The events and activities that Jon Ronson described in his book, “The Men Who Stare at Goats” are so strange and bizarre, I have trouble believing that it’s non-fiction. 

Now a major motion picture ironically starring Ewan McGregor, “The Men Who Stare at Goats” documents how the US military and other government agencies attempted to create special groups of “warrior monks” or “Jedi warriors” with superhuman abilities, back in the 1970s, and how these same “warriors” and techniques may have been used in the recent US military involvements in Iraq under the George W. Bush administration.

These so-called “Jedi Warriors” were members of an elite military intelligence group with psychic powers and the ability to walk through walls, become invisible and to stop the heart of animals (primarily goats) just by staring at them.  These Special Ops members were trained to spy on enemies through “remote viewing,” and to help predict future events by using psychic powers.

The book also explores recent controversies over torture techniques used by US military soldiers on Iraqi prisoners in a highly publicized prison in the Middle East. Iraqi captives were allegedly being tortured by US soldiers by forcing them to listen to heavy metal music and the “I Love You” song from Barney (the purple dinosaur), repeatedly, 24/7.   

The group of people who came up with the idea of creating “Jedi Warrior Monks” were also the ones who came up with so-called “non-lethal” techniques of dealing with “enemies.”

Apparently, these “non-lethal” techniques involved blasting enemies with heavy metal music, annoying children songs and Matchbox Twenty, just to name a few.

Did I mention this book is non-fiction?

The Hale-Bopp/Heaven’s Gate suicide, the David Koresh/Waco Texas incident, Guantanamo Bay and Noriega are just some of the strange, but very tragic events which Ronson links to this bizarre group of  goat killing men and their equally bizarre ideas.

“The Men Who Stare at Goats” tells of such weird, out-of-this-world activities and beliefs that you can’t help but laugh while reading and believe every word of it.


The Men Who Stare at Goats
~ Jon Ronson
2004
278 pages - Picador Edition    

“It was a queer, sultry summer, the summer they electrocuted the Rosenbergs, and I didn’t know what I was doing in New York.”

1. By seppuku or hara-kiri, using two very sharp swords. Make sure you’re not wearing a shirt or the knives might get stuck on your clothes and make sure you have no aversion to the sight of blood as this method has a tendency to be really bloody.  

2. Slit your wrists with Gillette blades. For practice, try cutting a different part of your body first to see how you would react to pain; like your leg. If this produces a slightly painful but satisfying sensation, proceed with your wrists. Make sure that your dilly-dallying around doesn’t take up most of the day that family members are coming back home just as you are about to get in the bathtub and bleed out.  

3. Sit out on a sandbar on the beach and wait for the tide to come in. Make sure the beach is deserted with no children around to ask you annoying questions as to why you are sitting on a log waiting for the tide to come in.  

4. Shoot yourself with a gun. Make sure you have a gun first, and know how to actually use it. When aiming, make sure you aim it in a way that won’t just blow up some nerve leaving you paralyzed but very much alive.  

5. Drown yourself in the ocean. Make sure you’re either drugged or drunk; otherwise your body will act on its own, causing you to re-surface for air and float.  

6. Hang yourself. Make sure you know how to tie a proper knot to make a noose, and use something sturdier as a rope other than your mother’s bathrobe sash. Also, make sure that some parts of your house have rafters or somewhere you can hang your ‘rope.’  

7. Hide in your cellar and drink 50 sleeping pills, making sure it will kill you and not just put you to sleep for a week, with your family thinking all the while that you either ran away from home or was kidnapped.

At least according to Esther Greenwood, Sylvia Plath’s protagonist and alter ego in her one and only novel, The Bell Jar. Since The Bell Jar, mirrored events in Sylvia Plath’s real life, it makes me wonder if she also considered these options to end her own life before she decided on sticking her head in the oven and turning the gas on instead.

The Bell Jar is the story of young and intelligent Esther Greenwood, who, having returned to her New England suburb home from a once in a lifetime opportunity of working as an intern for a magazine editor in New York, suffers from depression and a nervous breakdown. Reflecting on the seemingly directionless path of her life and future, Esther finds herself unable to sleep, read and eat and becoming more and more determined to find ways of killing herself. Through the efforts of her mother and other concerned individuals, Esther gets help from psychiatrists and ends up living in an asylum disguised as a country club.

