a thing as too many books? I didn't think so. It started with me looking through Half.com for a copy of The New New Journalism, which I found for only $0.75 plus shipping, so it came to be a little over $4.

I continued my search the rest of Arthur C. Clarke's Odyssey series, but no luck at Hastings or anywhere else for that matter. I even attempted Barnes & Noble, but nada - though they had another copy of a book by him - as did Hastings - however, not the books I am looking for. Today, I purchased them for $8 for both of them, used.

Clarke's writing has been able to do something most science fiction author's have failed - keep me interested. I don't want to stick my literary nose up in the sky, but let's face it: College killed the genre for me. The only other writer was Heinlein, though I've only been able to read his Stranger in a Strange Land.

Also purchased, but not hunted for, was Chuch Palahniuk's novel, Choke. Hastings had several of his novels on their used shelves, though I picked this one for unknown reasons. It was one part influence by Tumblr and one part influence by Esmer, a friend of mine and Jyg's. I fear that the book will not be a hit with me because of the author's teenage fan base, though I've been wrong before.

Another hunt also ended yesterday. I finally laid my hands upon a copy of Tim O'Brien's war classic, The Things They Carried. Hastings had it listed at value price, paying only $10 rather than the $15. Not a big deal, I know, but it was cheaper and I got to keep the five for another hunt - I can't believe how unbelievably cheap that makes me sound.

So what's the next hunt? I'm searching for a used copy/value priced edition of Belly Off! Diet.

In other news: I purchased the Watchmen: Director's Cut DVD. While several comic nerds and impatient nonthinkers were displeased with the movie, I enjoyed it. I'll be first to admit that I was nearly pissing my pants to watch the Director's Cut because I anticipated so much from the movie. Did I care it was going to exceed three hours - crap no! However, I was disappointed when I tore off the plastic wrapping, popped open the DVD case to see an ad for The Watchmen Ultimate Collector's Edition due in December of this year. The set contains five discs, The Director's Cut with Tales of the Black Freighter woven in, new commentary by Dave Gibbons and director Zack Synder, over two hours bonus content, which includes Hollis Mason's Tell All, Under the Hood and the complete Watchmen Motion Comics! I know, it's a huge fuck you, courtesy of Warner and Paramount.

Kindle burns out

I must have told this story several times. It was 2005 and I was in the office of my creative writing professor when he asks me what I think about the book. Not a specific book, but all books. Has the printed word now become a thing of the past? With the birth of e-books, has the old fashion shelf fillers met their match? My answer was quick, "No."

Books cannot die as long as there are true English majors. The ones who write on the margins, the ones who litter the pages with sticky notes with thoughts and allusions. Those who love the scent of an old book and lust for the scent of a new one. Those who go as far as dumpster diving to get their hands on a discarded first edition. As long as those people exist, the printed word - as books are concerned, sorry journalists - will never cease to exist.

Not too long after, Kindle was announced and a certain dread that I had been wrong crept up my spine. Books were not being fed through to a machine that was light weight and portable. And not just one book, but several books. So I sat and waited for the end to come near.

Yesterday, Monica sent me a link telling me the new found woes of Kindle users. Books they had paid for and thought were theirs had mysteriously vanished. The cause of this? Amazon bend backwards once again to fulfill the needs of certain publishers. It wasn't just the books that vanished, but one 17-year-old also lost the annotations he had made for the George Orwell classic, 1984.

Thankfully, Amazon has proven that the book's end is not as near as we thought. As long as their are greedy publishers in the world, books are here to stay. (Unless Amazon decides to invade our hopes and steal copies of books we bought. That would just be crazy.)

2009: A Space Odyssey reading

Last week, I went hunting for 2001: A Space Odyssey, a book that inspired the Stanley Kubrick classic. I just picked up its sequel and started reading. This novel also spawned the Peter Hyams' film sequel, which starred Roy Scheider and John Lithgow.

I've never been one to compare novels to their film adaptations because I believe each should be able to stand alone. I do, however, dislike it when a film deviates greatly from its novel successor (e.g. Michael Crichton's The Lost World was written because Hollywood pressured him to write a sequel. The film of the same title, however, had little resemblance to the novel as the plot, characters and theme were changed greatly, leaving in question why they just didn't make a sequel on their own, rather than forcing him into writing on for them).

But in the case of 2001, the film did motivate me to read the novel. I'm also glad that I did. While the film adaptation isn't hard to follow - unless you're one who is bored of monotony, as the film contains several scenes of the man just floating around to classical music, a rather simple description - reading the novel has helped shed a light upon the scenes that lost me. Arthur C. Clarke is probably one of the greatest writers that the Science Fiction genre has to offer. He created a dark, yet insightful, tale of man's journey into the unknown, on a never ending question of our origin.

Whether your a creationist, or an evolution-conspiracy theorist, you can understand the problems that might arise in our question to seek out the truth of our "creation." How did man go from a simple ape-man or a grain of sand to the explorers of other worlds? Who first motivated us to pick up that stone and use it as a tool in order to survive? Perhaps some questions should never be answered until we are ready. Or perhaps, we'll never be ready and the monolith only enables us to take in the cosmic intelligence, our origin - the origins of several species.

Graphic Novel Search

I've been watching the Spider-Man trilogy; mostly because I learned there are rumors of a fourth, but especially because I'm a nerd. Watching superhero movies and reading 2001: A Space Odyssey, have made me long for a graphic novel. I'm not sure what, or if I want to read something sci fi/superhero, or something more realistic and down to earth.

I have a few here at the house, but I've read them before. Batman and Watchmen, Sand Man and indie press graphic novels. I'm looking for something new, something I've never bothered with in the past. The nerd in me craves the mixture of literature and art.

Sci-Fi and War Novel Hunt

Hunt: In search for The Things They Carried, 2001: A Space Odyssey, 2010: Odyssey Two and 3001: The Final Odyssey.
Partner: Mother
Location: Hastings, 4500 N. 10th St McAllen, TX
Success: 1/2
Cost: $19.99

Even though I mentioned going to Hastings to purchase 2001: A Space Odyssey, 2010: Odyssey Two and 3001: The Final Odyssey, I thought that I should at least look for The Things They Carried because they normally have it in stock, which they did but not used. A few months back, I put off buying a used copy of the war fiction because I didn't know if I wanted to read it. Recently, however, the novel has been everywhere, mentioned in a few blogs that I read. I blew my chance with that used copy and today the books were down to only two copies left. If worse comes to worse, I'll purchase the book at a college bookstore, hopefully finding a cheap used copy there as well.

As for the three copies of the Space Odyssey series, only two were left - 2001 & 2010. Both were used softcover - 2001 cost $6.99 and 2010 cost $7.49. I suppose I'll look for 2061 and 3001 at Books 'n' Things or online.

Because I originally thought my success rate was going to be 3/4 - I already knew that finding a used copy of The Things They Carried wouldn't be in stock - I was let down when 3001 was swiped. However, as we ventured toward check out I saw a large box with several copies of different books. One of which was a softcover of William Gibson's Spook Country for only $3.99. Just the other week, I saw a hardcover at Barnes & Noble for $6.99 (online for only $3.99!), new. I love value books - I love used books, too, but not as much as value books which are new.

Along with the novels, I also picked up a lemonade, some pin-back buttons for my messenger bag and some for Izzy, whose birthday is in two weeks. I'm also thinking of looking for a book she was interested in. 12-year-olds are so different today than they were when I was one. The grand total for everything purchased was $29.38. Three books for under 30 bucks (really, under 20 - as noted above). What an awesome day!