From Small World Reads (via Semicolon) I learned that Joanna at Lost in a Good Story is hosting The New Classics Challenge and it sounds wonderful! It's all based on Entertainment Weekly's list of new classics - which is an odd list to say the least - but it's all in good fun and who can argue with picking bunches of books to read and talk/write about, right?!

The Rules:

1. Copy the list, post it and bold the titles that you have already read.
   
2. Choose at least 6 other books from the list; read and review them between 8/1/2008 and 1/31/2009.
   
3. Go back to Lost in a Good Story and post links to your reviews.
   
4. In January 2009, cast your vote for which one of the 100 books on the list is your favorite (and write a post on why). The winning book will be sent to a lucky winner chosen by the scientific method favored here in the blogosphere, i.e. names in a hat.
   
5. Have fun! :-)

The List
Bolded titles I've already read; I've asterisked ones I thought were especially good.
Orange titles are on my list for the Challenge.
1. The Road , Cormac McCarthy (2006)
2. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, J.K. Rowling (2000)
3. Beloved, Toni Morrison (1987)
4. The Liars' Club, Mary Karr (1995)
5. American Pastoral, Philip Roth (1997)
6. Mystic River, Dennis Lehane (2001)
7. Maus, Art Spiegelman (1986/1991)
8. Selected Stories, Alice Munro (1996)
9. Cold Mountain, Charles Frazier (1997)
10. The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle, Haruki Murakami (1997)
11. Into Thin Air, Jon Krakauer (1997)
12. Blindness, José Saramago (1998)
13. Watchmen, Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons (1986-87)
R4. Black Water, Joyce Carol Oates (1992)
15. A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius, Dave Eggers (2000)
16. The Handmaid's Tale, Margaret Atwood (1986)
17. Love in the Time of Cholera, Gabriel García Márquez (1988)
18. Rabbit at Rest, John Updike (1990)
19. On Beauty, Zadie Smith (2005)
20. Bridget Jones's Diary, Helen Fielding (1998)
21. On Writing, Stephen King (2000)
22. The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao, Junot Díaz (2007)
23. The Ghost Road, Pat Barker (1996)
24. Lonesome Dove, Larry McMurtry (1985)
25. The Joy Luck Club, Amy Tan (1989)
26. Neuromancer, William Gibson (1984)
27. Possession, A.S. Byatt (1990)
28. Naked, David Sedaris (1997)
29. Bel Canto, Anne Patchett (2001)
30. Case Histories, Kate Atkinson (2004)
31. The Things They Carried, Tim O'Brien (1990)
32. Parting the Waters, Taylor Branch (1988)
33. The Year of Magical Thinking, Joan Didion (2005)
34. The Lovely Bones, Alice Sebold (2002)
35. The Line of Beauty, Alan Hollinghurst (2004)
36. Angela's Ashes, Frank McCourt (1996)
37. Persepolis, Marjane Satrapi (2003)
38. Birds of America, Lorrie Moore (1998)
39. Interpreter of Maladies, Jhumpa Lahiri (2000)
40. His Dark Materials, Philip Pullman (1995-2000)
*41. The House on Mango Street, Sandra Cisneros (1984)
42. LaBrava, Elmore Leonard (1983)
43. Borrowed Time, Paul Monette (1988)
44. Praying for Sheetrock, Melissa Fay Greene (1991)
45. Eva Luna, Isabel Allende (1988)
46. Sandman, Neil Gaiman (1988-1996)
*47. World's Fair, E.L. Doctorow (1985)
48. The Poisonwood Bible, Barbara Kingsolver (1998)
49. Clockers, Richard Price (1992)
50. The Corrections, Jonathan Franzen (2001)
51. The Journalist and the Murderer, Janet Malcom (1990)
52. Waiting to Exhale, Terry McMillan (1992)
53. The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay, Michael Chabon (2000)
54. Jimmy Corrigan, Chris Ware (2000)
*55. The Glass Castle, Jeannette Walls (2006)
56. The Night Manager, John le Carré (1993)
*57. The Bonfire of the Vanities, Tom Wolfe (1987)
58. Drop City, TC Boyle (2003)
59. Krik? Krak! Edwidge Danticat (1995)
60. Nickel & Dimed, Barbara Ehrenreich (2001)
61. Money, Martin Amis (1985)
62. Last Train To Memphis, Peter Guralnick (1994)
63. Pastoralia, George Saunders (2000)
64. Underworld, Don DeLillo (1997)
R65. The Giver, Lois Lowry (1993)
66. A Supposedly Fun Thing I’ll Never Do Again, David Foster Wallace (1997)
67. The Kite Runner, Khaled Hosseini (2003)
68. Fun Home, Alison Bechdel (2006)
69. Secret History, Donna Tartt (1992)
70. Cloud Atlas, David Mitchell (2004)
71. The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down, Ann Fadiman (1997)
72. The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, Mark Haddon (2003)
73. A Prayer for Owen Meany, John Irving (1989)
74. Friday Night Lights, H.G. Bissinger (1990)
75. Cathedral, Raymond Carver (1983)
76. A Sight for Sore Eyes, Ruth Rendell (1998)
77. The Remains of the Day, Kazuo Ishiguro (1989)
78. Eat, Pray, Love, Elizabeth Gilbert (2006)
79. The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell (2000)
80. Bright Lights, Big City, Jay McInerney (1984)
81. Backlash, Susan Faludi (1991)
82. Atonement, Ian McEwan (2002)
83. The Stone Diaries, Carol Shields (1994)
84. Holes, Louis Sachar (1998)
85. Gilead, Marilynne Robinson (2004)
86. And the Band Played On, Randy Shilts (1987)
87. The Ruins, Scott Smith (2006)
*88. High Fidelity, Nick Hornby (1995)
89. Close Range, Annie Proulx (1999)
90. Comfort Me With Apples, Ruth Reichl (2001)
91. Random Family, Adrian Nicole LeBlanc (2003)
92. Presumed Innocent, Scott Turow (1987)
93. A Thousand Acres, Jane Smiley (1991)
94. Fast Food Nation, Eric Schlosser (2001)
95. Kaaterskill Falls, Allegra Goodman (1998)
96. The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown (2003)
97. Jesus’ Son, Denis Johnson (1992)
98. The Predators' Ball, Connie Bruck (1988)
99. Practical Magic, Alice Hoffman (1995)
100. America (the Book), Jon Stewart/Daily Show (2004)

