DaRK PaRTY ReVIEW

Wednesday, May 31, 2006

Poem: Maybe Tomorrow

I’m going to kill myself

On Saturday.

I’ll have courage

then.

I’m too busy

Now.

Assignments at work,

reruns to watch

On TV.

Email.

I should mow the lawn,

redeem a coupon,

return a DVD.

On Saturday,

I’ll have courage,

and more

time.

StumbleUpon |

Digg |

del.icio.us |

Reddit |

Technorati | E-mail a Link

E-mail

Posted by George F. Snell III at 8:29 PM.

2 comments

Tuesday, May 30, 2006

Literary Sketch: Raymond Carver's "They're Not Your Husband"

Summary: After drinking at a bar, Earl Ober, an out-of-work salesman, visits his waitress wife, Doreen, at a 24-hour coffee shop where she works the late shift. While waiting for his food to be prepared, Earl overhears the conversation of two male patrons. They are appalled by the waitress’s fat ass and can’t believe some guys like that. Afraid the men might discover Doreen is his wife, Earl leaves suddenly. The next day, he insists his wife go on a diet. She reluctantly agrees and Earl takes on the role of drill sergeant. As Doreen begins to lose weight, she becomes run down, but Earl won’t let her quit. After she has lost a substantial amount, Earl returns to the coffee shop eager to hear the patrons complement his wife’s appearance. When no one volunteers to do so, Earl begins to bait another customer into saying something in appropriate. Another waitress catches him in the act and confronts the situation with Doreen, who is forced to admit to everyone in the restaurant that Earl is her husband.

No modern writer, with the possible exception of Richard Yates, captures the silent yowl of human despair better than Raymond Carver. His simply crafted short stories vibrate with the miserable undercurrent that is ordinary life. Reading Carver is like sitting through a Thanksgiving dinner at your in-laws house while everyone desperately tries to ignore Uncle Pete, red-faced and drunk on Merlot, as he confesses to his utter hatred for everyone at the table.

In the short story collection Will You Please Be Quiet, Please, Carver delivers us one of these chair squirming ditties in “They’re Not Your Husband” – a story that packs more despondency than an entire season of Judge Judy. Here we meet Earl Ober, an unemployed salesman who is living off the wages and tips his wife collects while working as an overnight waitress at a 24-hour coffee shop. After a night of tilting back a few beers, Earl heads to the restaurant hoping to score some free chow. The utter lack benevolence between husband and wife are evident immediately: “`What are you doing here?’ Doreen said when she saw him sitting there” and later she says: “Don’t talk to me now. I’m busy.”

Earl’s reality – his entire life – is turned upside down a few moments later when he overhears two men in business suits gossiping about his wife. They chuckle over Doreen’s corpulent rump and one of them cruelly mutters, “But some jokers like their quim fat.” When his wife returns with his order, Earl becomes silent, hoping the two men don’t connect him to her in anyway. The situation becomes dire when one of the men orders a sundae and Doreen bends over the freezer to scoop the ice cream. Her uniform dress rides up her legs revealing rumpled, gray thighs streaked with veins and hair. As the two men exchange a disgusted glance, Earl leaves his food untouched without saying goodbye to his wife.

Until this moment, Earl failed to notice his wife's extra pounds, because he hasn’t been looking. He’s been living his life blind – so numb, so detached – that he when he finally does take the time to look – to really see his wife -- it is through the eyes of two callous strangers. Rather than rip into the men or punch one of them in the jaw, Earl flees shame-faced. He has nothing to fall back on. No stored up reservoirs of love or devotion to his wife. It may be the most poignant and depressing realization in the story.

The next morning, in a scene that could redefine the concept of passive aggressive, Earl convinces his wife to go on a diet (“`I hate to say anything,’ Earl said, `but I think you better give diet some thought. I mean it. I’m serious. I think you could lose a few pounds. Don’t get mad.’”) Like a possessed drill sergeant, Earl puts his wife on a strict eating regiment; even spending their meager earnings on a bathroom scale.

Sprinkled through the narrative like land mines are Carver’s careful revelations of the Ober family’s dysfunctions. The family doesn’t seem to eat together. The children are nameless, faceless ghouls planted in front of the television (“He could hear the television before he opened the door to the house. The children did not look up as he walked through the living room.”). At one point, Earl catches his wife cheating and calls her a slob. There are no moments of tenderness between Earl and Doreen – just tension, irritation, and a weird kind of resignation that they’re stuck with each other.

