A Shadow In The City: Confessions of an Undercover Drug Warrior - Charles Bowden

Under the pseudonym “Joey O'Shay” a deep cover narcotics agent operates in an undisclosed city at the heart of the nation. He's a man with nearly three hundred drug busts, orchestrated over a span of more than twenty years. 

Fighting an unofficial war the U.S. lost long ago, the late Charles Bowden details O'Shay's last endeavor—a high-stakes heroin deal worth $50 million. The deal, originating in Colombia, triggers a chain reaction that places federal agents on high alert, spanning the stretch from Los Angeles to Washington, D.C., and reaching New York City. As the narrative unfolds, we learn of O'Shay's relentlessness that guides him through deadly terrain as he dismantles drug kingpins. 

Set in the shadowy and unforgiving streets of middle America, this is a masterclass in the brutal and corrupt realities of the war on drugs. Something made very clear about the drug world, you have to keep your deals. In that world, you can't say, “Well, look, the guy cheated me. I'll go to court and sue him.” The only enforcement is force. 

Several figures stand out. One is Bobbi, a woman battling cancer who oversees various hotels and provides lodgings for O'Shay's drug-dealing clients. She knows him better than anyone. As he tries to step back from this world, she holds that no one that “knows” can ever leave it. 

Another is Gloria, who he encounters while setting the stage for his Colombian counterparts, the dealers Garcia and Irma. They are immediately attracted to each other, but O'Shay is confronted with the painful necessity of betraying her, such is the job. This leads to imprisonment, decades minimum, without her being aware of his true identity as the cop responsible for her downfall. “Not him, he's my baby,” she says when the feds try to get her to flip on her contacts.

Through this ordeal, he realizes destroying people like her wasn't going to solve “the drug problem.” People are going to buy these substances and find them no matter what he did. Then, finally, a woman he got to know really well on the case said, “Look, I have never created a single addict in my life. They existed when I was born; they're going to exist when I die. I just supply them.” And he realized she was telling him the truth.

This time, his path leads to a realm where distinguishing heroes from villains becomes impossible, robbing him of his purpose. As he gets deeper in it, he slowly stops believing in what he is doing. As he gets to know the people he destroys, he stops believing he is any better than they were. 

“He did not betray Gloria, who played out her hand in the only hard world she ever knew. He betrayed himself. He enforced a law he no longer believes in,” Bowden writes, (p. 301). 

In the end, he is haunted by the weight of his deception. He's also torn between loyalty to his fellow narcotics agents and prosecutors, whom he disdains. As time goes, he finds himself respecting the drug dealers he brings down more than law enforcement. 

There is a scene that really adds insult to injury. This comes when O'Shay is closing out all hope for Gloria and the others caught in his snare when he had to meet with two bosses from a federal agency.

“It is Halloween,” Bowden writes, “and one is dressed as some kind of troll and the other a candy-ass vampire or something. One is a man, the other a woman, but to O'Shay both are ridiculous. There is a decency on the street, some kind of honest ground, people are ruined... O'Shay has put his life on the line, and here he's talking about what to do and how to settle the case with a troll and a vampire. And he and his dew feel violated. He feels sin for being there. There are decencies that must be observed, things old cops taught, and criminals and creeks and stars at night, and you don't sit in an office dressed like pansies and decide the fate of hardworking drug dealers. It is a violation, an insult to the crew...

“There is a world that is rock hard and actual and it runs like a stratum through the city. And there is this other world, soft and dishonest... and it is worshipped,” (p. 251).

As becomes clear, you can't live certain things without paying a price. You can't pretend they didn't happen. He'll have to live with the damage of his life. As O'Shay deals with his blurred allegiances, he reads Holocaust survivor Victor Frankl's seminal work Man's Search for Meaning, feeling kinship with the author. It tells of his time in the camps and how he found the will to live, surrounded by so much death. “It is death that gives life meaning.” It's the most difficult book I've ever had to read, FYI.

I'm not sure I'd call what Bowden did “true crime,” though it is that. More cultural critique. I adore Bowden's voice, both literal and in the written form. He wrote extensively on the U.S.-Mexico border, shining light on the femicides in Juarez, and later the drug violence taking place there, and America's part in it. If you've never heard him speak, I encourage you to check this out. No one can say it like him. Excellent read, for anyone that's got the stomach for rage and disgust. 

Snuff - Chuck Palahniuk

A pornstar hosting a 600-man gang bang to the death, an incredible amount of incest, and some child molestation. Novelist Chuck Palahniuk really puts us right there in the porn industry with Snuff, sticky floor and all. Probably not going to win too many readers. This is about a shocking of a read as you're going to find. Needless to say, it has some triggers. 

Palahniuk loves to shock—nearly 100 people (according to Palahniuk) fainted during public readings of his short story “Guts.” I sort of feel that is point with some of his stuff. That's why most people I know love his better stuff and loathe books like this. 

The gist of Snuff is that aged porn actress Cassie Wright, seeks to culminate her film career by breaking the world record for on-camera sexual partners in a 600-man gang bang in what amounts to suicide by sex. The story is told through the four distinctive perspectives. The narrators are referred to as Mr. 72 (a young perv), Mr. 137 (a mainstream actor whose career is finished after it came out that he did male on male many years before), Mr. 600 (exactly the kind of guy you'd imagine a pornstar to be), and Sheila (Cassie's personal assistant). Cassie’s perspective is almost completely missing from the novel. Everyone in this novel is incredibly unlikable. 

Thing I probably enjoyed the most were the “true facts” that Cassie tells porn wrangler Sheila about bygone Hollywood stars. Example: Lon Chaney put an egg membrane in his eye for The Phantom of the Opera to give him a fake cataract. Bacteria developed and he lost sight in the eye. “True fact.” There are lots of these little tidbits, some of which I know to be true. 

Much is made of the many, many porn titles sprinkled in: “Beat Me in St. Louis,” “Chitty Chitty Gang Bang,” “The Da Vinci Load,” “Gropes of Wrath,” “To Drill a Mockingbird,” so forth. It's never funny and happens on nearly every page. I'd say that these were the things I liked the least, and there were things I did not care care for. 

Definitely at the bottom of his that I've read. Of his 19 novels, this was my ninth. Of those, I'd put put this at around eighth or ninth, depending on the day. Down there with Doomed and Pygmy. The others, in ranked order, are Lullaby, Fight Club, Damned, Choke, Haunted, and Tell-All.

As hinted previously, this book on the edge of what I am willing to read from a fucked up perspective. Multiple times whilst reading this book I nearly quit. But I, ugh, pushed through. Palahniuk has done this a few times with his fiction, yet I keep reading him. Those good ones though. They are worth it. 

The Second World War: The Gathering Storm - Winston Churchill - 1948

Winston mother fucking Churchill. Deserved that Nobel Prize in Literature, let me tell ya. 

