Reviews

CONCEPT

In recent years at least a solid majority of the reading, and more recently, music, I've experienced has been compiled off several lists (occasionally overlapping). These lists are composed inostensibly for "research" but undeniably for pleasure, and have been fruitful for both.

Since I'm still in the "budding writer" category (one is until after grad school, or your hair falls out on its own, both of which are in my near future) I shouldn't turn down any opportunity for practice and advertising, so I'm going to start including "reviews" of these works on this blog.

In fact, I've already posted two: a review of Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich, and Naked Economics: Undressing the Dismal Science by Charles Wheelan.

* * * * *

Starting next week, I'll be posting these reviews more frequently, but I'd like to make a couple comments on the reviews themselves, to avoid trouble later on:

As a writer and artist, I've embraced a holistic approach that emphasizes breadth. This has its disadvantages, which often manifest in a corresponding lack of depth. As such, I won't be writing about the Blues as a blues aficionado, or economics as an economist or a sociologist. In fact, my philosophy even has consequences within my own field. Because I spend time learning about politics or math, I spend less time than I might be able, say, reading contemporary writers.
So let's have no illusions; where I do not have the perspective to make a critical judgment, I will not do so. The criteria for personal observation is accessible to all. So while I will make critical observation of a work as it is when possible, the emphasis will be on my personal perspective, and what I can extrapolate.
In short, sometimes my level of detail will be limited, at least in terms of direct analysis, and I'll often stop short of recommending or condemning any work of art.

* * * * *

The rest of this post is a brief explanation of the lists, how they were composed, and what they hope to accomplish. I include it as an formal articulation of my ideas, and also in case anyone finds them interesting.

There are three sorts of list.

The first type of list is the most inconsequential and informal, and is simply any work I must engage for perspective on an individual project. For example: Adrift on the Mainstream was a mystery novella I wrote dealing with a serial killer, so I read and viewed several mysteries and books on criminal psychology. These lists are informal in that their items are essentially self-explanatory and are short enough that they do not require further organization.

The second type of list do not so much contribute to individual projects as much as my personal life. They are typically recommendations (eg. the Harry Potter books, Late Night with Conan O'Brien), religious (eg. the Bible), written/created by friends* (eg. Joe Loya's novel, Hallie Gordon's plays, Animate's concert, friends' blogs), "guilty pleasures" (eg. Desperate Housewives, Meet the Fockers), or maintenance (The Flint Journal, the New York Times).

The third type of list is the most complex and the most time-consuming. Five long-term projects (which I designate as First Family) involve more coordination since the aquistion of knowledge is multivalent, requires a specific rigor, and often involves specialization. I am currently pursuing research for two projects: Urbàntasm and Euphemism (a novel). Lists for these projects are divided into sublists I call "clout"s. Each sublist designates a subject with which I hope to command "clout."

I describe "clout" as 1) felicity... I can discuss and navigate the subject with ease and discipline. 2) credibility... I can express my views convincingly and plausible. 3) sophistication... I can express views of complexity from several angles or perspectives. 4) generality... I can extrapolate larger themes from my understanding of the subject. 5) specialization... a more extensive knowledge in particular areas of the field. 6) human contacts in the field able to answer questions and offer contrasting views.

While Euphemism is the more wildly experimental of these two projects, Urbàntasm has the most research demands.

Urbàntasm requires four kinds of clout:
- CULTURAL [specializations in 1990s American Adolescent culture, Industrial Midwestern American Culture, African American Culture, Mexican American Culture Romanian American culture, and Roma American culture].
- POLITICAL/ECONOMIC/HISTORICAL [specializations in American and miswestern history, labor movements and macroeconomics, with particular emphasis on unions and globalization].
- MATHEMATICAL [specializations in Dynamical Systems, Geometry, Topology, and Number Theory].
- THEOLOGICAL/PHILOSOPHICAL [specializations in Metaphysics, Ethics, Aesthetics, and Christian Theology, with particular emphasis on the Endtimes].

Euphemism requires three kinds of clout:
- GEOGRAPHICAL [specializations in Chicago, Detroit, Flint, and to a lesser degree, New York City].
- HISTORICAL [specializations in Greek civilization and culture, with emphasis on the Persian, Peloponnesian wars].
- ROMANTIC [specialization in gothic literature].

* Not reviewed without permission.