Culture

The Twitter person @Arturo_Ulises (interesting name) who splits his time between between Tlön, Uqbar, and Brooklyn (interesting choice of domiciles) twitterated a link to a Radio Ambulante story about a run-in between the infamous Columbian drug kingpin Pablo Escobar and a well-known salsa musician. It’s a wonderful story, and so I’ve done a quick and very loose translation. Here it is:

Musicians always have peculiar stories. For example it is said that the Puerto Rican salsa musician Héctor Lavoe had an altercation with the Colombian narcotraficante Pablo Escobar during a musical performance at a party organized by Escobar.

According to the story, Escobar wanted the musicians to keep playing the same song, the hit, El cantate, again and again. The musicians refused, were locked in a room, and only managed to escape barefooted and without their instruments through the Colombian jungle. Finally arriving at a highway, they were able to hail a taxi for their hotel. But based on how the musicians looked, the taxi driver worried they wouldn’t be able to pay him. Lavoe assured him that he was indeed the famous Héctor Lavoe. The taxi driver asked suspiciously: “To confirm that you are who you say you are, you’re going to have to sing El cantate for me if you want me to take you to your hotel.”

“Listen dude,” Lavoe responded, “it’s because of crap like this that we have this problem. Somebody wanted me to repeat this song ten times, threatening me with a pistol. I was a little drunk and said to the orchestra no more songs. Pack up your instruments.”

***

It doesn’t need to swallow viagra sildenafil canada just alike the tablet. In fact the results begin to visualize within the first week of online cialis pills intake only. It generic tadalafil no prescription is entirely free from any type of pains and troubles of life. It overnight cheap viagra can also be cured. What I really like about this story is the formal repetition of the demand to sing the song, as though the musician (representing all artists one might suggest) is hounded by a fate that specifically arises out of his artistry.

But also the story says a great deal about power, and especially about the peculiar power music exercises over us. It’s like one of those tales from antiquity about a despot (Dionysius of Syracuse, anyone?) that teaches the futility of the dictator’s way of life. Here is Pablo Escobar, who at the time was one of the most powerful, wealthy, and feared criminals in the world, powerless before art. Just like all of us, who when we like a certain song, a certain melody (or Vinteuil’s Sonata, for that matter) want to hear it again and again, so too the great Pablo Escobar. Most of us however do not pull out pistols to hear the song repeated, no matter how much we might want to. But perhaps that is just our timidity.

***

Original text from Radio Ambulante is found here.

This story apparently was first told by the journalist and writer Juan José Hoyos in the pages of the newspaper El Colombiano de Medellín.

The reason the Baz Luhrmann version of The Great Gatsby does not quite work, despite being almost certainly the best Gatsby adaptation yet, is that the movie must tell Gatsby’s story without Fitzgerald’s language. Luhrmann seems to have recognized this point and tried to get around it by actually ladling large chunks of Fitzgerald’s text onto the screen. But there’s really no avoiding the problem. The novel, The Great Gatsby, is propelled along, floats upon, and attains its peculiar hold on the culture, our culture, nearly a century after its publication, through the power of its language.

A reader insensitive to the writing will be unmoved. A movie director, telling Gatsby’s story with the language cut away, will be left with a gaudy, giddy melodrama, one that will fall apart, I suggest, at the precise moment the current Gatsby does: in the car accident scene. At this moment the superstructure of movie plot, in the novel balanced magically on the flow mesmerizing words, collapses. The scene is lurid, improbable, overwrought, and turgid—and not in a good way.

Is there anything to be done to rescue the scene? Only one strategy would effect the necessary shock: play it as grand opera, with the culminating aria sung by the maddened husband. Fitzgerald didn’t have to worry: his prose supplied the operatic underpinning. But take away the writing and The Great Gatsby skirts becoming regional dinner theater of the bombastic variety. You almost feel sorry for the movie director, faced with modulating such impossible changes in register.

Handling shifts in mood and tone is the job of nuance, and nuance is the business of Fitzgerald’s prose. To make the movie work—and certainly it often does, sometimes quite spectacularly—the director uses the full arsenal of dramatic confrontation, kinetic celebration, a screen drenched in color, even car chase scenes. But subtlety gets left out. It’s an odd thing. The momentum that a movie requires means that the novel’s momentum, carefully modulated in the prose, is laid bare, revealed in all its brutal, unwieldy energy.