Despite the morbidity of the plot and the tragic circumstances surrounding Sylvia Plath’s own life, I found this novel quite funny and amusing.

I think one of the reasons I liked it is because it seems like a female version of The Cather in the Rye, with Esther and Holden narrating a crucial turning point in their lives, with the exception of Esther being more aware of what was happening to her mentally. Holden and Esther both describe events and people surrounding them, where there is a marked difference between their outward expressions and interactions with people and their inner thoughts and personal opinions. Both characters also ultimately end up in a mental asylum, with ambiguous futures, depending on whether the reader is an optimist or a pessimist.

What really scares me is how, in both cases, I find these two characters quite sane, and I find myself sharing a lot of their sentiments, thoughts and attitude toward people around them and life in general.

Sometimes I think about what these similarities imply, but I’d like to think that if Holden and Esther were alive today, no one would think twice about their seemingly anti-social and manic behaviours and they would fit right in, being as neurotic as everyone else.

Then again, maybe I’m just in denial...  

The Bell Jar ~ Sylvia Plath 1971 Harper Perennial Olive Editions, 284 pages.  

I need a good - nay, a GREAT book to read. 

I think it's no exaggeration on my part when I say that I have not read a really good book in a long time.  2008 was not a very good reading year for me, and 2009 isn't any better. 

Good books I've read recently:

- Einstein's Dreams (Alan Lightman)

- The Penelopiad (Margaret Atwood)

- Perfume (Patrick Suskind)

- The English Patient (Michael Odjaante)

-The Graveyard Book (Neil Gaiman)

There may have been a few more, but I can't remember any right now.

In terms of GREAT books though, the last great book I remember reading was "Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell" - and that was back in 2005.

So...help me out by thinking of great books you've read and giving me recommendations :)

Thanks in advance!!

Sharing an interesting series of books – The Myths.

“A bold re-telling of legendary tales — The Myths series gathers the world's finest contemporary writers for a modern look at our most enduring myths.”

“Myths are universal and timeless stories that reflect and shape our lives — they explore our desires, our fears, our longings, and provide narratives that remind us what it means to be human.The Myths series brings together some of the world's finest writers, each of whom has retold a myth in a contemporary and memorable way. Authors in the series include: Margaret Atwood, Karen Armstrong, AS Byatt, David Grossman, Milton Hatoum, Natsuo Kirino, Alexander McCall Smith, Tomás Eloy Martínez, Victor Pelevin, Ali Smith, Su Tong, Dubravka Ugresic, Salley Vickers and Jeanette Winterson.

“The series launched on 21st October 2005 and is the most ambitious simultaneous worldwide publication ever undertaken.”

(Source:www.themyths.co.uk)

Anyone who travels or has travelled before  knows how much of a hassle Immigration and Customs check can be – Immigration and Customs Officers always ask the strangest questions – to gather genuine information about passengers, maybe; To try to catch people off guard, probably; Just because they are bored, definitely!

I’ve had my fair share of strange Q & A sessions with airport authority, but one I experienced recently just takes the cake.

I laugh about it now, but believe me, when it was happening, I found it quite strange...

About two months ago, I went to Beijing for a week long “vacation.” I had never actually been to China before, so I figured, why not? Just for fun, I decided to make a little adventure for myself, so I flew in to Hong Kong, and then took a train to Beijing. The train ride took about 23 hours, on a train going 140 kph...plenty of time to read, contemplate about the meaning of life, look at the scenery, sleep, eat, sleep, sleep.....

Lots of stories I can tell about that train ride and about the actual Beijing / Hong Kong vacation, but, this is not about that, so.....

Anyway, upon arriving at Beijing West Railway Station, we all went through the usual “arrivals” routine – first through immigration, which went pretty smoothly. I should mention that I got my China visa before actually going to China – a bit of travel advice for anyone planning to go there: Get your China visa in your country before actually going to China to avoid the hassle. It’s hard to find Chinese personnel who can speak English well, even at railway stations or airports, so, save yourself the trouble and get it beforehand.

After Immigration, came Customs check and I put my one carry-on backpack through the x-ray machine, all routine, really, but then, instead of walking away after it came out on the other side of the machine, I was stopped by a Customs Officer.

She asked me: “Do you have books in your bag?”

                         “Yes...?”

                         “How many?”

                         “4...or 5...?”

                         “Open your bag please...let me see (the books).”

Seriously!?