Took a lot of political science in college. I was two classes and a big test/paper shy of a degree in the subject, but I decided to coast second semester senior year, taking art, epic poetry, Anglo-Saxon, and Romanticism instead of busting my ass. Never read anything by Churchill though, which seems like a travesty. 

"The Gathering Storm" is the first book of his six part memoir written about World War II (The Second World War). This volume focuses on the events leading up to the war, providing context for the political climate in Europe during the 1930s. It was fucked, obviously. 

The stuff I was most familiar with is Churchill begins. He basically puts us in the aftermath of World War I with all the economic and political turmoil that ensued. “When Marshal Foch (the French general/military theorist who served as the Supreme Allied Commander during WWI) heard of the signing of the Peace Treaty of Versailles,” Churchill writes, “he observed with singular accuracy: 'This is not Peace. It is an Armistice for twenty years.'” We then get into the rise of the Nazis and the Furer, Adolf Hitler, and the long, slow rearmament of the German military and their incrementally aggressive foreign policies. 

The book is written from the ultimate insider's perspective, Churchill was the guy sounding the alarm bells on Hitler's intentions, firing shots at dudes who didn't see Nazis as the potential threat they obviously were to global peace/security. Especially scathing is his criticism of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain whose policy of appeasement sought to avoid conflict with Hitler through diplomatic negotiations. Look at how that worked out! Loser. 

Alternatively, Churchill emphasized the need for strong leadership and military preparedness to counter the growing Nazi threat. Churchill believed had Britain and its allies taken a more assertive stance against Hitler's aggression at an early stage, the whole thing might have been avoided. 

“It is my purpose, as one who lived and acted in these days, first to show how easily the tragedy of the Second World War could have been prevented; how the malice of the wicked was reinforced by the weakness of the virtuous,” he wrote. 

Also, “If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

Above all, this first book is a reminder of the consequences of failing to confront tyrannical regimes and the importance of vigilance in the face of growing international threats. It's dope. 

Here are some of my favorite quotes, some of which I apply in my daily when I ask “what would Churchill do?”

“Stalin and the Russian nation and its scores of millions were to pay a frightful forfeit. If a government has no moral scruples it often seems to gain great advantages and liberties of action, but ‘All comes out even at the end of the day, and all will come out yet more even when all the days are ended.’”

“It is always more easy to discover and proclaim general principles than to apply them.” 

“It is where the balance quivers, and the proportions are veiled in mist, that the opportunity for world-saving decisions presents itself.”

“One thing is absolutely certain, namely, that victory will never be found by taking the line of least resistance.”

“The worst quarrels only arise when both sides are equally in the right and in the wrong.”

“There is no merit in putting off a war for a year if, when it comes, it is a far worse war or one much harder to win.”

“Virtuous motives, tramelled by inertia and timidity, are no match for armed and resolute wickedness.”

“We shall see how the counsels of prudence and restraint may become the prime agents of mortal danger; how the middle course adopted from desires for safety and a quiet life may be found to lead direct to the bull’s-eye of disaster.”

Bright-Sided: How Positive Thinking Is Undermining America - Barbara Ehrenreich

Bright-Sided: How Positive Thinking Is Undermining America. By Barbara Ehrenreich. Like the third book of her's I've read. Published in 2009, I've owned it since then but finally got around to it. It's great and needed. 

Gist from above is that Ehrenreich criticizes the widespread promotion of positive thinking in American society, arguing that it's had vastly negative consequences. She argues that the focus on positive thinking has lead to an overly simplistic and individualistic view of success and happiness, and that it fails to address larger systemic issues that may contribute to negative outcomes for certain groups. That it is rare that people approach it with a critical and nuanced perspective, recognizing that there are limitations to what positive thinking can achieve and that other factors may also play a role in determining outcomes. Hence people claiming positive thinking can cure cancer and so forth. 

Throughout the book, Ehrenreich weaves in personal anecdotes and interviews with people who have experienced the downside of positive thinking. From the chapter “Smile or Die: The Bright Side of Cancer,” (great chapter titles throughout): “In the most extreme characterization, breast cancer is not a problem at all, not even an annoyance—it is a 'gift,' deserving of the most heartfelt gratitude,” which transforms cancer into a rite of passage like menopause instead of a tragedy. Sure, being upbeat makes an unfavorable diagnosis easier on family and healthcare workers (p. 29). But there are plenty of problems associated with this type of positive outlook and denialism, which all reflect poorly on the patient. “Rather than providing emotional sustenance, the sugarcoating of cancer can exact a dreadful cost... It requires the denial of understandable feelings of anger and fear, all of which must be buried under a cosmetic layer of cheer,” (p. 41). To have a negative attitude in such a world is to be ostracized. It can thus “weigh on a cancer patient like a second disease,” (p. 43) though a positive attitude does nothing to move the needle in terms of mortality rates. Here we see even a cancer patients are pressured to maintain a cheerful attitude at all times. Then when they eventually die, it was their own faults for having the wrong attitude. 

She also explores the origins of positive thought. Overall, it's a long and complex history. While it has some roots in ancient philosophical and spiritual traditions (ancient Greek and Roman philosophers such as Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius), in its present form, it mostly sprung up from the “New Thought” movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which was somewhat new information to me. 

This movement emphasized the power of positive thoughts and beliefs to shape one's reality, which spawned a number of self-help and motivational speakers, like Dale Carnegie and Norman Vincent Peale. This led, talking the mid-20th century here, the field of psychology began to explore the relationship between thoughts and behavior. This led to an upsurge in positive psychology as a subfield focused on studying the factors that contribute to happiness and well-being. 

The power of positive thinking has been the subject of scientific research, with some studies suggesting that there may be some benefits to cultivating a positive mindset. This includes reducing stress, supposedly boosting immune function, improving overall well-being, greater resilience in the face of adversity, so forth. But most of these benefits were minimal or nonexistent, almost all requiring more research. 

Of course all this information was used for the basis of making the practice respectable, ignoring the fact that most studies have found little to no correlation between positive thinking and improved outcomes. Despite this, it's become the dominant ideology in America, influencing everything from corporate culture to medicine and psychology, going way beyond the religious, infiltrating even the most secular among us, claiming science. 

This relentless pursuit of positivity's harmful effects include making people blame themselves for their own misfortunes, ignoring social and economic injustices, and creating unrealistic expectations.

In the chapter, “How Positive Thinking Ruined the Economy,” for example, she writes about how politicians ignored warning signs and took optimistic approaches. Surrounding themselves with “yes men” instead of people willing to tell the truth, resulting in the 2008 financially crisis. You can draw your own parallels to Trump and the pandemic, his impeachment, the election, and like 200 other things. 