Hope some of my own rare readers (as Alan would say) will join me.

Labels: blogs (mine), blogs (others'), books, reading, writing

Two discoveries:
-Beatrix Potter means more to the general public than I thought
and
-Google has a soul or at least whoever attends to their daily logo does.

Google honored her with this charming logo yesterday, her 166th.

Labels: fun, good people, writing

Beatrice Wood was born on March 3, 1893 and died 105 years later, in 1998. She lives on to those of us who know about her because of her brilliant art but perhaps even more importanlty because of her playful and exhuberant joy in living. When asked the secret of her live and longevity, her answer was “art, books, chocolates and young men.”

Today is the 111th birthday of Marcel Duchamp, he of Nude Descending a Staircase (on left) and that wild and crazy art style now as cubism.

When I saw that it is his anniversary today, I was reminded of Beatrice Wood who was one of his closest friends and is one of the people I most admire. It is one of my huge regrets that I never met her but I hope to emulate her sense of wonder and joy at everything.

Labels: art, good people, reflections

Thanks to a comment from prolific blogger friend Dustbury about my post on the Kennedy-Nixon debates and the effect of Nixon's discomfort that resulted in a sweaty upper lip, I've been thinking about the effect that television will have on this year's election.  I wonder what impact it would have were we all suddenly required simply to listen to Obama and McCain without seeing them?  I've tried listening with my eyes shut and I have to say that I don't like either of them that way.  Obama sounds too rehearsed and McCain sounds too edgy.  On the other hand, if how a candidate looks on television is irrelevant, presumably so are their tones of voice.  I suppose what they write could be a valid measure of the men but there are ghostwriters these days and Obama is known to be more facile with the pen/keyboard anyway.  I still don't know what one is supposed to use to measure and/or judge these two against each other.