I did what I was told. I had 4 books with me:  “The Autumn of the Patriarch” by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, “The Road” by Cormac McCarthy, “Fodors: Beijing” and “Discovery: Hong Kong Smart Guide.”

The customs officer didn’t just look at the books, no. She scrutinized each one...looked at the cover of each book for about a minute, looked at the back cover,  then proceeded to flip through the pages of each one. She looked extra long at “The Autumn of the Patriarch” and I couldn’t help but think that it might be on some kind of list of “banned books in China.” To be honest, I was just scared she might confiscate it.

After about 10 minutes of going through the books and flipping through their pages, to my relief, she deemed them safe to be brought in to the country and I was cleared to go. 

To this day, I still don’t know what that was all about. Was I carrying too many books for “personal use only?” Was she looking for smuggled porn? Communist propaganda books? Anti-Communist books? I might never know...

Some people get busted at Customs for smuggling drugs, firearms, agricultural products - I get stopped for bringing....too many books!?  Figures....

I should mention also that Beijing was such a wonderful place with so many things to do and see that I didn’t even get a chance to read the two fiction books I brought with me. 

On the train ride back to Hong Kong I tried to read “The Autumn of the Patriarch” – turns out it was about the life and times of an eternal dictator – hahaha! Yes, the Chinese government would have had a field day with that one!

Today I did the unthinkable and had boldly gone where no non-trekkie has ever gone before...Yes, I gave in to my curiosity and watched the new Star Trek movie, simply called “Star Trek” or “Star Trek XI”. 

First of all, I would like to clarify that, I am not, nor have I ever been a big Star Trek fan. This came as quite a shock to some of my friends, who had asked me if I was excited about the new Star Trek movie, to which I answered... “um....no....should I be??” They (wrongly) assumed that all sci-fi or Star Wars fans were also trekkies. 

So, no, I am not a trekkie and Star Trek XI is the first Star Trek movie I have ever seen. Truth be told, the only reason why I wanted to watch Star Trek XI was because of Zachary Quinto of “Heroes” notoriety, playing Spock.  Sylar is by no means my favourite character in “Heroes” either. Quite the opposite, actually, but I just couldn’t pass up the chance of seeing Zachary Quinto in a feature length film, much less as the new, young Spock. I also admit that though have been watching “Heroes” for 3 years now, I just found out today that Zachary Qunito is the real name of the actor playing Sylar.

My knowledge of Star Trek is, at best, bare minimum. I don’t know any of the characters beyond Capt. Kirk, Spock and Leonard McKoy and know nothing beyond the famous, albeit cheesy lines that even non-trekkies would know by heart. 

Regardless, I went to see the movie anyway, and aside from the strange “time-travel possibly alternate universe-space-time-continuum” bit in the plot, it was surprisingly good. Being a prequel, the plot focused a lot on the background of Kirk and Spock before they joined Star Fleet and before they became crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise. Though not knowing much about the original cast of characters from previous movies, I would say that Chris Pine, Zachary “Sylar” Quinto and the other actors did a fairly good job in keeping the movie funny, interesting and lively. I was also quite surprised by some of the actors who popped up throughout the film. My only regret is that I don’t know enough about the whole Star Trek culture to appreciate all the “in” jokes throughout the film.

All in all, I would recommend Star Trek XI to non-trekkies who want to watch a movie this weekend but are dismayed that it’s the only new film to open. Don’t shrug it off as just another Star Trek movie and don’t be intimidated by the queue of geeky fanboy trekkies who have made up their minds to hate the film for the very same reason I, as a non-trekkie liked it. 

“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”
~ Juvenal (Satires)

“Who watches the watchmen?” – An age old question which, sadly remains unanswered to this day. From the time of ancient civilizations to modern societies, it has been a prevailing concern – those in power watch over the people – guardians, sentries, the government, but, who watches the guardians to make sure they don’t overstep their boundaries? Who will protect the people from their protectors? How much power are guardians allowed to exert to protect their wards?

Did these questions go through Alan Moore’s mind while writing Watchmen, the only one of its kind to be included in Time's 2005 list of the 100 best English-language novels from the 1920s to the present? This highly acclaimed 12-chapter comic book, now popularly known as a “graphic novel,” tackles issues of stereotypical “superhero” concepts, social anxieties and morality. 