Doreen begins to shed pounds. Three and a half one week. Five another. Then nine and a half. She feels exhausted, worn-out, and wants to start eating normally again. Earl, of course, won’t hear of it. When Doreen tells him the people at work are beginning to comment on her sudden weight loss, Earl gives her a firm answer: “They’re not your husband.”

One night, after putting the ghouls to bed, Earl goes out to a bar and then heads for the diner. He watches his wife move around behind the counter like a man proud of his newly trained golden retriever. He orders a cheeseburger and a coffee and eavesdrops on the patrons around him waiting for someone to make a comment. He rushes through his bathroom breaks, fearful that he is missing something. But none of the customers say a word.

So Earl takes matters into his own hands. The man next to him is reading a newspaper and, so far, hasn’t so much as glanced at Doreen: “`What do you think of that?’ Earl said to the man, nodding at Doreen as she moved down the counter. ‘Don’t you think that’s something special?’” Earl, now desperate, nudges the man and then asks for Doreen to fetch him a sundae. “Earl looked at the man and winked as Doreen’s skirt traveled up her thighs. But the other man’s eyes caught the eyes of the other waitress.”

Busted. The other waitress demands to know who Earl is. She asks Doreen: “Who is this character?” With the other waitress and the man with the newspaper looking on: “Earl put on his best smile. He held it. He held it until he felt his face pulling out of shape.” Doreen, just as ashamed of her spouse as her husband has been about her, shakes her head and reluctantly answers: “He’s a salesman. He’s my husband.”

Carver wraps it in a bow for us. Doreen – victimized Doreen – feels just as mortified about her chronically unemployed husband. Here we have a married couple that we can only guess once loved and doted on each other, had children together – sleep together -- and yet all that remains of their relationship is a low-wattage contempt for each other.

And that, my friends, is where Carver lives.

Labels: literary criticism, literature, Raymond Carver

StumbleUpon |

Digg |

del.icio.us |

Reddit |

Technorati | E-mail a Link

E-mail

Posted by George F. Snell III at 8:05 PM.

0 comments

Sunday, May 28, 2006

Under God's Right Arm: Curious George and the Descent into Evil

The DaRK PaRTY ReVIEW is pleased to announce a new regularly occurring opinion column called Under God’s Right Arm by the Rev. Colson Crosslick. Mr. Crosslick, a graduate of Bob Jones University, a profuse letter writer to TownHall.com, and pastor of the Pretty Good Shepherd Ministries in Ripsaw, Arkansas, will explore the pressing issues of our day.

What could be a better gift to a Christian child than the highly acclaimed Curious George series by H.A. Rey? Aren’t these books simply about the light-hearted adventures of an inquisitive primate exploring the world around him – one giggle-filled scrape after another? Not on closer inspection. The late Mr. Rey and his publisher, Houghton Mifflin (which has published the works of anti-American authors like James Carroll), would have parents believe that George is an endearing symbol of childhood innocence.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Curious George books are filled with corruption, criminal behavior, and a callous disregard for the consequences of wrongdoing. The seven original books in the series feature drinking to excess, smoking tobacco, wanton vandalism, theft and robbery, kidnapping, bribery, animal brutality, slave labor, and a single man living with a monkey. Is it really any coincidence that the first generation of children exposed to Curious George in the 1940s became the Beat Generation – giving us subversive, drug-addled troublemakers like Allen Ginsberg, Jack Kerouac, and William S. Burrough?

The Origins of Corruption: The First Book

Most parents have no idea that H.A. Rey and his wife, Margret, were born in what was to become Nazi Germany. One wonders why Mr. Rey used his initials instead of his real name of Hans Augusto. Was it to hide his ethnic identity? Another little publicized fact about the Reys: they left Germany for Rio de Janeiro – a notorious hide-out for Nazi war criminals! Houghton Mifflin would have parents believe that the Reys were Jewish and escaped Nazi Germany on hand-made bicycles, but we all know that giant publishing houses cannot be trusted.

Mr. Rey published the first book Curious George in 1941 – while the United States was distracted by World War II. Disguised as an adventurous romp, this first volume is a cesspool of anti-Christian corruption. The ominous character of the “Man with the Yellow Hat” makes his first appearance here. The Man with the Yellow Hat (the Man, for short) looms over all of the Curious George stories – a smiling, omnipresent enabler of sleaze. The Man (always clad in lemon-yellow clothes, often appears to be wearing make-up, and bears a striking resemblance to a thin Nathan Lane) pulls the strings behind George’s transgressions.

(Side note: Mr. Rey dresses the man in yellow for symbolic reasons. Anyone who has seen a traffic light knows that yellow means “Caution.” But did you also know that yellow is very close to white on the color chart and that white is the color of death in many alien cultures? So, in fact, Rey has given us a symbol of the Man – “Caution Death!”)