Then there is the “God Wants You To Be Rich” which deals with then prosperity gospel. For those that don't know, the prosperity gospel is a religious belief system that emphasizes material wealth and financial prosperity as evidence of one's spiritual well-being and favor with God. It teaches that faith, positive thinking, and donations to the church or religious leaders will lead to blessings and success in all areas of life, including health, relationships, and finances. It's a huge crock of shit. It distorts traditional Christian teachings by focusing on material gain rather than spiritual growth and service to others. It also preys on vulnerable individuals who are struggling financially, promising them quick fixes and prosperity without addressing the underlying systemic issues that contribute to their poverty. I fucking hate this shit. 

Quick confession. I have a pessimistic worldview. I'll give you a second to catch your breath. I acknowledge the negative aspects of existence and for the most part see the future as bleak and hopeless. The world is hostile and unforgiving. Bad things happen to good people everyday and on the macro level there is little hope for improvement. Such improvement would mean overcoming human nature, which is fundamentally flawed. People are inherently selfish and prone to destructive behaviors.

From my time as a journalist, I've looked killers in the eye, known kids who died while texting and driving, and seen meth claw our people's brains. I've seen the darkness of human existence. Things are going to get worse rather than better. We've got climate change, peak oil, and overpopulation hurtling toward us at an astounding rate, yet people just ignore those things. 

Despite this, I find joy and meaning in life. Every moment is a gift and should be cherished. I therefore do my part to grow and transform society, though I know such actions are only delaying the inevitability of death and societal collapse (which may or may not happen in my lifetime [probably within]). 

As such, I loved that this book gives me ammunition for the blind optimists. So don't come at me with any crap. I don't want that!

Prosperity & Violence: The Political Economy of Development - Robert H. Bates

Prosperity & Violence: The Political Economy of Development. Written by one Robert H. Bates. He's an economist and political scientist by trade. Distinguished professor at Harvard University. Published in 1981, the book has since been revised and reprinted several times and is regularly read in college political science classes. 

This is a pretty difficult little book. I read it in college. I know because it had notes in my handwriting written in the margins. However, I can’t recall this at all. Probably for a political science class, I assume, maybe a developing democracy or a consolidating a dictator ship course I took. This had to be one of the less memorable things we read for whichever was the case.

That said, the gist is that economic development is not solely determined by factors such as natural resources or culture, but rather by the interplay between economic and political institutions. Sort of at odds with Jared Diamond, I guess you could say. Bates, for his part, argues that societies with inclusive and flexible institutions, such as competitive markets and responsive governments, are more likely to experience sustained economic growth and prosperity. On the other hand, societies with extractive and rigid institutions, such as monopolistic markets and authoritarian governments, are more likely to experience economic stagnation and violence. 

His big claim is that politics has always been about the use of violence, and has developed from there, but is still the state's main function. As he writes, “Those who engage in politics, rather than production, specialize in the use of violence. Most commonly, they use power to redistribute, not create, wealth. As acts of redistribution, often inflict losses, the use of force often destroys. For power to be used to produce wealth, coercion must therefore be used in new ways. Those who specialize in the use of force must refrain from violence and delegate their authority to those who will employ it productively. They must delegate it to those who specialize in combining land, labor, and capital in the process of production,” (p. 26). 

Bates supports this argument and others with case studies from various countries in Africa and Latin America, showing how their political and economic institutions have influenced their development trajectories. These were the most interesting parts of the book.

Also hints at a lot of economic hitman type work throughout, especially that done by the US government and Soviet Russia. Doesn't get specific but you know it is there. Stuff about taking out loans for infrastructure that developing counties couldn't pay back, eventually resulting in regime change, economic collapse, failed states, and so forth. My younger self was unaware of this phenomenon but was picking up on it. Notes read, “Why they keep borrowing? What happens to countries that can't pay back,” and so forth. 

Lot of the stuff about foreign meddling helping to usher in collapse gets glossed over. Example: “Creditors required the governments of developing nations to adopt policies that would lower the demand for imports, and thus ease the burden of paying for previous purchases from abroad. Cuts in government deficits, higher rates of interest, and lower levels of public spending—these and other measures lowered the level of domestic demand and thus the demand for imports, reducing the burden of foreign payments on the one hand, while on the other sparking policy-induced recessions,” (p. 90). “Seems like a real recipe for disaster,” I wrote circa 2002. Indeed, my younger guy. It's also insanely oversimplified. 

Anyway, the book has been widely influential in the fields of political economy and development studies, apparently. It has been praised for its rigorous analysis and insightful arguments, hence it's near required reading for poli-sci students. I liked it and found it interesting though it is written in academic speak and is at times guilty of oversimplifying complex issues. It also ignores the role of external factors such as globalization and international institutions when discussing the failed states.

He ends the book with the famous Thomas Hobbes quote, that says, “the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Of it, Bates says, “[Hobbes] words disturb because they respond to much that is felt and seen in the present day, when, for too many in the developing world, insecurity remains the norm and development a dream that cruelly eludes their grasp,” (p. 115). To me, it seems that Bates is unwilling to blame developed countries like the US for sacrificing the prosperity of others for their own. That's just me doe. 

The Myth of Sisyphus - Albert Camus

Albert Camus. Personal hero. The Myth of Sisyphus is his philosophical essay that explores the meaning and purpose of human existence and the question of suicide. The central theme of the book is the concept of the absurd, which refers to the tension between human desire for meaning and purpose, and the apparent meaninglessness and indifference of the universe. Hence the question of suicide, which Camus says is the “one truly serious philosophical problem. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy,” (p. 3). Camus ultimately comes to the conclusion that because of suicide's finality, it is an irrational response to the absurdity of living. 

That is the most famous response but not the only one he gets into. Camus explores other various philosophical responses to the absurd, like nihilism and religious faith as well. He rejects these responses as inadequate, and argues that the only true response to the absurd is to embrace it and live life to its fullest, despite its inherent meaninglessness. Whether or not life needs meaning to be live, Camus writes “It now becomes clear, on the contrary, that it will be lived all the better if it has no meaning. Living an experience, a particular fate, is accepting it fully,” (p. 53) and the “revolt gives life its value,” (p. 55) and later “the point is to live,” (p. 65). Believe it or not, the book is kind of a pick-me-up, which I read every five or ten years. 

Camus starts and ends the book by examining the story of Sisyphus, a Greek mythological figure who was condemned to endlessly push a boulder up a hill, only to have it roll back down again. Camus argues that Sisyphus, whom he calls “the absurd hero,” represents the human condition, in which we are faced with the task of finding meaning and purpose in a world that appears to offer none.

Camus suggests that the key to living in the face of the absurd is to adopt a form of rebellion that involves both acceptance of the human condition and a refusal to be defeated by it. He emphasizes the importance of living in the present moment and fully experiencing the joys and pleasures of life, while also acknowledging the inevitability of death. “He is superior to his fate. He is stronger than his rock,” (p. 121). 

This is why Sisyphus is the ultimate absurd hero. When he must descend the mountain, heading toward his rock, he accepts the absurdity of his existence and finds meaning and purpose in the struggle itself, rather than in achievement. The myth is a metaphor for the human condition, arguing that our lives are similarly absurd and without purpose, as we constantly strive for meaning, a quest that is ultimately futile. 