Last weekend, comic book “enthusiasts” (aka geeks and fanboys...and girls) watched with bated breath as the highly anticipated movie adaptation directed by Zack Snyder was shown for the first time in theatres. Mixed emotions ran high as die-hard fans waited to be blown away by the cinematic version, at the same time bracing themselves for what just might be the biggest disappointment of their semi-reclusive, anti-social lives.

Having been repeatedly disappointed by subpar movie adaptations of popular comic books (X-Men, The Hulk (the first one with Eric Bana), Fantastic Four...), I ventured forth with little expectations. Fortunately, my fears were assuaged.

Having seen the movie, I can say that Snyder did an outstanding job in making the comic book quite literally, come to life – with movie scenes almost identical to page by page panel illustrations from the comic book. Likewise, the look of the characters, their personalities, speech patterns and dialogues were, in my opinion, true to its original form. 

Despite having to cut and fuse some of the chapters and scenes from the original to fit a standard feature length film (even though it did still run for more than 2 and a half hours) – including one major revision of a certain part of the story - I think that Watchmen is probably one of the best movie adaptations I have ever seen – or at least the best I’ve seen in a long time.

For those who are wondering about the ‘major revision’ in the movie version - a significant part of the original story was removed or “re-written,” – due to time constraints or to improve the flow of the story, I don’t really know, but suffice it to say that I commend the director for his decision to stray from the original plot and opt for a more “realistic” alternative. (I am of course talking about the involvement, or should I say, absence of a certain giant psychic cephalopod which had a hand in the destruction of a certain population. Curious?...Read the book J).

Unfortunately, I still am very much undecided as to whether or not I think Watchmen is a “good” movie. Having read the graphic novel beforehand, I was more concerned with seeing how close the movie would be to the original story and less concerned with whether or not the storyline made sense to those who are not familiar with the comic book. I feel I have a biased opinion of the story and therefore unable to form an opinion on the general quality of the film.

I do however recommend that in order to fully appreciate the movie, one must first read the story in its original comic book form – if not for the sake of experiencing the true essence of the story, then do it for the sake of the giant squid (hahaha).

What could be more fitting than finishing Gaiman’s latest novel, “The Graveyard Book” on All Hallow’s Eve? 

In a nutshell, “The Graveyard Book” is about Nobody Owens, (orphaned at infancy and raised by ghosts and an “undead” guardian in a graveyard) a boy who is taught how to live by those who are no longer living.

Through the years I have developed a different way of thinking and it is to not have such high expectations of people – that way you won’t ever be disappointed.  I believe the same is true for books – they are written by people after all. 

Having read a few Gaiman novels, I have learned over time to lower my expectations of his books, at least in terms of writing style.   Having done that this time around, I am happy to say that I quite enjoyed “The Graveyard Book.”  The book’s simple plot and style of storytelling worked this time, probably because it was marketed as a “children’s book.”  Writing style aside, it really was the whole idea of this novel that drew my attention, and for that I still applaud Gaiman’s vivid imagination.

Having finished one book, of course the natural thing to do was to choose another one, but that is, more often than not, easier said than done.  I have, over the years, accumulated a fair amount of books which I all deemed “must reads” at the time of acquisition - and because I “acquire” faster than I can read, I now have quite a long list of “back logs” to deal with.

After visiting my “library” (It really is just the spare bedroom in our place which I dubbed as my library because all my books are in it) and going through one of the boxes, I have narrowed my choices down to 5 books.  The 5 books I have chosen will be the books I will try to read one after the other. 

1.     On Chesil Beach (Ian McEwan) – I bought this for a bargain at a bookstore.  Brand new but was marked down by more than 70%.  “Atonement” was the only other McEwan book I have read and it is a great book, so I am going to give him another go.  I have decided to read this book first because it is only about 200 pages long. 

2.      Interpreter of Maladies (Jhumpa Lahiri) – An award winning collection of short stories.  I am not a big fan of short stories, but because it is highly acclaimed, I think a story from the collection every once in a while could be a good break from long narratives.

3.      Special Topics in Calamity Physics (Marisha Pessl) – I have wanted to read this debut novel the minute I learned what it was about.  The way the book is presented seems highly original and downright brilliant.  The reason why I haven’t read it till now is because its paperback edition is 669 pages long with what seems like a font size pt. 7.