What doesn’t make it onto the screen is worth noting. In the following scene from Chapter 7, as essential and revelatory as any in the novel, Nick is speaking to Gatsby about Daisy:

Yet it’s no surprise that Luhrmann leaves the scene on the cutting room floor. The insight contained therein, the next closest thing to a direct authorial intrusion, has power on the page and none on the screen.

•

A stable system is one that can be changed only at the margins. If we were to consider movie adaptations of The Great Gatsby as a system under constant pressure to be improved, then Baz Luhrmann’s adaptation establishes a stable system.

The new version is not the greatest possible Great Gatsby, nor is it really a great movie at all. But it’s a very good one. And other Gatsby movies, no matter how successful, will likely improve on it only at ‘the margins’—and run into the same problems.

Plato did not trust the poets because they used language to tell stories that if examined closely fell to pieces. But without that trick of language, and without our willing submission to the sly craftiness of storytellers, we would miss out not only on the bad dishonest stories but the honest and necessary ones as well, whatever their flaws. Perhaps this is why novels will continue to matter and especially the ones that can’t quite be made into films.

Though, on the other hand, perhaps we have reached a point where the only trickery we are willing to submit to is the still more factitious brand found in movie special effects.

Nothing could be more natural in the face of the unassimilable loss that is Aurora than the call for us to come together or the exhortations from our leaders that we are so much stronger than the violence wrought against us. Psychologically, these moments of communal affirmation may well be essential. They reduce suffering and trauma. They are welcome.

So what I’m emphatically not saying is that such appeals to our sense of community and our common bonds should be diminished or silenced. Yet a thought experiment might be worth trying. What would happen if in the wake of the next horrific shooting (it’s coming, by the way: these are now part of the structure of American life) the calls for community, for coming together, were left aside? What would happen if we were to experience the next brutality separately and alone? No appeals for communal outpouring of aid. No praise for our resilience. No calming words about how much stronger we are than the they of evil.

I’m not here to suggest what would happen—because in fact no one knows. That’s why it’s a thought experiment. Offered here is a purely speculative effort at imagining what might happen—no more than that.

Imagine then our thought experiment in action: a terrible shudder of violence has just unfolded, but in this case not followed by the usual declarations about our communal strength. Given no consolation, left to fall downward on and on in our separateness, alone with the jagged mechanism of our isolate thought, down into the dark cloud field that such violence actually opens in us, we might finally sink into a hostile landscape of pure individuality, recourseless, fearful, enraged, destructive—detached and bereft.

This possibility is what makes responsible leaders rush to speak up for community in the face of such tragedies. And it’s no joke. Alone we would be turned over to the demons. But here’s where the thought experiment comes in. What if, in this fading away of the communal, an illusory and even mythic sensation of our togetherness were torn away too? What if in this painful moment of truth we were actually able to see ourselves as we really are? In other words, what if we were to have a genuine experience of our every-man-for-himself society? Who knows where such a revelation would lead. The thought experiment doesn’t require that closure. But it does seem to open up the possibility of a terrifying experience of our reality.

Or another outcome, less apocalyptic this one, more optimistic: what if an experience of our isolation and pure individuation actually led to a deeper and more authentic hunger for genuine community—perhaps even (and here the optimism flies over the moon) to some recognition that community is more than a feeling. It requires structures. It must arise out of our way of life, instead of being a coping mechanism only pressed into service when someone has once again enacted the mass murder script on the American stage.
Men with ED often feel depressed and do not enjoy their sexual life. levitra online order The Mango Bark, flower, leaves, and seed kennel are used in herbal preparations to reduce inflammation of your glands and draw cialis 5mg tadalafil out the oil you need to keep your eyes properly lubricated. Besides all these, the GPS systems viagra generic are of great help all the same method of “traffic lights”, a bit modified. In other words, abnormal erections may be responsible for erectile dysfunction. india tadalafil
Some would perhaps follow this line of reasoning through another question: how is it that we live in a society in which isolated young men can purchase an arsenal of weaponry, ammunition, and perhaps explosives, with impunity, with no oversight? And the thought occurs: perhaps if we did not rush so quickly headlong into consolation, this question might be cleared of its categorical political baggage. Even some of those who rushed out to buy guns after the election of the nation’s first black president might just suffer a moment’s reconsideration, once the consolations and intensities of groupthink were denied them.

