READIN

Tuesday, March second, 2004

I finished the first part of Don Quixote last night. What I want to say about the book is that it is funny and clever but not satisfying. And that the reason for this is, the reader is given no chance to get to know the characters as humans. (Funny, this is the same thing I just said about "The Dreamer" -- I don't know if that makes my saying it more or less trustworthy...) I do not want to paint myself into a corner where the only thing I can appreciate is modern novels. And I don't really thing that's what is going on: I can think of two works I love (and find satisfying) straight off the bat, Iliad and Beowulf, which do not have human characters in the sense I have been talking about; I'm sure there would be many more if I took some time to dig through my memory. Why is it that these work? Can I shift my expectations of Don Quixote to make myself enjoy it more?

posted morning of March second, 2004: Respond
➳ More posts about Don Quixote

Last night we went to the movies. None of our first choices were playing and we ended up seeing "The Dreamer" -- an excellent choice as it turned out. Now my main comment about the movie is a criticism but I want to be clear -- this movie is close to perfect. Its big failing is lack of character development, which I attribute to a poorly written script. I think this precise story, and all of the events in it, could have added up to something fantastic if the writers had just devoted themselves to really creating full, real people in the roles rather than just treating them as sort of archetypes and trusting the audience to identify with characters already existing in our heads.

Update: Oh yeah, and here's what was good about the movie: Cinematography, soundtrack, acting -- these three elements were just stellar -- a good, engaging story; and lovely, sexy nudity.

posted morning of March second, 2004: Respond
➳ More posts about The Movies

Sunday, February 29th, 2004

Don Quixote, chapter L: the story of Part I is drawing to a close and I am a bit troubled. I have been appreciating the narrative gymnastics and the wry wit; but I don't think any of the characters have emerged over these 450 pages as much more than one-dimensional. I am confused a bit about the pedantic tone of the sections that inveigh against chivalric novels -- sometimes it seems like irony, other times quite earnest.

As a reader in 2004, the question of chivalric novels doesn't matter much to me except insofar as it expands to cover popular action novels in general -- do I read Cervantes as talking specifically about the genre popular at his time, or as addressing a more universal human trait?

posted evening of February 29th, 2004: Respond
➳ More posts about Miguel de Cervantes

Friday, February 27th, 2004

Once I reached the scene where Lester breaks into Moussad's house, I was unable to put down House of Sand and Fog until I finished it -- it was electrifying. Hoping against hope that somehow the Behrani's would not be destroyed, darkly disappointed with Kathy for bringing this all to pass, stupefied at Lester's transformation into such an evil character, right inside Moussad's vengeful, violent head at the end.

Monday Ellen and I are going to the movies, I will lobby for "House of Sand and Fog" although her goal is to see "Lost in Translation". I wonder though how I will respond to the appearances of the actors -- I have come up with pretty fixed understandings of how each character should look.

posted evening of February 27th, 2004: Respond
➳ More posts about The House of Sand and Fog

I am just ploughing through House of Sand and Fog now, loving the world of the book -- Dubus has got me totally roped in to his reality. He is leaping around amongst various time frames and points of view and it seems totally fluid to me. This is IMO the key to a really good modern novel. I would like to develop this at more length sometime. Also it was occurring to me this morning, how does that tie in with my experience of Don Quixote? The movement between various narrative lines which I was admiring a few posts back is in the same direction as this quality I am talking about; but it is not precisely the same.

posted morning of February 27th, 2004: Respond
➳ More posts about Readings

Wednesday, February 25th, 2004

Don Quixote, Chapter XLV: Ah, we're back to the main subject matter of the book, the madness of Señor Quexana. The other stories are good too but this is the real meat of it.

posted evening of February 25th, 2004: Respond

I started reading House of Sand and Fog, by Andre Dubus III, yesterday evening. It is nice, at least two very strongly drawn characters (Massoud and Kathy) -- the blurb description of it as "tragic" (I see this term in two of the quoted reviews) seems accurate. I am identifying very much with Massoud and a bit with Kathy as well, and feel a sense of dread hanging over the book at the thought that their dreams will be thwarted...

This is the second-and-a-half Oprah's Book Club selection that I have read; the other two were The Poisonwood Bible, which I enjoyed not at all but made a good gift for my mom, and The Corrections, which I enjoyed a great deal but which only counts as half an Oprah's Book Club selection.

I bought House of Sand and Fog at Clovis Press bookshop, a fine used and new shop at 229 Bedford Ave. in Brooklyn. I have poked my head in there several times before -- nearly every time I'm in Williamsburg I stop in for a few minutes -- but had never bought anything there. I saw a sign on the front door announcing a memorial evening for Clovis the Dog, after whom the bookshop was apparently named.

posted morning of February 25th, 2004: Respond
➳ More posts about Book Shops

Monday, February 23rd, 2004

Don Quixote, Chapter XLIV: The web of coincidences in the last section of Part I was really threatening to lose my interest... But somehow it has pulled me back in over the last two chapters.

posted evening of February 23rd, 2004: Respond

Ellen and Sylvia are playing Cinderella -- Ellen is Cinderella, Sylvia is the Fairy Godmother.

posted afternoon of February 23rd, 2004: Respond
➳ More posts about Sylvia

Saturday, February 21st, 2004

🦋 Drop-D Tuning

I've been meaning for a while to post a note about drop-D guitar tuning. If you aspire to play finger-style blues guitar, I think this tuning is one of the first things you should find out about. (The other first thing you should find out about, is to get some recordings of Mississippi John Hurt, a master of the genre and IMO the most accessible of the Delta blues guitarists.) By finger-style blues I mean basically, picking alternating bass notes with your thumb or a thumb pick and a melody line with your first, first and second, or first through third fingers.

Drop-D is the simplest of the alternate tunings, all you do is tune the top string down a whole step. All the other strings have their standard pitch. You don't need to learn much in the way of new fingerings, but you suddenly have a lot more freedom. Here are the first-position chords (I play in first position just about all the time):

C

No difference.

D

No difference, except that the top string is your root. In standard tuning I am usually fingering an F# on the top string with my thumb, now I can just leave it open and pick an alternating bass between the top string and the third string.

E

Hold down G# on the fourth string with your first finger and E on the third string with your second finger. Leave the second string open (and never play it) and hold down E on the top string with your thumb. Now you can pick an alternating bass between the top string and third string, and two fingers are available for melody stuff.

F

Barre the bottom two strings on the first fret with your first finger. Hold down A on the fourth string with your second finger and F on the third string with your third finger. Leave the second string open (and never play it) and hold down F on the top string with your thumb. Now you can pick an alternating bass between the top string and third string, and one finger is available for melody stuff. (Note that you can move this barre chord up and down the fingerboard as you desire.)

G

G is where things get wild -- All you need to do for G is hold down the fifth fret of the top string with your thumb, all four fingers are available for melody stuff. You're pretty free to roam between the third and sixth frets of the treble strings, and throw in open strings (except for the bottom string) as desired.

A

No difference.

B

No difference. (Actually I usually finger B7 in first position, you can do either one.)

I discovered this tuning while working on "Stagger Lee", since then I have used it on a lot of other songs in the key of D -- lately I noticed it would work well for songs in G too, and yesterday I worked out "Lay me a Pallet on your Floor", which is in C and sounds very nice indeed in this tuning. And the other day I tried playing "Prodigal Son" (in E) in drop-D and though it took a little while to get the hang of it (partly because I've been playing that song for such a long time in standard tuning), it ended up sounding really nice too.

posted afternoon of February 21st, 2004: Respond
➳ More posts about Guitar

Previous posts
Archives