4.      Vernon God Little (D.B.C. Pierre) – Winner of the Man Booker Prize in 2003 and has been dubbed as the modern day “Catcher in the Rye.”  My first attempt to read this book got me as far as chapter 3.  Unfortunately, I got distracted with 2 other books – “Never Let Me Go” by Kazuo Ishiguro (shortlisted for the 2005 Man Booker Prize) and “The Sea” by John Banville (2005 Man Booker Prize winner).  Should have stuck with “Vernon God Little.”

5.      The Lovely Bones (Alice Sebold) – A murder mystery novel narrated by the (obviously dead) murder victim.  Need I say more?

Aside from these 5 novels, I am still reading Chuch Palanuik’s “Rant” which I started sometime in August, and last week I bought Robert Fulghum’s new novel, “What On Earth Have I Done” which is a collection of “stories, observations and affirmations.”  Unfortunately, I do not practice nor do I condone biblio-monogamy.  Life is too short and I have a whole lot of ground to cover!

P.S.

Michael Crichton has recently passed away, which saddened me a whole lot.  His books were my college companions who saw me through a semi-tough time in my life.  There’s really nothing like DNA and dinosaurs to take your mind off the unpleasant things in life.  I will miss him (even though his last 3 novels were a disappointment).

After almost one year of waiting, I finally got a copy of Neil Gaiman’s latest work, The Graveyard Book, which officially came out yesterday, September 30. 

I first heard of this book from Gaiman himself, during a book signing/launching I attended last November, 2007. He read the whole first chapter of the book (which he was still working on at the time) to a room full of comic book / fantasy geeks enthusiasts. 

The Graveyard Book opens with a murder most foul and of an orphaned boy who finds his way to a nearby cemetery. In the cemetery, the boy not only finds a temporary safe refuge, he finds a new family – and a new life.

Inspired by Rudyard Kipling’s The Jungle Book, about a human boy raised in a jungle by animals, The Graveyard Book is about a human boy raised in a graveyard by...ghosts.

I’ve had some varied experiences with Gaiman’s novels. I was not very pleased with American Gods although I did appreciate the idea behind the story.  I thought American Gods was a novel with a great storyline which was poorly written. On the other hand, I really enjoyed reading Neverwhere and Stardust. Besides reading The Graveyard Book, I am currently working my way through The Sandman series. So far I’ve read Preludes and Nocturnes, Doll’s House and Dream Hunters.  Frankly, I find Gaiman’s writing style simplistic and straight to the point, which is not necessarily a bad thing. The Graveyard Book being a kind of a “children’s book,” that style of writing could even work to his advantage this time around.

Despite the 50-50 hit-miss record, I’m excited about starting The Graveyard Book.  It seems to have the right mixture of fantasy, mystery, comedy and the macabre, and I’m hoping it’s the kind of book that will keep me up all night reading.

Skilty L.

I'M NOT really a big fan of philosophical discussions. In college, whenever classmates or friends would start to argue over some philosophical ideas, I automatically tune off. I'd rather count the hair on the back of my hand than involve myself in debates that generally go along these lines:

Friend 1: What do you call that thing that you're sitting on?

Friend 2: Uhh, a chair?

Friend 1: Are you sure that it's a chair and not just some idea of a chair? If I tell you that you're just sitting on a word, would I be wrong? What if I tell you that without words, you're just sitting on air? It's all semantics, man.

Friend 2: The problem with postmodernists like you is that you turn everything on its head. You're, like, the philosophical version of the League of Filipino Students: you go against everything the system does. I'm sitting on a chair, period. I don't have to lose sleep over whether the chair I'm sitting on is really an elephant. I have other things to worry about, thank you.

Friend 1: You don't understand, man. I'm not even being a postmodernist here. It's closer to existentialism, actually. Man is the pilot of his life. He doesn't need a system to live his own life. He defines things around him and manipulates these things to achieve his goals.

Friend 2: Whatever, man.

Well, the last line is not what Friend 2 would normally say. That's what I would've said had I taken part in the conversation. And usually, the argument would go on and on and on.

That's why it's funny that I would want to share the philosophy I subscribe to these days. But then I want more people to feel happy amid the present difficulties. The gist of my philosophy is: Expect the worst. To illustrate the point, I will cite some examples:

You wake up in the morning, expecting a splitting headache. When you realize you really don't have one, you become happy.

You go out of the house, expecting a heavy downpour. But then the sun is shining brightly and it puts a smile on your face.

You ride a jeep, anticipating heavy traffic. It turns out that the jeepney driver is a Michael Schumacher wannabe and you arrive at your destination in no time. You feel so blessed.