Labels: 2008 election, current events, tv

Remember the Kennedy-Nixon debates? No, of course few people still alive remember them (just kidding). But seriously, if you saw them, you probably remember that Nixon's upper lip often glistened with droplets of sweat and his eyes shifted around as he made his assertions. He may have been lucid and possibly even correct but it didn't matter because his appearance was so shaky. Kennedy, on the other hand, was the picture-perfect image of a relaxed and confident alpha male. It also didn't particularly matter what he said - he could have been illucid and downright wrong - because he was cool, calm and collected.

These days we have McCain and Obama facing off. No debates yet presumably since they're going to await official nomination before taking each other on directly. We do have numerous occasions to see them, however and, as this article points out, Obama appears laid-back and a bit bemused by the whole thing while McCain seems tense and eager to get away. I think that's true although I'm not sure whether the electorate will make its selection based on how relaxed a future president seems to be. And I wonder whether comfort in front of a crowd has anything to do with leadership skill or decision-making? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Maybe it's irrelevant. I'm guessing people tend to vote for the person who makes them feel good about themselves. Is that the hard-nosed guy even if he's uncomfortable talking to us or is it the meta-politician guy who is comfortable talking to us but may not be able to state very many of his convictions or plans? Darned if I know, at least so far.

Labels: 2008 election, people, tv

When are public figures going to ingest thoroughly that the modern media will not let anyone get away with putting oneself forward as one kind of person while actually being another? It's taken a while despite years of rumors but I feel some relief to know that John Edwards' glib, smarmy, slick surface - which gave many of us a feeling of being sold a bill of goods, as they say - turns out indeed to be false. He's not, after all, the devoted husband and unwaveringly loyal peachy keen guy he said he was. All those pontifications about helping your neighbor and the glory of the common man were the bunch of hogwash they felt like. I don't personally care if he's had a million affairs but it's pretty rotten to Elizabeth (although yes it is her problem and not ours). What it also is, however, is yet another example of a politician with two disconnected sides of a mouth and no way for us to know which side to trust, if either. And that is the important reason any of us should care.

Labels: disappointments, politics

I had the opportunity to attend a meeting about Office 2007 that I anticipated as being useful but not necessarily anything more.  I was pleased however that I allowed myself to close my mind's eye and my preconceptions enough to jump off the end of the conceptual diving board because I found that I quite like the new place.  I'll write more about it when I have more than a moment but the gist is that the underlying xml format seems to provide hitherto unknown transparency and clarity as well as potential for ease of use as well as complexity of design, if you can believe it.  At first glance it seems to restrict users and perhaps inhibit creativity but it actually expands the possibilities exponentially.  It's quite exciting.  More anon.

Labels: computers, reflections

Happy 110th to Alexander Calder. What a wonderful addition he was to the world.

Labels: art, beauty, good people

Sometimes I think Obama isn't paying attention to the whole idea of what it means to be a public figure.  Why would he refuse a seat on his plane to the New Yorker writer??  (Article here.)  Okay, obviously I know the answer but it's another "gee I wish it wasn't like this" moment with him.

With all the vitriol and anger shoveled at him, there's never been a report that GWB refused a seat to a newsperson or even declined to answer anyone at a news conference, no matter what they had written or said about him elsewhere.  Can you imagine the reaction if he had done?!

Labels: 2008 election, silliness

Nice piece on the awesome, wonderful, moody, melodious, verbal Leonard Cohen here, a pleasantly written consideration of his philosophical, emotional and musical history.

Labels: music, reflections

Andrew Sullivan's prose always soothes my reading nerves frayed from reading too much "clever" reportage that's convoluted and neither particularly clever nor insightful and often misleading or packed with messages from an agenda.  So now I feel much better about the 11/4/08 election.  In an article in today's London Times, he says the differences between GWB, McCain and Obama are really a "question of presidential temperament" more than policy or anything they might actually do.

There is little doubt that a President McCain would have more hawkish instincts, would be quicker on the trigger than the cool, conciliatory Obama. However, Obama’s readiness to use military force in Pakistan and commitment to the Afghan war does not bespeak a Jimmy Carter-style liberalism either.