“All Sisyphus’ silent joy is contained therein. His fate belongs to him... Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night-filled mountain, in itself forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy,” (p. 123). 

Here Camus plainly offers his remedy for existential dread which afflicts us all. Like Sisyphus, by embracing the absurdity of our existence and living fully in the present moment, we can find freedom and joy that transcends our own mortality.

In this sense, mindfulness is required in a way reminiscent of sudden enlightenment. This concept, also called sudden awakening or sudden realization, is a concept in Zen Buddhism that refers to a sudden and complete understanding of one's true nature or the nature of reality. It is a spontaneous and transformative experience that can happen in a moment of deep contemplation, meditation, or even in daily life activities. This realization is often described as a sudden breaking through of the veil of illusion that separates us from ultimate reality. It can bring a sense of profound joy, liberation, and clarity. However, sudden enlightenment is not something that can be achieved through effort or intellectual understanding alone. It requires a dedicated practice of mindfulness, meditation, and self-reflection, as well as the guidance of a skilled teacher or community.

Like Camus's the absurd, it deals with the nature of reality and the human experience. Sudden enlightenment refers to a sudden and complete understanding of the nature of reality that transcends the ordinary dualistic view of the world and brings a sense of profound clarity and liberation. However, the way in which these concepts are approached is quite different. Camus's absurd is a philosophical stance that requires a critical and rational examination of one's experience, whereas sudden enlightenment is a transformative experience that transcends rational thought and can only be experienced directly. Furthermore, Camus's absurd tends to emphasize the meaninglessness of life and the need to create one's own meaning and purpose, while sudden enlightenment emphasizes the ultimate interconnectedness and interdependence of all things and the realization of one's true nature beyond individualistic desires and attachments.

Anyway, in the final chapter of the book, Camus discusses the concept of the "absurd hero", a figure who lives in the face of the absurd and finds meaning and purpose in the very act of rebelling against it. Camus suggests that the absurd hero embodies a new kind of morality, one that rejects traditional values and embraces the freedom and autonomy of the individual.

Reading this at the same time as I read Percy Shelley, Queen Mab. While Camus and Shelley lived in different time periods and wrote about different subjects they share a lot of similarities, and might have vibed together, although I suspect that Camus would have found Shelley insufferable. 

Most notably, they are both proponents of the idea that heaven and hell are present here on earth, the eternal is absurd. When speaking of Dostoevsky, Camus writes “If God exists, all depends on him and we can do nothing against his will. If he does not exist, everything depends on us. For Kirilov, as for Nietzsche, to kill God is to become god oneself; it is to realize on this earth the eternal life of which the Gospel speaks,” (108). Compare this to Shelley, who writes “when the power of imparting joy/Is equal to the will, the human soul/Requires no other heaven,” (III.11-13) and “earth in itself/Contains at once the evil and the cure,” (III.80-81) and so forth.

Also, both writers task the artist with a significant role in their visions of a better world. The artist and the poet are revolutionary figures who can help bring about social and economic change. They both provide calls to action, urging readers to join in the struggle for a better world. Create instead of consume. I too believe that art can be a powerful force for social change. In fact, I think it is one of the most effective means for change. 

Overall, I love this profound and influential work of existentialist philosophy, which is why I try to read it pretty frequently. It's good for the soul explore the human search for meaning and purpose in a universe that appears to offer none. Embrace the absurd. 

Slow Learner - Thomas Pynchon

Goddamn, I love the work of Thomas Pynchon. This book, early short stories, is no exception. Collected in 1984, the five stories were first published at different times between 1959 and 1964. The New Republic called them “an exhilarating spectacle of greatness discovering its powers.” While I agree, Pynchon does not. This brings me to the by far the coolest thing about the book: Pynchon wrote the introduction.

An extremely private person, he doesn't give away shit about his personal life. He's got the nine books, of course, which can be described as postmodern literary historical fiction. I've read five. Love them all. One enough to inspire my first tattoo, a version of the "muted post horn" that's a symbol for the secret "Trystero" society that's at the center of The Crying of Lot 49. My personalized license plate, WASTE, is also a reference to the book, an acronym for "We Await Silent Tristero's Empire". 

His repertoire also includes essays on the Watts riots, sloth, and Luddites, book reviews and blurbs, introductions to classic works such as 1984 as well as fiction by his friends (these include Donald Barthelme, Jim Dodge, and Richard Farina), and liner notes for albums by bandleader Spike Jones (not to be confused with actor/director Spike Jonze) and indie-rock band Lotion. He has even done a few voiceovers, two for The Simpsons (in one he is shown with a paper bag over his head) and a publicity video for his novel Inherent Vice. These are must views, by the by. His work transcends conventional boundaries, encompassing a wide spectrum of genres, subjects, and mediums, reflecting his versatility, creativity, and multi-faceted talents as a celebrated writer. God, I love him. 

That said, none of this gives us much of anything about his personal life. In fact, he goes to great lengths to remain obscure. This has always been a part of his writing, as he sez he had “an unkind impatience with fiction I felt then to be 'too autobiographical.' Somewhere I had come up with the notion that one's personal life had nothing to do with fiction, when the truth, as everyone knows, is nearly the direct opposite. Moreover, contrary evidence was all around me, though I chose to ignore it,” (p.21). 

This intentional inaccessibility is partly why I'm confident he'll never win a Nobel Prize in Literature. He's been on the shortlist for years, but since they awarded one to Bob Dylan, which is bullshit, in 2016, and then the more deserving poet Louise Glück in 2020, they probably won't award another American for at least a decade or so. Plus the Nobel committee would have a second no-show to deal with since Dylan was absent from the banquet in his honor, saying that he had other commitments. (Of course, some expressed dissatisfaction with Bob Dylan's Nobel. One example at random, this from novelist Rabih Alameddin, who said on Twitter, "Bob Dylan winning a Nobel in Literature is like Mrs. Fields being awarded 3 Michelin stars.” I'm among the said camp.) Pynchon, for his part, never shows up for stuff like this which has caused some uproar. For the 1974 National Book Awards, when he won Best Novel for "Gravity's Rainbow", it was widely known that Pynchon was unlikely to attend. Part of that well-known aversion to public appearances. Instead of Pynchon, his publisher Thomas Guinzburg sent comedian Professor Irwin Corey as a stand-in that was introduced as the writer. Corey's absent-minded professor schtick was known for butchering highfalutin language with bad puns and was an all-around embarrassment for the ceremony. Therefore, I think it's safe to eliminate him from real consideration.

(Also, that whole Nobel award has a history of trash. It lost its significance long ago, being more political than based on literary excellence. Auden, Borges, Chekhov, Greene, Hardy, Ibsen, James, Joyce, Nabokov, Proust, Roth, Tolstoy, and Twain were all snubbed. All undeniable masters of the craft. Robert Frost and E.M. Forster were up for the prize in 1961 but were explicitly ruled out by the Swedish Academy “because of their advanced years.” Pynchon in his mid-80s is likely considered too old though in 2007 Doris Lessig won at the age of 88, the eldest winner to date. Since its conception in 1901, only seven writers in their 80s have won and two of those came between 1901-1910. Needless to say, criteria other than high art are obviously at play.)