The first book starts in Africa where young George is frolicking in a palm tree eating a banana. He retains his fragile innocence here – at peace with nature and God. Then along comes the rifle-toting Man with the Yellow Hat who invades George’s pastoral paradise and kidnaps him by stuffing him in a burlap sack. The Man plans to sell George into slavery at a zoo and his descent into evil has begun.

Despondent at his fate, George tries to commit suicide by throwing himself off the ship railing into the cold ocean below. He is, of course, saved by pirates the Man has hired for his kidnapping expedition and the rest, as they say, is history. Once in America, George gorges himself on food, alcohol, and smoking tobacco. Has the Man no shame? The only thing missing are supple, young male prostitutes with nipple rings and narcotics (don’t worry, the drugs come later).

The rest of the volume is an orgy of decadence. False alarms called to the Fire Department, a jail break (if only our criminal justice system had been given more of an opportunity to work its rehabilitation magic on George!), the robbery of a balloon man, and finally bribery. George ends up sold to the zoo.

Monkey See, Monkey Do: Teaching Children to Sin

George’s life of sin is cataloged in six other volumes – but the three greatest offenders are Curious George Takes a Job, Curious George Rides a Bike, and Curious George Gets a Medal. Here are most glaring criminal and immoral activities from this trio of alleged “children’s” books.

Curious George Takes a Job: Features George breaking out of the zoo, stealing from an Italian chef, and overdosing on a bottle of ether. George also takes a job washing windows and enjoys being a peeping Tom and vandalizing an old woman’s apartment. Enter Nathan Lane’s doppelganger – O ye Evil Man in Yellow! – who signs a monetary pact with Hollywood to film George’s life story (God knows what kind of filth was produced!).

Curious George Rides a Bike: Features George and the Man living together in a twisted bestiality relationship that should make most Christians shudder with revulsion (at one point they even hug – this could have been Ang Lee’s inspiration for Brokeback Mountain!). George dupes a paperboy, destroys property, and tries to murder an ostrich (who bears an uncanny resemblance to Pat Robertson). George ends up performing for an animal circus wearing a green costume without pants!

Curious George Gets a Medal: This may be the most despicable book in the lot! George destroys Mr. Caution Death’s house with water (a reference most likely to the Old Testament). In a feigned attempt to alleviate the flood, George steals a pump from a pair of farmers (who look like Chuck Colson and Phyllis Schlafly if she were a man). George ends up vandalizing a museum and then is strong-armed into being the first monkey into space.

It’s time for Christians in the United States to admit to the ungodly influence of Corruption George. Behavior problems and youth crimes have been mounting since these books were published. The evidence is overwhelming. I’m calling for an all-out Christian boycott of Curious George. It’s time to send a message that our children are our most valuable assets and turn off the spigot of corruption that is H.A. Rey’s Curious George.

Labels: Curious George, Under God's Right Arm

StumbleUpon |

Digg |

del.icio.us |

Reddit |

Technorati | E-mail a Link

E-mail

Posted by George F. Snell III at 8:14 PM.

8 comments

Thursday, May 25, 2006

Poem: A Businessman on an Airplane

The girl I loved first had
yellow hair, a funny nose, and
unbridled optimism.
She danced to the Doors, and
her father once
caught me with my hands
under her shirt,
Saturday Night Live on his TV.

I made her cry when
college came.

The second girl I kissed
at a bonfire,
fireworks filling the night.
Her eyes.
My temper and tequila
and frat parties
killed what we had

She left my heart in a ditch,
wanting to die.

The third one almost
got away
with my brother’s best friend.
But I fought.
When her lips touched mine,
my heart healed.
I married her by the ocean,
in a cold drizzle.

When we quarrel,
I wish for the other two.

StumbleUpon |

Digg |

del.icio.us |

Reddit |

Technorati | E-mail a Link

E-mail

Posted by George F. Snell III at 2:24 PM.

0 comments

Essay: Brandeis Meets MySpace

"Privacy is the right to be alone – the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized man.”

Louis D. Brandeis meet MySpace and the downfall of civilization.

Brandeis, the famed privacy advocate, would be mortified to know that his life – both the good and the bad – is easily accessible to anyone with a Web browser. The good – he was one of the most celebrated U.S. Supreme Court justices; and the bad – he was a skinflint.

Brandeis and his supporters were concerned about intrusive government policies. In the 1928 U.S. Supreme Court case Olmstead v. United States, the court examined the use of wiretaps on telephones by federal agents without judicial approval and whether the practice violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

Sound familiar?