You expect higher prices of commodities but still get your money's worth after shopping. You're on Cloud Nine.

You court a girl and expect to be turned down. When she finally turns you down, it doesn't sting as much.

You don't expect to finish your thesis on time. Months after the deadline, you still don't fret too much about it.

You elect a president and expect him/her to be corrupt. When corruption is exposed, you don't go to the Edsa highway anymore because you had expected it to happen, in the first place.

I'm sure you get my drift by now. By expecting the worst of everything, you prepare yourself to be disappointed. When something bad happens, you don't feel so awful because you anticipated it. When something good happens, it cheers you up because you expected something bad.

If more people would only think this way, then more people we meet on the street would be wearing smiles and whistling lively tunes.

Tom Cruise has attracted more people to Scientology. I hope to attract more people to Skiltology. If you think what I'm saying is nonsense, you can still tell your friends about it. Maybe they'd be more willing to try it.

But of course, I am not expecting that they would.

Stole this essay from a friend’s blog…writing tips from one of my favorite authors, Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. (may his soul rest in peace). 

Maybe we can all learn a thing or two from him…

HOW TO WRITE WITH STYLE

by Kurt Vonnegut

Newspaper reporters and technical writers are trained to reveal almost nothing about themselves in their writings. This makes them freaks in the world of writers, since almost all of the other ink-stained wretches in that world reveal a lot about themselves to readers. We call these revelations, accidental and intentional, elements of style.

These revelations tell us as readers what sort of person it is with whom we are spending time. Does the writer sound ignorant or informed, stupid or bright, crooked or honest, humorless or playful-- ? And on and on.

Why should you examine your writing style with the idea of improving it? Do so as a mark of respect for your readers, whatever you're writing. If you scribble your thoughts any which way, your readers will surely feel that you care nothing about them. They will mark you down as an egomaniac or a chowder head --- or, worse, they will stop reading you.

The most damning revelation you can make about yourself is that you do not know what is interesting and what is not. Don't you yourself like or dislike writers mainly for what they choose to show you or make you think about? Did you ever admire an empty headed writer for his or her mastery of the language? No.

So your own winning style must begin with ideas in your head.

1. Find a subject you care about

Find a subject you care about and which you in your heart feel others should care about. It is this genuine caring, and not your games with language, which will be the most compelling and seductive element in your style.

I am not urging you to write a novel, by the way --- although I would not be sorry if you wrote one, provided you genuinely cared about something. A petition to the mayor about a pothole in front of your house or a love letter to the girl next door will do.

2. Do not ramble, though

I won't ramble on about that.

3. Keep it simple

As for your use of language: Remember that two great masters of language, William Shakespeare and James Joyce, wrote sentences which were almost childlike when their subjects were most profound. "To be or not to be?" asks Shakespeare's Hamlet. The longest word is three letters long. Joyce, when he was frisky, could put together a sentence as intricate and as glittering as a necklace for Cleopatra, but my favorite sentence in his short story "Eveline" is this one: "She was tired." At that point in the story, no other words could break the heart of a reader as those three words do.

Simplicity of language is not only reputable, but perhaps even sacred. The Bible opens with a sentence well within the writing skills of a lively fourteen-year-old: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

4. Have guts to cut

It may be that you, too, are capable of making necklaces for Cleopatra, so to speak. But your eloquence should be the servant of the ideas in your head. Your rule might be this: If a sentence, no matter how excellent, does not illuminate your subject in some new and useful way, scratch it out.

5. Sound like yourself

The writing style which is most natural for you is bound to echo the speech you heard when a child. English was Conrad's third language, and much that seems piquant in his use of English was no doubt colored by his first language, which was Polish. And lucky indeed is the writer who has grown up in Ireland, for the English spoken there is so amusing and musical. I myself grew up in Indianapolis, where common speech sounds like a band saw cutting galvanized tin, and employs a vocabulary as unornamental as a monkey wrench.

In some of the more remote hollows of Appalachia, children still grow up hearing songs and locutions of Elizabethan times. Yes, and many Americans grow up hearing a language other than English, or an English dialect a majority of Americans cannot understand.

All these varieties of speech are beautiful, just as the varieties of butterflies are beautiful. No matter what your first language, you should treasure it all your life. If it happens to not be standard English, and if it shows itself when your write standard English, the result is usually delightful, like a very pretty girl with one eye that is green and one that is blue.