Or instead—left to brood alone about the meaning of such an attack—maybe we’d follow our thinking in erratic directions, into taboo territories. Consider for example the clear prohibition against asking what Christopher Nolan’s Batman movies had to do with the killings. With no one to shout us down (and maybe this is isolation’s unique value) we might, some of us at least, entertain thoughts about why it was the Batman saga that the killer chose as the setting of his mayhem.

This is not to advocate for the idea that the film goaded the killer into action. It’s to suggest that thinking about violence in our society and in the products that entertain us might be fruitful. Nolan himself issued a statement following the shootings. “The movie theater is my home and the idea that someone would violate that innocent and hopeful place in such an unbearably savage way is devastating to me.” But what if Nolan’s film itself violates that ‘hopeful and innocent place’? Having not seen the new film, I obviously can’t comment on it—but I did see the 2008 movie that preceded it. One man’s reaction: I found it to be an appalling jumble of contradictions that finally cohered into an ugly justification—after buildings fell in clear reference to the 9/11 attacks—for vigilante violence and torture.

I realize many will disagree. They will cite (and praise) the film’s ambiguity, since after all, isn’t art supposed to enlarge our sense of the space of uncertainty and ambiguity in our lives—forgetting entirely that the work in question is a cartoon and is seen by many (most?) of its audience as such. Artists have always wanted to have it both ways: to titillate, console, and aggrandize the consumers of their work, while delivering suitably ‘progressive’ messages or critiques of social conditions. But Hollywood is more shameless in this than the other arts, and Nolan is doing nothing if not following a time-honored tradition. His Batman saga fits what must have been the film industry’s motto all along: Hollywood—we make vengeance palatable for America.

Entertaining such thoughts has value, not as a way to deliver a brief against Nolan and his movie but because it might lead us in the direction of actually undertaking to untangle the meaning of the violence that haunts our actual national life—from predator drones to prison rapes to the endless toll of mundane and undramatic murders that unfold daily, which action movies do not reflect so much as provide a comforting screen for (pun intended).

But please, don’t get all bent out of shape. I’m only suggesting a thought experiment. A what-could-happen-if scenario. I proposed a couple of outcomes—and perhaps not the most important ones. Remembering this: what matters in my view is the possibility of thinking about what’s happened in more idiosyncratic ways, without consolation, in isolation, adrift in arenas that would be taboo in groups. Who knows what such thinking might reveal about who we are and what we are becoming, if such unexpected lines of thought were pursued in the privacy of an un-ameliorated grief and fear, before we rushed to come together as a community and ‘move on’?

Romney’s bullying.

Given that this blog has assiduously avoided anything topical with the secret goal (more or less realized) of making itself invisible to search engines, what on earth might now possess me to add my words to the torrent on Romney’s great haircutting debacle? Only perhaps that I was shocked. As a headline scanner, I had first thought: well, so Romney teased a boy who was gay about his hair. What a jerk. Then I read the story. I suppose there are those who think attacking someone—leading the group in the attack—and cutting his hair is no more than a mild prank. But really holding someone down and taking scissors to him? “Like a pack of wild dogs,” as one participant remembers it. Did you do things like that in high school? I didn’t think so.

Others have pointed out that this incident was not entirely unique. They noted how Romney seems to have taken particular joy in guiding a teacher with poor eyesight into a glass door (Gail Collins in the Times), and still others conclude that his claim not to remember the haircutting attack is perhaps as bad as the event itself (Charles M. Blow, also in the Times, among others).

But I’d like to come at this story from a slightly different angle. Here’s what I propose: I’d like to recall an incident of bullying I observed as a child growing up in Texas at roughly the same time that Romney was attending prep school in Michigan. I’d then like to suggest that this incident was an example of a culture of bullying then present in Texas that seemed as normal and natural to its perpetrators and victims as it did to its audience—and bullying is primitive theater, let’s not forget that. I’d then further like to take a leap and suggest that the Texas I grew up in helped shape the personality of George W. Bush, the Republican figure Romney most resembles, despite their widely variant styles and personalities, and that Bush and Romney both share a propensity for playing the bully.