The court cast its lot with the government 5-4 in Olmstead (the decision was reversed in 1967). However, Brandeis wrote an eloquent and provocative minority opinion where he argued that there was no difference between a private telephone call and a sealed letter. He wrote, “If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means—to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal—would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face.”

Powerful thinking. It is fair to conclude that Brandeis would have had a brain hemorrhage at the Bush administration’s behavior in directing the NSA to comb through millions of telephone records of U.S. citizens in a vain attempt to find connections to Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

But what would have really shocked Brandeis is not the predictable overstepping of government, but our alleged freedom-loving society's voluntary undermining of our own privacy. Why worry about the federal government monitoring our telephone calls when we allow Google to “read” our email so it can better target us with advertisements? Sixty-five million people have created Web sites on MySpace sharing the most intimate details of their lives – complete with soundtracks and risqué photographs.

(Meet Kate. She’s a 22-year-old from Warwick, Rhode Island, who says her dad is her hero. She loves Dave Barry, Green Day, American Idol and strolling through Boston holding hands. Since she’s bisexual – that hand holding partner could be anyone. “Being in love with your best friend is just the ultimate thing,” she gushes on her MySpace site, where she’s posed in a bikini top.)

The list of how millions of us freely throw away our privacy rights continues to grow:

Thousands of bloggers use the format as a public diary. They record the tedious details of their lives for public consumption. We can marvel at the new mom who catalogs her babies every bowel movement or the boastful college student who records every sexual rendezvous. Many people have forgotten the virtue of discretion and there is mounting ancedotal evidence that employers are cracking down on those bloggers who cross the line.
TiVo, the TV recording service company, gathers enough information from their subscribers to track their home viewing habits even though the company promises not to, according to a study by the Privacy Foundation and University of Denver Privacy Center. The four-month investigation also found that TiVo could identify the personal viewing habits of its subscribers at will. Yet this hasn't stopped thousands of people from signing up for the service.
Google admits that it searches for keywords in its Gmail offering in order to serve up targeted advertising and marketing to its subscribers. That means the company reads subscriber email by looking for specific content. The potential for abuse here is staggering. Even more alarming -- Google has acknowledged that it holds onto subscribers' deleted emails -- indefinitely.
The popularity of reality shows like Survivor and Fear Factor continue to baffle those who treasure privacy. Yet almost nightly, television channels are clogged with the exploits of every day people willing to showcase the intimate details of their lives in the most humilating ways. Having child-raising problems? Hire a nanny with a TV camera. Need some money? Eat a bucket of slugs for a chance to win cash prizes.

Privacy, like its cousin modesty, is difficult to regain once lost. There's an entire generation of Americans who not only don't understand the virtue of privacy -- but also its importance and relevance to a strong democratic society. If people are willing to voluntarily sacrifrice freedom for the convenience of TiVo and Gmail or the illusion of intimacy promised by MySpace or a personal blog, then its no wonder the federal government believes it has the right to monitor the telephone calls of its citizens.

Brandeis had it right way back in 1928. It's time Americans listened to the skinflint.

StumbleUpon |

Digg |

del.icio.us |

Reddit |

Technorati | E-mail a Link

E-mail

Posted by George F. Snell III at 2:05 PM.

0 comments

Wednesday, May 24, 2006

Literary Sketch: James Joyce's "Counterparts"

Summary: Farrington, a mid-level bureaucrat at a Dublin law office, is berated by his mousy boss when he fails to complete an assignment on deadline. Farrington, a heavy-set, plodding man with few prospects and no ambitions, spends his days darting out to the pub around the corner for quick draughts of porter. After a particularly nasty row with his boss, Farrington heads out for a night of drinking at his favorites taverns. Penniless until payday, Farrington pawns his watch for drinking money. The night passes in a drunken blur as Farrington is humiliated after flirting with a London woman and then by a smaller man who beats him in an arm wrestling match. That night, his rage fueled by drink, Farrington returns home to wife and five children. He teaches his youngest boy a lesson by beating him with a walking stick as the boy prays for his soul.

In his 1916 book of fifteen short stories called Dubliners, James Joyce paints a gloomy portrait of Ireland’s capital and of an Irish culture strongly influenced by the Roman Catholic Church, England’s occupation, and by a population preoccupied with drink. One of the stand-outs in this collection is “Counterparts.” The story is a master work showcasing the never-ending cycle of family violence. The rage in the story is evident from the first sentence, which uses the adjective “furious” twice – once to describe a bell and the second time a voice.