The only exception to his lack of personal detail is the introduction to this collection, which makes this book especially cool. He talks about how he felt re-reading the stories after a long time in his typical humorous way, saying “You may already know what a blow to the ego it can be to have to read over anything you wrote 20 years ago, even canceled checks. My first reaction, rereading these stories, was oh my God, accompanied by physical symptoms we shouldn't dwell upon. My second thought was about some kind of a wall-to-wall rewrite. These two impulses have given way to one of those episodes of middle-aged tranquility, in which I now pretend to have reached a level of clarity about the young writer I was back then,” (p. 3). But he also shares some memories of when he first wrote them! It's the only time he gets a bit personal with his readers and was by far my favorite thing about the book. (One day soon select scholars will get more personal stuff as he sold his archive consisting of letters, notes, drafts, and so forth to the Huntington Library. The papers will provide valuable insights into his work but will include no photographs. I imagine getting access will be next to impossible though, so be warned.) The little tantalizing glimpse we get is of a modest guy that would be fun to party with. It obviously made me love him and want to learn about him even more.

Anyway, on to the book, which consists of five stories: “The Small Rain”, ”Low-lands”, “Entropy”, Under the Rose”, and “The Secret Integration”. Here's a brief rundown. “The Small Rain”, Pynchon's first published work, follows Nathan Levine, an indifferent Army enlistee stationed in New Orleans. Along with his fellow enlisted men, he is tasked with assisting in the cleanup efforts on Creole, a small island devastated by a hurricane. After a grueling day of retrieving dead bodies and sex with a local college gal, Nathan reflects on his uncertain future and contemplates how to move forward, if at all. Think of this as a test run for Gravity's Rainbow with lower stakes. 

”Low-lands” follows one Dennis Flange, a lawyer, who skips work to get drunk with Rocco the garbage man, much to his wife's annoyance. Once his old college friend Pig Bodine, whom the wife loathes, shows up, she kicks them out. For good. They go to the dump where they stay with the caretaker. There Dennis contemplates his life when ominous, unexpected shit starts going down. In the middle of the night, Dennis hears a voice and goes out to meet a three-foot-tall woman identified as a “gypsy” who asks him to marry her. Initially declining, he changes his mind when he sees her child-like appearance and agrees to stay for a while, saying that he always wanted kids. Here we get a lot of counter-culture fringe that could have been at home in The Crying of Lot 49. 

Speaking of counter-culture fringe “Entropy,” the third story of the collection, is possibly my favorite of the bunch (but I would maybe make that claim about the last two as well). It details a wild lease-breaking party hosted by one Meatball Mulligan. Chaos ensues with a mix of guests including cronies, servicemen, jazz musicians, philosophy majors, and sailors. Callisto and Aubade care for a baby bird while contemplating the Laws of Thermodynamics and entropy as a metaphor for society. The whole time the temperature outside remains 37 degrees Fahrenheit, fueling apocalyptic paranoia in Callisto. Among the challenges Meatball navigates there are managing drug use, conversations on communication theory, and an unexpected visit from the FBI, or some other agency. 

Two English spies, Porpentine and Goodfellow, are in Upper Egypt to track down their nemesis, Moldweorp, and figure out what he's up to. They suspect he plans to assassinate the Consul-General, so they travel to Cairo with Goodfellow's new girlfriend, Victoria Wren, her family, and a man named Bongo-Shaftsbury. Porpentine stops Bongo-Shaftsbury from sexually assaulting Victoria's sister and realizes he's an opposing spy. In Cairo, they find Moldweorp and his spies at the opera house, foiling the assassination attempt. A chase ensues, ending at the Sphinx where Porpentine and Goodfellow confront Moldweorp. Porpentine tells Goodfellow to go back to the cab, but Moldweorp shoots Porpentine and escapes. Sixteen years later, Goodfellow is with a new girlfriend, a barmaid who sees him as just an obsessive Englishman with money to spend. The story ends with them hearing rumors of an assassination plot against Archduke Franz Ferdinand, which you should from the history books for its monumental impact on the history of the 20th century. With all this spy stuff, double agents, and depravity whilst traipsing through foreign land, I'm reminded of Gravity's Rainbow, however, the story was apparently reworked into a chapter of his novel V. which I have not read but is probably next on my list. 

In the final story, "The Secret Integration," we are introduced to a cast of characters who would later become familiar faces in 2006's Against The Day, a group that goes by “the Chums of Chance.” Here, the daring youths embark on a mission codenamed “Operation Spartacus.” The ragtag group of boys (Tim, Carl, Etienne, and Hogan [they also have a great doggo, which is much appreciated on my end]) gather in their leader's basement (one Grover Snodd, who is something of a boy genius) to plan their upcoming “Project Mayhem” type mischief on the bigoted folks of Mingeborough, New York. Things are complicated when Hogan (who's been a member of AAA since age seven) receives a call to support a struggling member. They go to a hotel to help an African-American musician named Mr. McAfee whose staying there. Despite their attempts to help, Mr. McAfee is escorted out by the police for belligerence. 

Despite acknowledging the faults of his early stories in the intro as “bad habits, dumb theories,” he does not talk about how exceptionally good they are despite their supposed flaws. These stories show how from the beginning, he was able to transport readers into his wonderful, eccentric imagined worlds through incredible storytelling. An attentive, well-informed observer, he's astute, in-the-know, obsessively alert, zanily comedic. He effortlessly earns the reader's admiration with such qualities.

These brilliant stories are literary treasures that should not be overlooked, tour de force that they are. Still, though, his best work was ahead of him. As he writes at the end of the intro, “What is most appealing about young folks is the changes, not the still photograph of finished character but the movie, the soul in flux. Maybe this small attachment to my past is only another case of what Frank Zappa calls a bunch of old guys sitting around playing rock 'n' roll. But as we all know, rock 'n' roll will never die, and education too, as Henry Adams always sez, keeps going on forever,” (p. 23). 

Queen Man - Percy Shelley

As I pointed out last time I wrote about poetry, I'm a little out of practice. I can read and write about movies, poetry, and work stuff with no problem. Poetry, I figured it better to go with something super familiar after my Shakespeare foray. Thus Queen Mab by Percy Shelley, whom I once considered myself a disciple of. Now, not so much.

Mab is a long, narrative poem published in 1816. The poem tells the story of a young woman named Ianthe who falls asleep and is taken on a journey by the fairy queen Mab. Mab shows Ianthe a series of visions that reveal the injustices and inequalities of human society, and the need for a new, more just social order.