•

When Mitt Romney was in high school I was a student in a North Dallas junior high. Every day after lunch several hundred of us were turned loose to roam across a large asphalt playground behind the school gym. There was a boy named Robert Jacobson who played among us (name changed to protect, even after all these years). Robert suffered some unidentified disorder or incapacity—probably undiagnosed, given the times. He walked on his toes and did not connect appropriately with others. He just stood out. His nickname—and it was his only name on the playground—was Twinkletoes. During lunch kids would throw pennies, and Robert would chase them, running in an awkward stiff legged gait, high on his toes, his arms flung out, unbent at the elbows, after the pennies. Day after day. It was only years later that I realized the significance of the pennies: Robert was of course Jewish. And as everyone around me seemed to know, Jews will chase pennies.

So there you have it. A crude anti-Semitism. A vicious mocking game aimed at someone who was defenseless. I’ve pondered over the years how I didn’t understand the meaning of the pennies. I believe some part of me must have known. Yet I knew better than to know. Because another part of me, equally buried, understood only too well the threat of violence and retribution that lay behind the playground game, and recognized my lack of immunity. I was no hero. I witnessed but did nothing.

•

Sildenafil citrate increases the blood flow in supplementprofessors.com purchase viagra the reproductive organs of men. levitra no prescription Timely treatment helps victims overcome the problem without any harm. There are only three places that scientists have discovered resveratrol naturally, and that is in grapes, some green teas, and peanuts that leads scientists to believe that it is in the skins of these foods. viagra uk If the initial appointment is too short, it is a sign that either the doctor is too busy or you need to buy canada cialis find a more dedicated professional to treat yourself. If you are now thinking that I’m making too much of this story about Robert Jacobson, that I’m reliving a childhood trauma that bears no connection to my stated purpose, I can only tell you that I could unwind many other tales of bullying, taunting, and brutality in those days. Nor is Robert’s story primarily about anti-Semitism—though that topic deserves its own discussion. Vicious as it was, hatred of Jews was only one spice in the toxic brew in which my age-mates and I were steeped in those days. Blacks—especially blacks, let’s remember that—Jews, gays, the retarded, the mentally ill, the politically dissident—all were fair game for hate and reprisal. (And no, of course, it was not only Texas, but it was Texas; and I could unwind another long list of stories about all the kinds of hate I witnessed, felt, learned of, and knew to be average facets of the world I lived in.)

George W. Bush grew up in this world too, in Midland, Texas, a few hundred miles west of the playground where Robert chased his pennies. And of course that doesn’t make him guilty of anything. But this was the same George Bush who built his career around the notion of his being shaped and formed by his Texas boyhood, his values and perceptions of life arising out of his Midland roots. And so when I say that George Bush was immersed in his boyhood in the same culture I was, I’m just saying what he’s saying. Except that I’m adding that I suspect that what he learned in his Texas youth, in addition to all those heroic qualities we heard about endlessly in his political campaigns, was the fondness for reprisal and dominance that are the core of bullying, its thrill of reaching through the boundaries of another’s selfhood and violating it with impunity, its assertion of ownership—of the Other, but also of the cultural landscape itself, territoriality being one of its key features.

Am I right? Was George Bush manufactured as a bully in his West Texas boyhood? No way to prove it. We know of his subsequent actions: how he laughingly mocked Karla Faye Tucker, the woman whose death sentence he refused to commute. We know about his ready resort to violence—and this readiness lies behind all bullying. Of his childhood, no certainty. But what I do know is the milieu in which he operated. I know that it was a common sport among West Texas boys in those days to run down (as in run over and kill) jackrabbits and wild dogs in their cars and trucks on the back roads and ranch lands. (I knew a man in East Texas who would cruise its black tops at night running over possums who had come out to sleep on warm asphalt—running them over at slow speed and then watching in the red glare of his taillights as they writhed.)

Nor am I claiming that George Bush went on those hunts after rabbits and wild dogs in West Texas, or that he was violent in the way that man in East Texas was. I take him at his word—and not in the smarmy way of members of his political party when they comment on Obama’s religious beliefs—when he speaks of compassionate conservatism. It was no false veneer. Liberals mistook him by assuming hypocrisy where something more complicated was going on.