They're both too political and disingenuous for my taste but I suppose that's an inevitable part of the make-up of a person who's willing to run for the office.  We aren't marrying the guy after all.

Labels: 2008 election, optimism, reflections, writing

I'm not sure if I like the barrage of images but maybe I do. I definitely like the hover-and-read feature. Newser.com is an interesting development in news sites and at least it makes a distinction between hard and soft news and, more importantly, allows you to select your own percentage of hard and soft. Not have to read about Ben Affleck having a baby in the same breath as economic issues would be refreshing. Of course one could probably make a case for all news being essentially entertainment but that would be a different subject. Anyway, newser seems worth a try.

Labels: current events, people, politics, technology, websites

Fun article on the history of computers here.  It's definitely an idiosyncratic list and in a quirky order and a tad Apple heavy, but it's fun to look at them.  Made me feel awfully cutting edge since I knew about them all, too, I must add.

Labels: modern culture, technology

Very cool website, Wine Library, which conveys at least some of the energy and enthusiasm of its spokesperson, Gary Vaynerchuk (quite a name).  I'm going to buy the $4 Big Moose Red today that he recommends really highly and I'll report on how it is.  Wouldn't it be nifty if it's pleasant and not like ripple or something. . . .

Labels: fun, wine

I keep holding out hope that Obama will be a rational and calm leader. For one thing, many of the people who dismiss him sound petty and whiny, and for another I kind of like the idea of him. But ideas and reality are not necessarily the same, are they? And every now and then he says or does something that send little shivers of alarm up my antennae.

There was the almost-St.-Peter-like-I-never-heard-anything interview about Jeremiah Wright, with Anderson Cooper. As if you'd never know what your closest friend and mentor was really all about in twenty years. The Nile is in fact only a river in Egypt, after all.

Now there's this noise about the press should leave his wife alone. Excuse me? It bothers me more every time I think about it. Partly it's just silly but it makes me wonder what reality he's living in.

I agree that it's perfectly reasonable for a public figure to ask that his or her children be left out of the coverage. In fact the press has been good about it, cover (well, lack of coverage) of Amy Carter and both Bush girls - before they became adults - being proof. But Obama handed his two daughters out for a press interview the other day. Didn't that seem odd in itself? I mean, first he says "hands off my wife and kids" and then suddenly it's "here, talk to the girls." And just when you shrug and figure no one's consistent but obviously he's loosening up a little, he flips out when Fox's Sean Hannity talked negatively about Michelle.

But how can he say "hands off Michelle" with a straight face. Why should his wife be protected from the clutches of media coverage? What makes her more delicate than anyone else? None of the other candidates ask for special treatment for their spouses, goodness knows. Cindy McCain's hair and clothes and medical history are fair game as is Bill Clinton though I suppose his status as a former president lets him in for more than as a spouse. Laura Bush was examined in every petty detail and goodness knows Jackie Kennedy may have gotten more publicity than her husband. Lady Bird wasn't immune from press attention and may actually have softened Johnson's legacy. The list goes on and on. And anyway, Michelle plopped herself right into the fray by giving speeches on political subjects rather than on flowers or statues and other niceties.

Doesn't everyone know that a political campaign is a scorching free-for-all where many people get seriously burned? Obama had to know, especially after the primaries and recent previous elections. And he cannot seriously or honestly have thought the campaign - let alone the presidency itself - would be only about him and his thoughts. Therefore one has to wonder whether there's something about his wife that he wants to hide. Otherwise, I have to ask, what the heck is up with him?

Labels: 2008 election, good people

Happy 3rd blogiversary to Laura! The 6th was Laura's own birthday and apparently today is her blog's. She's definitely one of the good guys, always articulate and verbal, always fun, informative and interesting to read. She thinks and writes with a vibrant combination of rationality, emotion and sense and covers a wide variety of subjects in the process so visiting her blog is like visiting with a friend. Which is why I often bring a cup of coffee! Besides, anyone who loves old movies and Disneyland as much as she does must be seriously okay.