The reader is introduced to Farrington, a red-faced gigantic man who Joyce constantly portrays as heavy, plodding, drooping, and ruddy. “When he stood up he was tall and of great bulk. He had a hanging face, dark wine-coloured, with fair eyebrows and moustache: his eyes bulged forward slightly and the whites of them were dirty.”

We meet Farrington just as his boss at a law firm launches into a verbal tirade against him. Mr. Alleyne, a little, bald man with an English last name (Farrington’s foils in the story all carry English surnames), lashes out at Farrington with all the cruelty of a petty tyrant. Part of Alleyne’s verbal assault consists of mimicking Farrington’s replies. This is important because at the end of the story, just before Farrington his attacks his son with a walking stick, he verbal abuses his son in the same way.

At the end of the scene, the reader is left feeling sympathy for poor Farrington, even as we catch a glimpse of his unfocused rage. Joyce excels here at building up the reader’s empathy for Farrington as he begins to drop clues in the narrative that Farrington might not be worthy of such compassion.

A feeling of desperation clings to poor Farrington as he realizes he neither has the time or the inclination to finish his work assignment for Alleyne. His anger builds and he begins to imagine ways in which to lash out – but settles on daydreaming about drinking at the pubs with his friend later in the evening. The day ends with another verbal assault by Alleyne, this time in front of a woman client. Farrington, befuddled and embarrassed, manages an accidental quip that sends Alleyne into a fury that jeopardizes Farrington’s job.

In the end, Farrington apologizes to his boss and realizes his work life will now be “a hornet’s nest.” He feels, “savage, thirsty and revengeful, annoyed with himself and with everyone else.” Unable to corner the firm cashier for an advance in wages, Farrington pawns his watch for drinking money. With six shillings in his pocket, Farrington’s mood lightens.

The middle part of the story takes place at various Dublin pubs as Farrington joins his companions for a night of carousing. It is here that the reader begins to have deeper doubts about Farrington’s character. He embellishes his argument with his boss to make it seem as if he gave Alleyne a good comeuppance.

Farrington is a desperate man – desperate for approval, desperate for attention, fearful that the night will finally end. Farrington uses his new-found money to buy round after round until – drunk – he begins to resent his friends as sponges (ironic because before pawning his watch, Farrington plotted on how to beg and borrow from his drinking companions). Two events cap the evening – Farrington’s shameless flirting with an English woman and his loss of an arm wrestling match against a much smaller man (also an Englishman).

On page 9, the reader is introduced to some stunning information. Farrington – a man we imagined as a lonely bachelor – is married. His previous behavior, although often boorish could be explained away by his rough behavior at work. Now Farrington’s anger and his selfish behavior are seen in a new, disturbing light. The pity we once had for this man suddenly seems wasted on him.

The last part of the story we find: “A very sullen-faced man stood at the corner of O’Connell Bridge waiting for the little Sandymount tram to take him home. He was full of smouldering anger and revengefulness. He felt humiliated and discontented; he did not even feel drunk; and he had only twopence in his pocket. He cursed everything.”

Farrington arrives home and we discover not only a wife at home, but five children. A boy, Tom (who Farrington at first calls Charlie) greets his drunk and seething father at the door while the rest of the brood sleeps. Joyce strikes a staggering blow against the Roman Catholic Church. Farrington’s wife, Ada, is at church – safe in the sanctuary of her religion while her children sleep alone and unprotected from their violent father. It is a mistake that will cost poor Tom. “The little boy cried O, pa! and ran whimpering round the table, but the man followed him and caught him by the coat. The little boy looked about him wildly but, seeing no way of escape, fell upon his knees.”

We now recognize Farrington for what he is: a bitter drunk who beats his wife and children. The story ends with Tom pleading for his father not to beat him and vowing to say a Hail Mary for him – another slap at the church. The prayers do nothing to alleviate the pain and anguish leveled against the defenseless boy.

But upon further reflection we realize that Farrington does merit our sympathy – for was he not at one time Tom? And will not poor, young Tom one day be the big, raging Farrington? Joyce has taken us full circle, which is surely why this stunningly emotional short story was called “Counterpart” in the first place.

Labels: James Joyce, literary criticism, literature

StumbleUpon |

Digg |

del.icio.us |

Reddit |

Technorati | E-mail a Link

E-mail

Posted by George F. Snell III at 2:55 PM.