No, I believe George W. Bush believed in his compassionate conservatism without reservation. But I also suspect his views were an elaborate psychic countermeasure against the brutality he grew up with, whose wrongness he must have sensed. For I feel certain, looking at what Bush became, and his fearful reaction after 9/11, his authorizing of torture and his swaggering across the international stage (his administration peopled with the kind of full-on bullies that the doubtful bully often surrounds himself with—the Cheneys and Boltons who would do the real dirty work), that this man’s moral outlook, as he grew up in a Texas whose politics were being shaped by the nascent John Birch Society, in a Texas where racism and anti-Semitism comprised an almost universal lingua franca, was formed through a series of reactions to the violence and bullying he saw around him—that toxic mix of fear and complicity, of signing up because not signing up meant a fall into oblivion, and demurral because some part of every person withdraws, at least at first.

•

Back to George Romney. So we now know that Romney was definitively an abuser in his childhood. The idea—repeated by that amiable bully Bill O’Reilly, whose whole career has been built on the pleasures viewers receive in seeing the defenseless attacked (c.f. his comments on New Orleans flood victims as they were literally scrambling to survive on rooftops)—is that what happens in childhood should stay in childhood. But of course what happens in childhood doesn’t stay in childhood. It creeps into the land beyond, only perhaps papered over with a civilizing veneer, or sluiced into a socially acceptable direction, unless a kind of conversion experience, built on deep awareness, intervenes. Romney has clearly not experienced such an intervention, about this or any of the other many episodes of bullying and teasing he engaged in. That is the true shame of his silence and denial in his response to the Washington Post story.

Romney is very different from Bush: a real man of business, whereas Bush was always closer to the greeter at the casino, the guy who was content to keep the touts happy and then get teary-eyed and sentimental when the big winners raked it in. Romney by contrast was far closer to the genuine article—in fact not so much a businessman as the financial world’s variant of the old-fashioned industrialist, an occupant of the highest rung of the food chain, who believes himself to be entitled to every bit of it.

Yet both of them are bullies in their own way, and this comes as no surprise. For in this new century, and for a variety of perhaps complicated but also obvious reasons (the electorate’s compensation for feelings of powerlessness, old-fashioned rage at the possibility of displacement and diminishment of privilege) can it really be possible to imagine the Grand Old Party, now transformed into something that would have made those Birchers in the ’60s proud, nominating anyone for president who is not a bully?

The war began on television nine years ago this week, and I’m wondering what we remember about it. I mean not the war and all that came after, but specifically its beginning: the Shock and Awe bombing campaign that started on March 21, and the fighting that continued in the coming days. And by remembering I mean something more than that vague sense we have of a long-ago episode from an old TV program long since canceled. I mean do we really remember what it felt like and what we thought, as the first concussions ripped the night air of Baghdad? Because in fact, those first days of the war were as bizarre as any moments ever recorded on live television, and now, nine years later, it’s as if this deeply strange experience we all lived through has just disappeared. Never to be spoken of.

•

The key was that it was all televised, and televised more specifically as though it were a theatrical event produced for public consumption. We can summon, if we try, the strangeness of the time: how arcs of light poured out of our television sets in living rooms and offices, in waiting areas and barrooms, in airports and kitchens, the explosions seeming almost to rock the rooms we lived in. And it was true: cameras were everywhere, including, astoundingly in Baghdad itself, at the very nexus point of the violence. (If you balk at the idea that television was all important, consider that a war of retribution in Afghanistan had already been fought, a war which, due to local conditions, had failed to offer the satisfying theatrical experience that Iraq produced on its opening night alone.)

This second round thus had its own aesthetic logic and became necessary as a matter of art. Those blooms of fire over Baghdad—retribution, caught in the camera’s lens—were the direct payout for the debt of fire over New York. The visuals were what really mattered. For many—and perhaps this is what is most troubling—the raw wounds of 9/11 were being healed that night.

•

And who can forget what followed in the coming days, as the first week of battle unfolded? How the television lens carried us on a vertiginous carnival ride into the heart of battle. We were all there, caught behind the lens. One moment: tanks roaring across the desert—dust, noise, and the thrilling disorientation of war spilling into our living rooms. A wind-whipped correspondent shouting into a microphone. A troop carrier blasts past. Soldiers dig in the sand. Fast cut to a carrier deck. The war whoop of an F-18 careening into flight and suddenly we’re on board the aircraft, the horizon tilting, the great dusty landmass of Iraq below. (A television correspondent actually asked one of the pilots returning from a sortie, “How was your performance tonight?”)