In the course of her journey, Ianthe witnesses the suffering of the poor and oppressed, the cruelty of rulers and priests, and the ravages of war. She also sees visions of a more ideal society, in which reason and science have replaced superstition and religion. In such a society, human beings live in harmony with nature. I can get on board with that. 

In undergrad I wrote a Marxist critique of the poem. I got a B+, which annoyed me. I thought it was an A paper. The idea behind Marxist literary criticism is that literature reflects the social and economic conditions of the time it was written. Thus my Marxist critique of the poem focused on how it reflects and critiques the economic and social conditions of Shelley's time. The professor's note was that this couldn't be a Marxist text because it was before Marx. Also, Marxism requires violent revolt. You can still read a text through a Marxist lens, I argued, but the professor wasn't having it and is infinitely smarter than me so I'd take what I'm saying for what you will. 

Looking back at the essay, I should have been happy with the B+. As most people know, especially ones that write for a living—gonna borrow, i.e. thieve, something Pynchon said—it is a huge blow to the ego to read over anything you wrote 20 years ago, even cancelled checks. The reaction, for me and Pynchon at least, was oh my God.

My argument still holds up, just hard to read. Also, I had two typos, a frequent issue for me. I had the word “barley” instead of “barely” and, even more horrifying, “veal” instead of “zeal.” Oh my God, plus physical symptoms at this point. 

Anyway, in the paper, I mostly analyzed the poem's portrayal of power and inequality which requires a little historical context. During Shelley's time, England was experiencing rapid industrialization and urbanization. This was accompanied by growing economic inequality and social unrest. In Queen Mab, Shelley depicts a world in which the powerful oppress and exploit the poor and working classes. ound familiar? Ianthe, the poem's protagonist, is a symbol of this oppression, as she is confined to a life of poverty and servitude while the wealthy and powerful live lives of luxury and excess.

I paid particular attention to the poem's treatment of religion. Things like ““What palpable deceit!--but for thy aid,/Religion! but for thee, prolific fiend,/Who peoplest earth with demons, hell with men,/And heaven with slaves!/Thou taintest all thou lookest upon!” (VI.68-72). Shelley was a radical atheist who believed that religion was used by the ruling classes to control and oppress the masses. Shelley criticizes religion as a tool of oppression and calls for its abolition. Speaking to the choir here. 

Something that stuck out for me this reading was the role of the artist in Shelley's vision of a better world. In the poem, he sees the poet as a revolutionary figure who can help bring about social and economic change. The poem itself is a call to action, urging readers to join in the struggle for a better world. Shelley believed that art could be a powerful force for social change, which he lays out in the poem.

According to Shelley, the imagination is the ultimate creative force, and it has the power to transcend the limitations of reality and envision a more perfect world. Art, then, is not just an expression of the human experience, but a means of transforming it. See VIII. 134-144, which reads thus: 

'But chief, ambiguous Man, he that can know
More misery, and dream more joy than all;
Whose keen sensations thrill within his breast
To mingle with a loftier instinct there,
Lending their power to pleasure and to pain,
Yet raising, sharpening, and refining each;
Who stands amid the ever-varying world,
The burthen or the glory of the earth;
He chief perceives the change, his being notes
The gradual renovation, and defines
Each movement of its progress on his mind.

By inspiring the imagination and encouraging people to envision new possibilities, art had the power to shape the course of human history. Shelley believed that the poet had a moral obligation to use the imagination to inspire others and promote social and political progress.

Overall, Queen Mab would focus on the poem's critique of power and inequality, its rejection of religion as a tool of oppression, and its celebration of art as a means of social change. Shelley's doctrine of Necessity comes into play here, “Necessity! thou mother of the world!” (VII. 198), something he goes into detail on in his essay “A Defense of Poetry.” The doctrine posits that the role of the poet is to advocate for social and political change by appealing to the necessity of imagination and the imagination's ability to inspire and create new possibilities. This is borrowed and expounded upon from Enlightenment philosophers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Mary Wollstonecraft (mother of his wife, the author of Frankenstein, Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley). However, in pure Romantic fashion, he prioritize imagination over reason.

Best American Essays 2022 - Alexander Chee (Editor)

Once an annual read, I picked up the latest edition of The Best American Essays, this for the year 2022. The essays there in diverse, compelling, and wreak of death, these coming out of the pandemic and all. 

The anthology was edited by Alexander Chee, who describes it as "almost an anthology of elegies" in the introduction. He notes that the writers featured in the collection were preoccupied with death and loss, whether related to the pandemic or not, and that the anthology serves as a tribute to those who have passed away.

Here are few selections of the 23 from the anthology that I enjoyed the most... 

Vauhini Vara's essay “Ghost” is a mesmerizing piece about the experience of losing her sister to disease in 2001. She's had trouble working through this loss and decides to use GPT-3, an Artificial Intelligence model, to help her write about it. The result is a mix of nine mini-stories written by her and the AI. She starts with “My sister was diagnosed with Ewing sarcoma when I was in my freshman year of high school and she was in her junior year,” which begins each story, as each takes a different path as she elaborates and lets the AI finish for her. 

I blogged about the essay “The Wrong Jason Brown” by one Jason Brown about a month ago. It's probably the best essay I've ever read. Details sexual abuse the author suffered at the hands of his mother with compassion. It was moving and incredible. If I knew what it was about, I wouldn't have read it. But glad I did. Masterfully done to ease you into this world. It blew my mind.

In his essay for The New Yorker, “My Gentile Region,” Gary Shteyngart recounts his experience of a botched circumcision he suffered as a 7-year-old Russian Jewish immigrant in Brooklyn. It is not for the faint of heart. Shteyngart raises difficult questions about the necessity of the procedure and its consequences. He explores the middle ground between those who take circumcision for granted or as a central aspect of male Jewish identity and those who advocate for male genital integrity, highlighting the enduring impact of his own traumatic experience. 

Jesus Quintero's essay “Anatomy of a Botched Assimilation” is another great one. This one hilariously/heartbreakingly details an experience he had in childhood. As an immigrant in elementary school, his parents put a lot of pressure on him to make something of himself. Instead, he fucked around at school and was forced to work with the janitor after school as punishment, keeping all this from his parents. One day, the janitor, who doesn't speak Spanish, comes to his house and makes Jesus translate for him. “Tell him that you are the worst. Ready?... Go ahead. Tell them in Spanish. You're a piece of shit.” Afterwards, his dad kicks the shit out him in the backyard while the neighbors look on with enjoyment. All the while the dad says stuff like “Why can't you be like them, huh? The white people,” and “Don't be like me. I'm nothing.” 

Some other great ones include “At the Bend of the Road” by Aube Rey Lescure (about secular pilgrimages she went on in Portugal alone while listening to 2666 on audio book, freaking out about violence, when she is attacked and has to fight for life), “If You Ever Find Yourself” by Erika J. Simpson (her rules for living dirt poor and how her and mother survived on love and hope though they had nothing), and “The Lost List” by Ryan Bradley (about a list he started during Covid about lost things, places, people, ideas, so forth, where he meditates on and interviews a couple experts about being lost and what it teaches us). 

