in the reading

"Not even Shakespeare can write well without a proper subject. It is a vain endeavour for the most skilful hand to cultivate barrenness, or to paint upon vacuity."
—Dr. Johnson - from "Johnson on Shakespeare, p.556 (quoted by Norman Rabkin, "Rabbits, Ducks, and Henry V," Shakespeare Quarterly 28 (1977): 279-96.)

Sometimes the correct course in life is clear, and yet it can be the most difficult path to choose. Though the path may indeed be the goal, it is difficult to understand without a view of the end.

Smiling, with tears in my eyes, and nothing really to say, I sit here wishing I could talk to you. There are many possible referents for that "you". Chances are, if you're reading, it probably includes you (unless you got here by pressing that annoying "next blog" button).

Anyways, as I said, I don't really have much to say, but I think I'll continue rambling on, hoping that something will come up, or at least that I'll feel soothed at the end.

Oh yes, anyone have any good alternatives to capitalism? I've become something of a fan over the last few years, but I still long for a utopic world of rainbows and pots of gold for all.

more on last night

While eating breakfast this morning (soft boiled eggs and toast), I thought of some problems with regard to what I wrote last night. The obvious case: lyrics. I don't tend to listen to lyrics, so they hadn's initially occured to me. It's not that I don't listen to vocals, but I listen to them principally as part of the instrumentation. That's part of why I hate most Pop music. The vocals are usually so far forward that the mix is unbalanced (not to mention the overall suckiness part). But I digress. So clearly I am forced to admit that music does communicate. Now, I have a hairbrained idea for maintaining my own intuitions about music, but it requires an elaboration of the essence of good poetry, and then, seperately, of the relationship between vocals/lyrics and the rest of the mix. As for the former (the poetry part), I actually have some ideas. They'd be intellectually indefensible (in a western sense), as they rest on a phenomenological understanding of poetry and its effects, but they make sense if you're willing to accept an appeal to personal and shared experience. As for the latter part, I've no idea and am entirely out of my league.

I'm going to go have drink.

Cheers!

Love Ev

And it was said again. _—{ t h oughts o n musi c }—_

For what is the world in which live, without all this discourse? A whole lotta something. I've just given myself the gift of music and it is good. A salve for my wounds, it mysteriously sutures my heart without me understanding why. And that is precisely the seat of its power. Between me and music, between music and I—it matters really not, and therein lies the point—there is something special. It's not that music transcends language, as I don't think it right to say that music communicates. No, it's that music manages to be evocative without entering into that subject/object relationship that so defines discourse. Listening to music I know (there's always an exception), it feels as though it were a part of me. At least that would be an easy way of putting it. To be more precise, I think we listen to music to transform—whether that be to diminish, accentuate, or alter—our sense of self. Not in any permanent way, simply for the duration of our listening experience.

In more mundane news, I've partly unpacked and cleaned my room, and as you may have guessed, I've finally hooked up my stereo. Classes are going well. Shakespeare and Pascal (and even Descartes, for whom I've grown rather found) are incredibly interesting. I have a thesis topic and an advisor and I am very excited about both. My topic is "Description and Subjectivity in Proust", or some such exploration of Proust and subjectivity. I am as excited to have picked Proust as I am to have relinquished the chains of the French New Novel. That might have been a disaster as I'm not sure I could really have put up with much more of their discombobulated prose.

I hope all is well in your worlds far and near. I expect these lines are the begining of a more frequent presence here.

Ev

Life begins anew

We've settled into our new house. Communal living is mostly going well. We all get along, and generally have a lot of fun together. I even have housemates who like to keep the place clean. I really couldn't ask for much more. My honey is off earning the bacon and I've become the house husband. I clean, I cook, I wash and fold, though perhaps not for much longer. Tomorrow I'm heading off in search of a job. I'll go on foot, door to door, or at least to those doors bearing the sign of welcome, "now hiring". Though I certainly have my preferences—I'd love to work at a wine store—I'm more particular about when I work and how often.

I don't know how much longer this blogging thing will continue, nor am I entirely clear what it is. I've been away for awhile, first due to school, and then because of travels. I do like keeping my friends updated, but I fear that at times I devolve into heaps of grandstading twaddle. I reread a few (relatively) recent posts and was shocked by the style: an annoying tone and unnecessarily recondite diction do not make for happy reading.

By the way: I'm drinking a glass of the Liberty Ale by Anchorage Brewing. Beautiful. I mentioned it in a previous post and am delighted to recommend it again. In related events, I'll be hosting the 1st crappy beer tasting at my house. Not all the beers will be crappy. As I look at it, a beer (or a wine) should be held to the standard to which it pretends. I'm not saying that absolute rakings aren't possible but simply that I've no need to taste a glass of Liberty Ale next a can of MGD; to do so would seem to miss the point to me. Instead, I will taste three types of beer. First, there are those that are commonly thought of as tasteless at best and nearly undrinkable swill at worst. In this category I include my own favourite Pabst, Hamms, Natty Ice, High-Life, Coors, Budweiser, Molson (it's available down here), and perhaps a few others. It's possible that I'm being a bit unfair to Budweiser, perhaps to MGD as well, one might include them in the next category along with Corona, and I'm not sure what else. These are beers that command a premium over the lower rungs, and that are mostly consumed in bottle, at least among those I hand out with. In the last category are those beers that many regard as premium, though perhaps only because they're all imports. Heineken, Stella, Beck's, and perhaps some Czechvar will round out the tasting.

I'll post the results sometime next week.

taking a break

This should provides plenty of entertainment as you sit in front of your computer with Word in the background, your paper still unwritten.

I'm presently listening to a debate between the The Economist and The Nation. The topic is globalization and both sides are making the arguments you'd expect. Thus far, I'd say The Economist is kicking ass in an English way, but I expected nothing different. I tend not to read The Nation, though curiosity does lead me to peruse its website every few weeks. I'm rarely impressed by the content, and when it's presented in printed form, The Nation is an even greater bore. Its aesthetic falls somewhere between Wired magazine and a locally available weekly (such as The Georgia Straight or The Portland Mercury). This is to say that I don't like the way it looks. Perhaps not the best criteria on which to judge a newspaper, but considering how much I read the news, I don't think it unimportant. That The Nation has been around since the mid-nineteenth century should be only a further embarassment to its editors. If they were to hire a new layout department, and rid themselves of their tiresomely colloquial tone (perhaps the most pernicious trend in journalism over the last decade), I'd certainly read their pages more often. Until then, The Guardian and Le Monde will remain my preffered sources of left-leaning news coverage. Anyway, I'm off to bed and so all I'm going to say about the debate is that it's worth a listen:

What's Good for Wall Street is Good for America

and I also came across this debate between Naomi Klein and a business writer for The Economist (though I've not yet listened to it):

No Logo vs. Pro Logo