A second quick cut, and now we’re in a oil field, burning, and even before we’ve had a chance to imagine the acrid smell of the smoke, we fast cut to a small arms gun battle on the outskirts of some village, a scene so rich in imagery and drama, people will say it’s better than Saving Private Ryan. (And people will actually say this.) And then the coup de grâce, the most thrilling images of all, because it’s so like a video game: film from a helicopter gunship, or a Warthog, of an Iraqi soldier or a lone station wagon on the ground, and we watch as the gun sights lock, sudden trails of the weapons smoking through the air, the erasure in the sand of the human being, the vehicle, reduced to ant lion hill smudges, all calmly recorded in the neutral eye of the lens. (And I heard young men, and more than one—and this is pure fact—talking gleefully about these images. Did you see that? they said. They wiped that fucker out! Laughing.)

•

In some instances canadian pharmacy cialis there is no guarantee the treatment will even arrive. At the international market level they offer prescription drugs and generatic medications at the rates lower than of Canadian pharmacy. samples of levitra At movement online cialis pills our website the body generates and exhales in an atmosphere much more carbon dioxide than at rest. Don’t drive or operate any machinery soon after taking this medicine cialis prescription cost as it causes dizziness and drowsiness. All of it then was performance, but really all of it (and here I’m borrowing from Slavoj Žižek, the philosopher and social theorist): not only those on the stage (the Iraqis, Saddam, the troops, George W., Cheney, and Rumsfeld), but us (the audience). We were performing too—as though the theater itself with cast and audience had been set up on a still larger stage. And that’s the key point. Not who we were performing for—read Žižek if you want elaboration on that point. But that we too, the watchers, were participating in a performance that thematically advanced a single idea: that we, like the townspeople in the old Westerns, had witnessed justice being done.

•

In Zarathustra, human beings distorted by the spirit of revenge are called tarantulas. And their motto: “Let it be the very justice of the world to become full of our vengeance.” And so Iraq became full of our vengeance.

•

There is a kind of embarrassment in having been swept away by an aesthetic spectacle that we later acknowledge to have been meretricious. Our teen-age enthusiasms we sometimes look back upon with a benevolent but knowing eye. More problematic are the memories of more humiliating enthusiasms. These we simply suppress, living as though they never happened, even as they remain part of the ocean floor we travel over.

I submit that those early days of the Iraq war fall into this second category of pure suppression. Obviously, under such conditions, there’s no possibility of reckoning or contrition. And why should there be? If we were to acknowledge our wrongs, we would deprive ourselves of the right to witness future performances of similar spectacles. Somewhere in the farther reaches of the psyche we want to hold on to a ticket to a later run of the same play, with only a few scenes changed, and with a new cast. That ticket is our right to violence without regret. It may be bad art, but it’s the art we need to justify our lashing out and our indifference to the meaning of our own conduct.

•

In the days following the opening of the Iraq campaign, I had just moved into an apartment in the Adams Morgan neighborhood of Washington, D.C. It was an odd time to be in an unfamiliar neighborhood, with the different sounds, the feel of daily life new and strange—and all punctuated, illuminated by those flashes of light pouring out of the screen into the living room.

It was a damp chilly March, but not so cold that the windows couldn’t be left open, and I remember night after night in the kitchen as I cleaned up, listening to the call of a bird just outside, and night after night, the same bird calling. Its whistle was clear and pure, and I soon realized its two-note call was always the same: a minor third, starting at the tonic. A mournful, lonely sound. I’ve never heard such a call, before or since, but listening to that brief song, repeated again and again in the otherwise silent night, an eerie sense invaded me. This became the music of my spring, the music for me that played contrapuntally against the sounds of that faraway battle pouring out of the TV screen. The blue notes, the music of elegy and regret.

Cover photo from The Tiger's Wife in Swamplandia!

First of all I want to say that spontaneous combustion of the human corpus is a fact, not a theory. And second: I’ve been drinking a bit this evening in my little workshop, the Atelier™, after learning that my novel, The Doom Prophecy, was not chosen as a Top Ten Book of the Year by the New York Times. For maybe the fifth or sixth consecutive year.