Spare - Prince Harry

Spare. Not terrible. Super interesting and well written, I did finish it. Maybe, at times, a little whiny, hard to follow, and unrelatable. But overall a fascinating read, coming from someone who doesn't give a flying fuck about the royal family. 

The dominant theme of the book is Harry's resentment of being the "spare." Covers his early life, his mother's death, Princess Diana, education, royal duties, military service, and relationships with his family members, Prince William, and his father, King Charles III, including the latter's marriage to Camilla Parker Bowles. Also, he provides insight into his courtship, marriage, and eventual decision with Meghan to step back from their royal roles as well as becoming a parent. 

Critically, some praised Harry's candor, while others criticized the book for divulging too many personal details. It's gotten pretty mixed reviews though it did break the record for the fastest-selling non-fiction book of all time, according to Guinness World Records.

Early on, dude recounts being born as the spare to William and how his father, Charles, referred to him as such. What a guy, am-I-right? He also discusses his mother's death and questions the investigation into it. He alleges corruption and cover-ups, and reveals his plans with William to ask for the investigation to be reopened. He even talked to psychics and shit. 

He reveals that he experimented with drugs at a young age, taking cocaine at 17, cannabis, and magic mushrooms at a party in 2016 where he hallucinated and spoke to a trashcan and toilet like they were old pals. Been there, my guy. He also recounts a humiliating experience of losing his virginity to an older woman in a field. Cool cool. 

Probably one of the most controversial parts of the book is when he talks about how he flew on six missions in Afghanistan that killed 25 Taliban members. He says he saw them as "chess pieces" rather than people. While the number of deaths did not make him feel super dope, they also did not make him feel ashamed.

This led to a shitstorm of criticism on Twitter in Afghanistan and Pakistan, who branded him a "murderer" and a "crusader." The Taliban regime's Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson, Abdul Qahar Balkhi, even issued a statement responding to the claims, calling it a "microcosm of the trauma experienced by Afghans at the hands of occupation forces who murdered innocents without any accountability." Taliban commanders also condemned Harry's comments, describing him as a "big mouth loser." 

The comments sparked concerns that this part of the book could have serious repercussions for veterans at upcoming events like the “Invictus Games” which Harry championed. They also, of course, put target on his back and potentially exposes his family to danger. Some military figures were critical of Harry's description of military training and his comparison of opponents to chess pieces, which they believed could be exploited by Jihadist propaganda. Others questioned why he felt the need to share such details with the public, with some suggesting that he may be processing the trauma associated with his service. Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a bitch, after all, and not something I can comment on, especially as someone who never served. Course saying shit like this is always tasteless and doesn't not show respect for those who had been killed. But I feel that if he left that stuff out, people would have been upset by that, too. 

Eventually, though, he gets into the really juicy bits, i.e. the confrontations between him and his family members. One such incident happened in 2019 when Prince William allegedly confronted Harry about Meghan, calling her "difficult," "rude," and "abrasive." The argument escalated, and William allegedly grabbed Harry's collar, knocking him to the ground. In another encounter, following Prince Philip's funeral, Prince Charles urged Harry and William not to make his "final years a misery." Harry also shares his father's concern about Meghan's popularity overshadowing him and how he was surprised to lose his state-funded security after stepping back from royal duties. We are only getting one side, but they both come off like real pieces of shit. 

Also, I had no idea how fucked up the media in the United Kingdom is. While the royal family shit is entertaining, the British media are the villain of the book. He is super critical as he takes aim at the media, especially when it comes to Rupert Murdoch. He calls him "evil" and criticizes his politics and the harm he does to objective facts. Can't argue with anything there. Murdoch, who is known for his ownership of a vast network of media, Fox News, has been a frequent target of Harry's criticism for profiting off of salacious stories and photos about the royal family. The prince is also critical of paparazzi and top editors at tabloids owned by Murdoch, whom he blames for damaging people's sense of reality. One incident he talks about is being chased by Murdoch's henchmen through the streets of LA, if I remember correctly, illustrating the prick of a media mogul's lack of morals. No argument from me there either. 

His overall take on the media is that they've shown him pretty much nothing but racism, sexism, and bullying over the years. They've also perpetuated fake news and misinformation, calling for greater accountability and responsibility from media outlets. Thus his mental health has been negatively affected by their constant scrutiny. No shit. In addition, he has expressed concern about the impact that the media's coverage can have on public opinion and has called for more responsible reporting.

A total one-of-one, you don't get this kind of hot gos very often. Definitely worth a read even if, like me, you can't even name most of the people he is talking about. Probably the most relatable and intriguing part to me is how candid he is about his struggles with mental health and his struggles with the media.

The Sound and the Fury - William Faulkner

 

The Sound and the Fury. Hoe-lee shit. William Faulkner's fourth novel. Published in 1929. This is now one of my favorite books of all time. It is a goddamned masterpiece of experimental form. I fucking love a novel with a distinctive style, distinguished by unconventional punctuation, sentence structure, stream-of-consciousness, and frequent shifts in time and narration. It rightly holds its place in the canon of American lit. As I said in my bit on Wise Blood, I read very little Southern fiction in school. I've been very much deprived of this beautiful, complex sub-genre of literature. A real shame and failure of my education, which on paper is considered stellar. 

Anyway, the novel follows the decline of the Compson family in Jefferson, Mississippi, during the early 1900s, spanning 30 years. The family is dealing with the decline of their status and the breakdown of their reputation as former Southern aristocrats. Sort of reminded me of Sir Walter Scott's The Bride of Lammermoor in that way. In that time, the family experiences financial ruin, loss of religious faith, and the erosion of their standing within the community. This all comes to a head and everything really goes to shit as the novel concludes. 

The title comes from act 5 of Shakespeare's Macbeth, the character's most famous soliloquy:

“Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage

And then is heard no more: it is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing.”

It's divided into four distinct sections with very different styles. The first section, written from the perspective of Benjy Compson, an intellectually disabled 33-year-old man, takes place on April 7, 1928, his birthday. The narrative style here is disjointed and marked by frequent chronological leaps. The second section, written in stream-of-consciousness, focuses on Benjy's older brother, Quentin Compson, a Harvard student, and the events leading up to his suicide on June 2, 1910. The third section, which occurs on April 6, 1928, is written from the cynical perspective of Jason, Quentin's younger brother. This dude is a real piece of shit. The final section, set on April 8, 1928, is written from a third-person omniscient point of view and centers on Dilsey, one of the Compsons' black servants, and her relationship with Jason and "Miss" Quentin Compson. The section provides insight into the thoughts and actions of the entire Compson family. We really see Jason lose his shit in this section.