Labels: anniversaries, blogs (others'), good people

There's a discussion of yesterday morning's press conference over at The Texas Scribbler. Aside from what was said, which was interesting - even occasionally inspiring - and can/should be read in its entirety here, TTS was struck by the difference between the actual transcript and how people have reacted to what Bush said. (I especially loved his comment that "politics is just choking good sense." I really wonder what things would be like if he were able to effectuate the ideas he has instead of being blocked at every turn. Couldn't be much worse, could it?)

This is something I have noticed many times during Bush's tenure. His actual words are often smart and his exchanges with reporters are often chatty and friendly, but the reports after the fact talk only about gaffs and tension.

To that point, I watched a Rose Garden press conference a while ago. For over an hour I saw several verbal, smart, relaxed and interesting people talk with Bush who was also verbal, smart, relaxed and interesting. I had meant to have it on as background to my knitting but ended up watching intently because there were so many engaging expressions on everyones' faces during the conversations between the reporters and the President. Plus, I was fascinated to observe that they were in fact conversing, not attacking at all. Imagine my astonishment the next day when I read newspaper and blog reports about what a smirky nasty business it had all been. I couldn't figure out what they were talking about and even wondered fleetingly if there had been two press conferences that day covering the same exact subjects. After all, I'd seen and heard it myself and no one, not one person there, either reporter or chief executive, smirked or put anyone down or said anything stupid or disparaging. Quite thoroughly the contrary.

As a result, I concluded that (a) BDS is a far more interfering block than rose-colored glasses and (b) many media presenters and bloggers either have BDS or want to put things in terrible light even if it distorts what actually occurred.

Maybe the editors and executives who decide what will appear and be heard cannot cope with the fact that nothing has shaken Bush one bit from his total belief in liberty and his trust in individuals' strength and intelligence.

Labels: gwb, people, reflections, writing

Apparently Brit Hume will cut back to approximately one hundred on-air hours a year, becoming a senior political analyst, anchor for special events and probably a sort of eminence gris. All this to happen after the upcoming elections (h/t Laura, story here).

Rats. That's what I have to say about this. Rats. Hume is that rare animal, an on-air commentator who combines intelligence with calmness and wit (not jokiness, real wit). Many commentators and so-called pundits like to sound smart but say ridiculous things or make it clear they don't know much about what they're discussing. Some smile at odd, inappropriate times (this is particularly true of CNN anchors, it seems to me). Some screech and holler as if loudness will compensate for thin erudition. We can only hope that Brit can't really stay away and/or that someone very much like him is waiting in the wings.

Labels: intelligence, people, tv

Apparently (h/t Missy) July 6th was Laura's birthday - HAPPY BIRTHDAY, if nine days late. She shares the day with GWB and a good friend of mine who weaves and the Dalai Lama (and a whole host of interesting people, as a matter of fact).

The day before it was the 4th birthday of one of T2CGITW. I do not know how that is at all possible but she is the cat's meow and all that.

It was a weekend for good people.

Labels: anniversaries, family

I read this article and suspect the real issue is that every now and then Blogger's mechanics just don't work very well. I've been snagged myself, though not in a long while, thank goodness. The annoyance about them is that there are so many users that sometimes they really can't handle it - and their customer service is awful as far as responding to questions or cries for help. Also it's owned by Google now and there are always concerns when something is used by outspoken individuals but run by people in a large company with goals that may be rubbed the wrong way by the aforementioned users. Given the huge number of users, however, my guess is that many more would have been disabled if it had really been intentional, but I may be wrong.

Main and awesome point for me staying is that Blogger is free (!) and provides those of us who want one, a place to learn tons by messing around with html and web design, without any ifs ands or buts.

Labels: blogs (mine), blogs (others'), politics, web

This article is so right-on that I don't want to waste any time restating it. Just recommend reading it. His thoughts are directed to blacks who are perhaps thrown off balance by Obama's possible/probable power position. The discomfort, he says, is because "the first stirrings of a new consensus . . . [place] more emphasis on a public discussion of personal responsibility than on protest" and protest is what is more accustomed and familiar. In other words, what "makes us uncomfortable and disoriented [is] the prospect that one of us might soon be in charge of trying to fix this mess instead of simply complaining about it. " But read the whole piece. Definitely worth thinking about.