I myself find that I trust my own writing most, and others seem to trust it most, too, when I sound most like a person from Indianapolis, which is what I am. What alternatives do I have? The one most vehemently recommended by teachers has no doubt been pressed on you, as well: to write like cultivated Englishmen of a century or more ago.

6. Say what you mean

I used to be exasperated by such teachers, but am no more. I understand now that all those antique essays and stories with which I was to compare my own work were not magnificent for their datedness or foreignness, but for saying precisely what their authors meant them to say. My teachers wished me to write accurately, always selecting the most effective words, and relating the words to one another unambiguously, rigidly, like parts of a machine. The teachers did not want to turn me into an Englishman after all. They hoped that I would become understandable --- and therefore understood. And there went my dream of doing with words what Pablo Picasso did with paint or what any number of jazz idols did with music. If I broke all the rules of punctuation, had words mean whatever I wanted them to mean, and strung them together higgledy-piggledy, I would simply not be understood. So you, too, had better avoid Picasso-style or jazz-style writing, if you have something worth saying and wish to be understood.

Readers want our pages to look very much like pages they have seen before. Why? This is because they themselves have a tough job to do, and they need all the help they can get from us.

7. Pity the readers

They have to identify thousands of little marks on paper, and make sense of them immediately. They have to read, an art so difficult that most people don't really master it even after having studied it all through grade school and high school --- twelve long years.

So this discussion must finally acknowledge that our stylistic options as writers are neither numerous nor glamorous, since our readers are bound to be such imperfect artists. Our audience requires us to be sympathetic and patient readers, ever willing to simplify and clarify --- whereas we would rather soar high above the crowd, singing like nightingales.

That is the bad news. The good news is that we Americans are governed under a unique Constitution, which allows us to write whatever we please without fear of punishment. So the most meaningful aspect of our styles, which is what we choose to write about, is utterly unlimited.

8. For really detailed advice

For a discussion of literary style in a narrower sense, in a more technical sense, I recommend to your attention The Elements of Style, by William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White. E.B. White is, of course, one of the most admirable literary stylists this country has so far produced.

You should realize, too, that no one would care how well or badly Mr. White expressed himself, if he did not have perfectly enchanting things to say.

In Sum:

1. Find a subject you care about

2. Do not ramble, though

3. Keep it simple

4. Have guts to cut

5. Sound like yourself

6. Say what you mean

7. Pity the readers

Having finally finished the Almanac I was tasked to edit, I can now turn to more important things – like reading something I actually want to.

First up on my reading list:  The Sandman.  For those who are not familiar with it, it is a graphic novel written by Neil Gaiman and illustrated by a cast of artists well-known in the biz.  It was originally released per chapter by Vertigo, but has since been published in different forms, such as the 10-chapter volumes or the 4-volume tomes.  The Sandman received high praises when it first came out in the 1990s and was the first graphic novel / comic book to be included in the New York Times Bestsellers list.

It is an 11 volume series which can be read in sequence or individually.  Volume 1 is entitled Preludes and Nocturnes, followed by The Doll’s House, Dream Country, Season of Mists, A Game of You, Fables and Reflections, Brief lives, World’s End, The Kindly Ones, The Wake and Endless Nights make volume 11.

Even though the series can be read as “stand-alone volumes,” I naturally decided to read it in sequence, starting with volume 1:  Nocturnes and Preludes.  Since getting into it, I have only had time to read the first chapter, “Sleep of the Just.”  This first chapter tells of the “Lord Magus” of the Order of Ancient Mysteries failed attempts to summon and capture Death. Instead of calling forth Death, as originally planned, the “Lord Magus” accidentally summons Death’s younger brother, the Lord of the realm of dreams and nightmares, the Sandman himself. 

I think the series is off to a good start for me.  The illustration is not the best I’ve seen, but the story is intriguing enough to capture and hold my attention.  So far I only have 3 of 10 chapters; Volume 1:  Preludes and Nocturnes, Volume 2, The Doll’s House and Volume 5:  The Game of You.  They are not the cheapest things in the world, so I want to finish reading one chapter before going off and buying the next one…

Don't ask...

"...I've been sitting, watching life pass from the sidelines,
Been waiting for a dream to seep in through my blinds.
I wondered what might happen if I left this all behind.
Would the wind be at my back...."