2 comments

Monday, May 22, 2006

Essay: Fiction and the Catholic Church

I held out for as long as I could. But I finally read The Da Vinci Code, mostly on a beach. The book still smells like coconut suntan lotion and there are oily stains on many of the pages, which I believe were the direct result of eating an entire bag of Cape Cod potato chips sometime during the middle of the novel. But that’s the type of book Dan Brown wrote – a page-turner you can read on beach between dips in the ocean and naps on a blanket. A book where you don’t really mind getting food stains on.

Steinbeck and Faulkner have little to fear. The Da Vinci Code isn’t about to replace The Sound and the Fury (#6) or The Grapes of Wrath (#10) from the Modern Library’s List of 100 Best Novels. The Da Vinci Code is a plot-driven thriller with conventional twists and turns – with some high-minded lectures on art history, architecture, and religion thrown in. Some of the lectures were quite enjoyable and had me reaching for my art history encyclopedia. But the characters were wooden, underdeveloped, and strictly included to drive the action. I enjoyed it, but in the end I prefer my thrillers more hardboiled (hello, Michael Connelly and Robert Crais). I read Brown and moved on to the next book on my stack.

Until, that is, the Roman Catholics and the Christian fundamentalists got their panties in a bunch. I remember strolling through a book store in Kendall Square in Cambridge and coming across The Truth Behind the Da Vinci Code: A Challenging Response to the Bestselling Novel by Richard Abanes. (Abanes is a devout Christian who has also inked a book questioning the morality in Lord of the Rings, the Harry Potter novels, and the Chronicles of Narnia – you get the picture).

I remember thinking: “But the book is a novel.” Fiction. Which the literate way publishers, writers, librarians, and academics say: make-believe. Can someone please alert Abanes and the dozens of other “authors” with books debunking the Brown’s novel that it actually features an albino assassin? Could we not have aimed our energies at debunking Mitch Albom’s The Five People You Meet in Heaven? (I would have paid for that.)

With the movie adaptation recently released we have gems like this one from the Washington Post: " 'The Da Vinci Code' gratuitously insults Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church," said Vincent Nichols, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Birmingham, England. "It deliberately presents fiction as fact."

Read that last sentence again: “It deliberately presents fiction as fact.” I suppose one could make the same argument about the Bible, but I also know you can make that argument about every single novel ever written. Nichols also claims Brown’s book is an insult to Jesus. Isn’t this the same Catholic church that deliberately covered up and is now being forced to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars to the victims of an epidemic of pedophilia among the clergy? One wonders if Nichols thinks that’s an insult to Jesus. Maybe he should spend less time reading mystery novels and more time reviewing the Ten Commandments.

Here’s another quote from the same Post article: “In France, Monsignor Jean-Michel di Falco Leandri, bishop of the Hautes-Alpes region, said he saw the film Friday and found it a "grotesque" portrayal of history and Christian belief.” Does anyone really get their history from novels? Would any serious historian turn to Michael Shaara’s The Killer Angels as a go-to reference on Civil War history? One can argue that a novel can put history in context – breath some life into it, but not many people would claim a novel can or should replace a history book.

It’s unfortunate that the wealthiest, most powerful church in the world feels threatened by the equivalent of a dime-store paperback. The church should focus on more important things: like feeding the poor, paying off child abuse victims, and filling out the paperwork on Mel Gibson's sainthood. What’s next, the pope declaring Dan Brown an infidel and putting a price on his head? If so, I suggest Brown contact Salman Rushdie for his list of suitable hiding spots.

Labels: Christianity, Church, Da Vinci Code, Essay

StumbleUpon |

Digg |

del.icio.us |

Reddit |

Technorati | E-mail a Link

E-mail

Posted by George F. Snell III at 11:11 PM.

3 comments

DaRK PaRTY Literary Resource Page

We love books and literature, so we write a lot about it. We've created this resource page to allow for easy access to all the writers, books, and short stories that have appeared on the pages of DaRK PaRTY. The Literary Resource Page is divided into alphabetical order by author's last name. Thus, if you're searching for Ernest Hemingway -- look under "Hemingway, Ernest."

The Literary Resources Page includes links to critical analysis of books and writers, essays on the writers or literary topics, interviews about famous writers, and interviews with authors. If you have any questions about the material please write us at DarkPartyReview(AT)gmail(DOT)com or leave us a comment.

Almond, Steve

Author Interview

Asimov, Isaac

Literary Criticism: The Man Who Never Told a Lie

Austen, Jane

5 Questions About: Jane Austen

Bauerlein, Mark

Author Interview
Book Short: The Dumbest Generation

Benedek, E.A.