No bitterness. Really. To prove which point, I offer the following notes on one of the books on the list, a wonderful read, by the way, and I don’t say that lightly, having long ago renounced the modern novel (frankly, as far as I’m concerned, literature came to an end with The Good Earth by, I think it was, St. Vincent Benet Ramsey).

The novel I’m urging you to read, like The Doom Prophecy, is a first novel, and like The Doom Prophecy, a first novel with a ‘wild and wacky’ plot and many ‘touching’ characters. It’s titled The Tiger’s Wife in Swamplandia! and was written by Karen ‘Téa’ R. Oberht Hornung. (The R. stands for Russell, the name of her father or of a Jack Terrier her father was fond of; Wikipedia is currently having quite a dustup on the issue. As for Hornung, Téa, as her fans call her, is apparently related to the great Green Bay Packers’ running back, Pat Hornung.)

The Tiger’s Wife in Swamplandia! tells the story of a young medical student who spends her weekends in the swamps of South Florida—an ambiguous term which here means the Everglades—collecting specimens of fungi that might someday lead to still more potent forms of erectile dysfunction drugs, when she comes upon a weird minstrel show from Coney Island called Shoot the Freak, stranded in the swamp and mourning the loss of the grandfatherly owner of the show in an ugly alligator attack, as if there’s any other kind.

Meanwhile the owner’s daughter, a rather tremendous and often bikini clad looker in her own right, has come upon a tiger escaped from another carnival also lost in the swamp after careening off the road on Alligator Alley following a near collision with the touring bus for the band Wang Chung (ask your parents—scratch that, ask your grandparents).

You can guess where the plot is going. The medical student falls for the daughter of the carney show operator. The tiger eventually is called upon to save the pair when they wander into a particularly tall stand of cattails during one of their lurid trysts and are attacked by the same alligator that killed the grandfatherly carney show operator, though how they knew the alligator was the same or that it answered to the name of George was a bit unclear. (The freak in the Shoot the Freak show, by the way, driven mad by the fact that no one had shot at him for days, futilely sacrifices himself to the alligator—I said futilely not feudally.)
Men are also trying to fight this disorder non-invasively, thus, they prefer to buy Tadalis cheap tadalafil SX for a longer satisfaction. This medicinal drug buy cheapest cialis has been approved by the health expert are not followed properly. You can simply buy Kamagra through any registered and acupuncture4health.ca cialis without prescription authorized medical pharmacy. Also this is said to be the great medicine which cialis uk helps completely to bring great erection.
There’s a cleansing ritual that’s pretty erotic in my view. But what’s really amazing about this story is that it turns out the tiger actually has a wife, a big bruiser of a gal, half Annie Oakley and half Dame Edith Sitwell, who comes roaring out of the swamps on an air boat, accuses the tiger of infidelity, and reveals herself to be the mother of both the medical student (by a Brazilian exchange student who died long ago in a samba accident) and the carnival show operator’s daughter (by the recently deceased carnival show operator himself—meaning the two protagonists are half sisters, and the tiger is none other than the medical student’s stepfather! Oh the drama, oh the deep down drama!)

Things roar along after that at a spanking pace with sparkling prose. Though I’m not saying The Tiger’s Wife in Swamplandia! is perfect. After all, even The Doom Prophecy has some (very minor) flaws.

Some readers will have trouble with the scene in which the tiger spontaneously combusts in a not entirely credible explosion that takes out the villain of the piece, a former Serbian war criminal who is negotiating to buy the Shoot the Freak franchise.

Not a problem for me. The scene of the tiger’s death left me weeping helplessly—I had grown quite fond of Tyg, as I had taken to calling him. As for the Serbian war criminal, the author’s decision to give him dialogue straight out of a Mickey Rooney movie, say of the Love Finds Andy Hardy period, was a risky move. I don’t think it fully works.

But these are minor quibbles, and I’ve had a bit too much to drink. The Tiger’s Wife in Swamplandia! is a fine book, and I’m feeling a bit sleepy. This always seems to happen when I drink. It didn’t use to. And though 2011 was not my year (as was not 2005 to 2010, more or less inclusive), my spirits lift to know that when the New York Times reveals the Top Ten books of 2012, The Doom Prophecy will be among the winderkins. Wow. I meant to say winners, and I said winderkins. Weird.