Benjy, the first narrator, is the youngest child of the Compson family. He was originally named Maury, but when it became apparent that he was mentally slow, Mrs. Compson (this bitch) renamed him Benjamin to avoid disgracing the Bascomb name. Benjy has the ability to "sense things" but is unable to communicate his knowledge to others. He knows when his pattern of existence is violated, when Caddy has been promiscuous, and when his brother Quentin committed suicide. His section is a difficult read with his bouncing around in time based on his thoughts. As he thinks of something that happened long ago, the reader is flung into that time period. Some critics see Benjy as a Christ figure, who represents Christ's failure to save the modern world. His inability to speak and his castration, not gonna get into that, symbolize the impotence of Christ's message in the modern world. He functions as the moral reflector of the novel and helps the reader evaluate other characters based on how they interact with him.

The character Quentin is a type of Hamlet in that he is plagued by indecisiveness and contemplation, ultimately leading to his suicide. Despite his reluctance to attend Harvard, his mother insists that he go there for his education. I mean, it is fucking Harvard. However, his time at the prestigious institution is an unhappy one as he longs for his family and the familiar way of life he left behind. Quentin is the only Compson who is concerned with honor/love. He searches for meaning in life in the face of the absurd. However, he is constantly reminded of his father's nihilistic philosophy, which seems to be reaffirmed by the world around him. Mr. Compson's beliefs have a profound impact on him. According to Mr. Compson, life is meaningless and devoid of any inherent value beyond personal pleasure and the pretense of gentlemanly behavior. He espouses determinism and fatalism, viewing man as the product of his misfortunes and suggesting that no action can truly hold any significance. This makes it difficult for Quentin to find any sense of purpose or meaning in his own life. He's also obsessed with Caddy's virginity. A weird thing to obsess over, your sister's chaste. In the end, he tragically takes his own life by drowning in the Charles River, near the campus. His suicide is his attempt to hold on to his grief and avoid the meaningless existence that would result from forgetting it.

Caddy, the only sister among the Compson clan, is a really interesting character that we only see indirectly through the memories of Benjy, Quentin, and Jason. Readers generally approach the novel by examining each brother's relationship with her. Through these memories, we can infer Caddy's significance to each of her brothers. From an early age, Caddy played a maternal role for Benjy, who developed a strong attachment to her. As Caddy grows older, she becomes disillusioned with the superficiality and hypocrisy of the Compson family and rejects their values by engaging in promiscuous behavior. She does not enjoy these relationships but views them as deliberate forms of rebellion against her family's oppressive influence. Caddy believes that the Compson family is cursed and is willing to violate societal norms such as incest or suicide in order to assert her own individuality. Through Caddy, Faulkner explores the themes of familial and societal expectations.

Looming over the whole novel, drifting in and out of each narrative is Mrs. Compson, an extremely unpleasant hypochondriac. She greatly contributions to the Compson family's downfall throughout. She is a self-absorbed, neurotic woman who cannot provide the love and care that her children need. Her whining leaves no room for the love that the children require, except for Jason. She is unable to understand Benjy's needs and only causes him to bellow louder when she attempts to help. She prefers Jason to her other children, despite him being a complete prick who deserves no love at all. In the final chapter, she reveals her belief that her aristocratic status gives her special privileges in the eyes of God, saying “Whoever God is, He would not permit that. I’m a lady. You might not believe that from my offspring, but I am.” She is obsessed with the concept of family and ancestry, but she shows no capacity to love or care for her children, who are the last hope she has for maintaining her legacy.

In the final section of the novel, Jason justifies his pursuit of Miss Quentin, who stole back the money he had been thieving for the last 15 years, money her mother, Caddy, was sending to her. His dependence on the stolen money pisses him off, and he ultimately realizes he will never succeed because he never takes responsibility for being an asshole. This just pisses him off more though, nearly leading to him getting murdered when he fucks with the wrong carney. 

He explains everything to the sheriff in the best possible light in the hope of getting the $3000 back. But the sheriff and everyone else in Jefferson know he is full of shit and he is basically told to fuck off. The sheriff is mostly concerned with what Jason would do to Miss Quentin if he finds her, telling him not do anything crazy and that he knows Jason's been stealing the ducats. “I wouldn’t lay my hand on her,” Jason responds. “The bitch that cost me a job, the one chance I ever had to get ahead, that killed my father and is shortening my mother’s life every day and made my name a laughing stock in the town. I wont do anything to her.” Bitter and resentful, as usual, this is Jason's default setting. He laments the loss of the bank job promised by Herbert Head, whom he blames Caddy for divorcing forever ago. Ironically, his declaration that he will not harm Miss Quentin is accurate since she is already gone, intensifying his rage.

Most of the novel is set during the Easter weekend of 1928, a time associated with death, but also the hope of renewal and resurrection. The South and religion, oof. This placement is significant as it mirrors the weekend of Christ's crucifixion on Good Friday and resurrection on Easter Sunday. Dilsey, the Compson family’s long-serving cook, is the subject of the last section of the novel, which takes place on Easter. She represents a moral and humane force. Her love for all creatures is unwavering, and she treats each member of the family with equal compassion. “I seed de beginnin, en now I sees de endin,” she says when shit has hit the fan. Amidst the Compson family's downfall, she stands out as a source of hope, embodying another Christ-like figure who has endured suffering and hardship throughout her life while maintaining values of hard work, endurance, love of family, and religious faith. She is the only character who has successfully resurrected these abandoned values amidst the crumbling Compson family.

Dilsey does not dwell on the past, instead choosing to focus on how she can help the family in the present. Her steadfast loyalty to the Compsons is rooted in her long history with them, and she is the only character who successfully resurrects the values of hard work, endurance, love of family, and religious faith that the Compsons have lost. On Easter Sunday, amid the chaos of the Compson household, Dilsey brings order and peace, offering the reader a glimpse of hope for redemption. Dilsey’s insight into the Compson family tragedy and her ability to see it in the context of a greater cycle reveal her conviction and faith in her own vision of eternity, which is entirely free of worldly concerns. Her acceptance of the passage of time and her ability to remain focused on the present make her a calming and comforting presence in the midst of the family’s disintegration.

The Compsons have no one to blame but themselves for the sorry state they find themselves. Ther corruption of Southern values results in a household devoid of love, the force that once bound them together. The parents are distant and ineffectual, and Caddy, the only child who shows an ability to love, is disowned. Quentin's love for Caddy is obsessive and overprotective, and none of the men experience true romantic love. Dilsey is the only character who maintains her values without the corrupting influence of self-absorption, making her the only hope for the renewal of traditional Southern values in an uncorrupted form. She represents the torchbearer for these values and the only hope for the preservation of the Compson legacy. Faulkner suggests that the problem is not necessarily the values of the old South but the fact that these values were corrupted by families like the Compsons, and they must be recaptured for any Southern greatness to return.

So that is my take on The Sound and the Fury, a work of art among the greatest of American novels. Without it, no way Faulkner receives the 1949 Nobel Prize in Literature. A true literary achievement. Gonna have have to dive in to the rest of his work, it seems.