Book Review: Red Sea

Bierce, Ambrose

Literary Criticism: An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge
5 Questions About: Ambrose Bierce
Two Poems: Nightmare and Detected

Brown, Margaret Wise

Essay: Hello, Miss Brown, Goodnight Moon
Essay: Children's Books that Won't Drive Parents Insane

Bruen, Ken

Author Interview

Bukowski, Charles

Essay: Learning to Love Bukowski
Interview with Linda King, Bukowski ex-girlfriend
5 Questions About: Charles Bukowski
Essay: 5 Writers Every Man Should Read
Poem About Bukowski

Burroughs, Edgar Rice

Essay: Ode to John Carter of Mars

Carver, Raymond

Literary Criticism: They're Not Your Husband
Essay: 5 Writers Every Man Should Read

Cheknov, Anton

Literary Criticism: A Dead Body

Clark, Susanna

Book Review: Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell

Connell, Richard

Literary Criticism: The Most Dangerous Game

Cormier, Robert

Essay: Robert Cormier and the Radicalization of Young Adult Fiction

Crane, Stephen

Literary Criticism: The Upturned Face

Dahl, Roald

Literary Criticism: Lamb to the Slaughter

de Maupassants, Guy

Literary Criticism: The Vendetta

Dickens, Charles

Essay: 5 Kooky, Wonderful Facts About Dickens
5 Questions About: Charles Dickens
Essay: The Most Memorial Supporting Characters in Dickens
Essay: Reading Dickens

Doyle, Arthur Conan

5 Questions About: Sherlock Holmes

Labels: Dark Party, Fiction, literary criticism, literature, Writing

StumbleUpon |

Digg |

del.icio.us |

Reddit |

Technorati | E-mail a Link

E-mail

Posted by George F. Snell III at 8:57 PM.

0 comments

Literary Criticism: Hemingway's "Indian Camp"

Summary: A boy, Nick Adams, his father, and his Uncle George cross a lake in the upper peninsula of Michigan to give medical aid to an Indian woman who has been in painful labor for two-days. They arrive at the Indian camp to find the woman shuttered in a shanty screaming in agony. Her husband, his foot seriously injured by an axe, lies in the bunk above her. Using his hunting and fishing equipment, Doctor Adams performs a Cesarean section and delivers a baby boy. However, during the delivery the Indian husband commits suicide by cutting his throat with a razor.

Analysis: Everything that is Ernest Hemingway can be found in the concise, economical prose of “Indian Camp.” The story – one of Hemingway’s shortest – may be among the finest coming of age stories ever written in the 20th century. Within the 3-4 pages the major themes of Hemingway’s life’s work gets a work out: life, death, suicide, courage, cowardice, suffering, and pain.

At the center of the story is the tension between Nick and his father, an overbearing, arrogant and racist medical doctor. As the story begins, Nick is still a boy, naïve and needing the protection and comfort of his father. This is evident as they get in the rowboats: “Nick lay back with his father’s arm around him.”

The conversation that follows also shows Nick as child and his father as the authority figure: “`Where are we going, Dad?’ Nick asked. ‘Over to the Indian Camp. There is an Indian lady very sick.’ `Oh,’ said Nick.”

They arrive at the camp in the dewy, stillness of dawn. They find the woman inside a shanty in grave pain, the old women of the tribe unable to help her give birth. Here is when the tension between Nick and his father becomes palpable – the child pulling away from the parent. “`This woman is going to have a baby, Nick,’ he said. `I know,’ said Nick. `You don’t know,’ said his father. `Listen to me.’”

His father sets to work – methodically – telling his son that the woman’s screams don’t matter. That he doesn’t hear them because they are unimportant. Dr. Adams may be the only person in the shanty who believes this. This is a turning point between father and son as Nick rebels against the callousness of his father’s attitude and behavior to the Indian woman and her peril.

Nick assists his father in the operation by holding a basin of water – no longer a boy, but an assistant. When he delivers the baby, Dr. Adams orders Nick to look at it, but Nick disobeys and looks elsewhere “so as not to see what his father was doing.” His father continues his narrative of the operation asking his son several times to watch as he closes the incision. Nick remains steadfast in looking away – giving his father and his work a cold shoulder.

Afterwards, Dr. Adams brags about his exploits to Uncle George and even the doctor’s brother reacts coldly to his arrogance by muttering: “Oh, you’re a great man, all right.” When Dr. Adams checks on the Indian husband, he reveals the man’s severed throat and a bloody razor lying in a pool of blood. The Indian husband killed himself during the delivery. His father orders Uncle George to take Nick out of the shanty so he won’t see, but this time Nick looks – again defying his father.