Labels: 2008 election, reflections

I've been reading various blogs and news sites and websites, and the comments are unbelievably strange. What's everyone so afraid of that they're so angry about/at Obama? What difference does it make that his background is a great big mishmosh? It's not as if anyone who's been president in the last fifty years or so has been such a paragon of virtue and marvelous character. Besides, the president's main role is to foster an atmosphere. There's a chance that Obama would engender a positive mood, a sense of revival and positive energy, after all.

Labels: 2008 election, people, reflections

In one of those fortuitous click-throughs that happens when browsing blogs, I came upon Postcard from Provence. This amazing site is Julian Merrow-Smith's daily painting diary. He paints pottery, natural objects, found treasures, landscapes, etc. near his home in the South of France. His work is really lovely, a style you don't see much any more. His paintings are for sale by auction on the site (clever idea!).

Labels: art, blogs (others'), great link(s)

Passing it on from D.S. and with thanks also to Rene's Apple whence it originated: Sergei Nakariakov, playing Bach's "Air on the G String", on fluegelhorn.



One of my favorite pieces and so beautifully played. Have a wonderful day.

Update. Here's a 7+ minute clip of him playing part one of Mozart's KV495 for horn and orchestra. It's as mellow as the Bach but longer. And it's astonishing to hear a flugglehorn so beautiful, for those of us who remember it from jokes more than beauty.

Labels: blogs (others'), great link(s), music, youtube

According to an internet news site, "…”American Idol” star Fantasia has been dumped by Simon Fuller’s 19 Entertainment as a management client." The phrase "management client" is germane because apparently she's "still signed to 19 Records and BMG but she needs some sophisticated and caring help to guide her career." I guess that red-haired, almost-bare bottoms, unbelievably shrieky fiasco during the American Idol finals was as appalling close up as it was on screen.

Labels: a.i., ridiculousness

There sure is a lot of buzz about Wesley Clark's comments about John McCain. And certainly everyone feels only profound respect for a man who willingly endured more than five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. His patriotism and sense of duty are beyond reproach and hugely admirable. His personal stamina and interior strength must be enormous, too. Many survive such arduous torture but few (or perhaps none) are unscathed.

One famous Auschwitz survivor, Bruno Bettelheim, developed methodologies for treating disturbed and depressed children by using magic and fantasy, among other things. His writings are full of joy, so much so that the very mention of his name makes one feel upbeat and positive. Even so, forty years after the war, he became deeply depressed and eventually committed suicide. The effects of lengthy solitary confinement do not stop when physical freedom resumes.

So yes I have concerns about McCain. I'm not sure that someone who endured torture and years of solitary confinement should be put into one of the most pressured jobs in the world. Nor am I sure why some draw an equal sign between "deeply loyal soldier" and "president of the country." Please understand that I'm not questioning his service or his character; I'm only trying to understand the basis for the supposed continuum from soldier to prisoner to president.

Labels: 2008 election, reflections

Time magazine has compiled a list of 50 fabulous websites. I liked them all especially these:

Gas Buddy (time-tested and VERY helpful)
Howcast (much better than others like it)
Itotallylikeloveit (this is a delight)
Omiru (amazing, fun and useful)
Wikitravel (I basically am not a fan of wikis (topic for another day) but this is terrific)
Health.com (much better tone and therefore more useful (to me anyway) than the others)
Serious eats (Mario Vitali and lots of interesting stuff)
Mapjack (digital mapping made fun and visually appealing)
Mint (financial planning/scheduling made fun)
Nymbler (names made wild and crazy)
Picnik (photo editing gone easy as well as wild and crazy)
SearchMe (results of searching moving to a new level)
Someecards (not your average card shop, not even average e-card shop)
WebSudoku (no need for explanations)
CarbonRally (either silly or awesome, not sure yet)
Colourlovers (awesome)
FreeRice (tons of fun, instructional AND worthwhile, all in one!)
Kiva - and some others (personal loaning sites, very interesting and useful)
Petfinder (holy cow, I mean mackerel, I mean . . .)

Enjoy!!

Labels: blogs (others'), good ideas, great link(s), websites