Father and son return to the shore and the rowboat. The arrogant doctor now sheepishly apologizes to his son. Dr. Adams no longer has all the answers. Nick takes over the conversation by asking his father several pointed and probing questions that Dr. Adams in unable to answer to Nick’s satisfaction. Asked why the Indian man killed himself, the doctor admits that he has no idea. When Nick wants to know if dying is hard, Dr. Adams provides an answer that Nick later rejects: “No, I think it’s pretty easy, Nick. It all depends.”

Father and son climb back into the rowboat. This time Nick sits in the stern away from his father. He has removed himself both physically and emotionally. Dragging his hand in the tepid lake water, Nick defies his father for the last time in the story by boldly believing that he will never die.

The irony, of course, is that “Indian Camp” is Hemingway’s first story about suicide and how young Nick (an autobiographical representation of Hemingway) shuns the weakness of suicide. Hemingway’s father, also a doctor, committed suicide and Hemingway, at age 61, shot himself in the head with a shotgun. Reading “Indian Camp” in that context is powerful literature. Not only is the story about a boy becoming a man – but it seems to be a writer courageous rejecting his own father’s suicide and declaring to all that it would not be his fate as well.

Read our literary criticism of Edgar Allan Poe's "The Masque of Red Death"

Labels: Hemingway, literary criticism, literature

StumbleUpon |

Digg |

del.icio.us |

Reddit |

Technorati | E-mail a Link

E-mail

Posted by George F. Snell III at 8:45 PM.

3 comments

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

About DaRK PaRTY

Welcome to DaRK PaRTY.

We're a (semi)-literate online magazine focused on literature, movies and music (with some poetry and fiction tossed in). We have a simple manifesto: "Literate Blather."

Publishers & Writers

We review books: fiction and non-fiction. We enjoy literary and crime fiction, but also occasionally review non-fiction. Please email at darkpartyreview[AT]gmail[DOT]com for details and for our mailing address on where to send review copies. We regret at this time that we can no longer accept vanity or self-published books.

We also interview authors. Recent interviews have included Kim Harrison, Ken Bruen, Hannah Tinti, Steve Almond, Ed Gorman, and Michael Marshall Smith among many others.

Movie Producers & Distributors

We also review and compile best of list on DVDs. You can also email us at darkpartyreview[AT]gmail[DOT]com for details.

Regular Features

We feature all kinds of nonsense, but we do have a several ongoing features:

Cracked-Back Book Reviews: Quick reviews on the books we're reading in any given month. We grade them from A to F.

Fantastically Bad Cinema: Our scathing reviews of really terrible movies (and some so bad that they're actually good -- like a car wreck you can't take your eyes off of -- like "Cocktail.")

Ode To: Our reviews of films that have made a cultural impact or that we just deem really cool.

5 Questions About: Interviews with authors, academics, musicians, artists, historians, and interesting people. Topics have included: ants, the Great War, candy, Shakespeare, Pilgrims, and Friday the 13th.

Book Reviews: Umm, you know, reviews of books. And, yes, we enjoy reviewing new authors and books from independent publishers. We also review graphic novels and non-fiction.

Literary Criticism: Analysis of our favorite short stories. Writers we've reviewed include Hemingway, Edith Wharton, Edgar Allen Poe, and Tobias Wolff.

Essays: Opinion pieces on cultural and society -- from why you should mow your own lawn to why workers need a bill of rights.

We also do our famous best of lists on books, film, and music. Everything from "Hollywood's Most Awkward Nude Scenes" to the "Overlooked Albums By Great Bands."

We aim for honesty (well, kind of). Our hope is that DaRK PaRTY will annoy you, make you laugh, make you think, and make you fire back a snarky comment or two. We welcome suggestions and contributions. Please write us at:

darkpartyreview[AT]gmail[DOT]com

Who is behind this abomination?

GFS3 -- Editor and Publisher. GFS3 is a former journalist turned consultant. He fancies himself a writer and a reader -- although there are serious questions about his ability to proofread. He's been called obnoxious by many, but insists that he's simply misunderstood. GFS3 is a die-hard Red Sox and New England Patriots fan. He also prides himself on reading about 50 books a year.

Viking -- Chief Technology Officer. Viking is, unfortunately, the brother of GFS3. He's the brains behind the operations (basically there to turn on and off GFS3's computer). Viking works for one of the largest software companies in the world. When he's not saving the world from bad code, he's down in his workshop making sawdust.

Labels: About, Dark Party

StumbleUpon |

Digg |

del.icio.us |

Reddit |

Technorati | E-mail a Link

E-mail

Posted by George F. Snell III at 9:01 PM.

5 comments

Dark Twitterings