immediacy: ephemeral thoughts on the immediate environment, a blog by Glen Engel-Cox

I Think This Was Illegal in 1940, Too

Sat, 06 Mar 2010 10:33:33 +0700

I've been reading some old comics (early 1940s) and thought I would, like some other blogs out there, share some of my discoveries with you, such as this panel from All-Star Comics issue 1 (June 1940), which occurs after Hawkman reunites Margo with her brother Jan. from All-Star Comics #1 (June 1940), story and art by "Shelly" Now, I understand that they are happy to see each other, but that image seems a little beyond most sibling affection. Perhaps Shelly had originally intended the art to describe a husband and wife, and when time to actually add the text, it was changed to brother and sister. Awkward, that.

Hotel Mice

Mon, 01 Mar 2010 23:01:13 +0700

From the web site of the Royale Chulan hotel in downtown Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia MICE is actually an acronym for "Meetings, Incentives, Conventions, and Events." I think they might want to rethink that particular acronym.

What We Mean When We Talk about Terrorism

Wed, 24 Feb 2010 22:00:44 +0700

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

There's a little bit of a dust-up at the moment regarding the man who crashed his plane into an Austin IRS building and how the media and government are covering his action, mainly centered around the belief that because he was an angry white male, he isn't being called a terrorist. While some of the points are valid (as in, if he had been an angry male of Arabic descent named Mohamed, no matter how long he and his family had been citizens or what manifesto he left, people would be trying to connect him to al-Qaeda), there are some salient details that distinguish his act from that committed on 11 September 2001. Some of this boils down to what do we mean when we say "terrorism," and it's no wonder there's some confusion there, because the Bush administration certainly wanted to use the term as broadly as possible to further their agenda. By its very definition, the idea of terrorism is to cause terror. I believe one of the intended consequences of the 11 September attacks was to make Americans feel less secure, in the same way that people do not feel very secure if they live in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. The intended consequence of the TeePee crasher was to have people pay attention to his written manifesto, not fear that another plane was going to drop from the sky. It seems a safe assumption, even now, that al-Qaeda have the desire and people who would be willing to commit suicide attacks against Americans, especially in the U.S. On the other hand, I very much doubt that there exist too many other Tea Baggers prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice. Note that one act of violence hardly equals terrorism. The reason 11 September had such a profound affect on our psyche, i.e., which terrorized us, was because of its multiple nature (four planes all hijacked on the same morning with an express purpose of causing fear and dismay). The reason why the IRA and PLO were considered a terrorist organizations is becaue of their multiple attacks, etc. While I group Mr TeePee (I'm not sorry to use this psuedonym for him, by the way, as his name has escaped me, and I do not feel his action makes it worthwhile for me to record his actual name for the limited posterity of even this web site) with the Tea Party "movement," there's a clear distinction between his connection to that movement and those of the 11 September airplane hijackers to al-Qaeda. Some of those differences include the hijackers were financially supported and trained by their group and the group made the decision to make the attack. While I've heard some TeePee supporters show some agreement with the TeePee crasher's manifesto, none of them has been stupid enough to actually show any support for his actions. Not only did al-Qaeda claim to be responsible for 11 September, they have vowed to continue attacks against the U.S. So, was Mr TeePee a terrorist? No. Neither was Timothy McVeigh, whose action was even more disastrious in loss of life. Are they criminals? Yes, just as the 11 September attackers were criminals, and just as any of the people who aided and abetted them in that act are criminals. Mr TeePee obviously chose his method of suicide in copycat of a terrorist action, and there's some danger that others will, too. But that doesn't make their act itself a terrorist act. Copycat crimes are nothing new. A final point: based on my reading of Mr TeePee Crasher's manifesto: he thought that his act would actually help galvinize people to do something about the arcane tax laws of the U.S. Unfortunately, I believe that his act has probably set back any progress in that area, at least in the near term, because politicians and tax activists could easily be accused of acting in his interests. On the other hand, all the damage done to the reputation of the U.S. abroad and to our constitutional liberties at home by the Bush administration in reaction to the 11 September attacks was an unintended consequence, likely even unforseen, by al-Qaeda, but one that have to be enjoying tremendously. (In the interest of discussion and debate, I'm putting a link to a couple of arguments for why he should be considered a terrorist below. One argument hinges on the legal definition of terrorism used by the FBI. My argument above is about the generally accepted use of terrorism in the mass media and society. The legal definition would be used in a court of law for a particular indictement. What we mean when we talk about terrorism, I believe, hinges on truth and consequences, as I've laid out above. The other argument hinges on the idea that if the act is similar to a terrorist act, no matter if the person acted alone or not, it is terrorism. To this I submit that unless we respond out of being terrorized, then it is not. We clearly responded out of fear after 11 September; only time will tell, I guess, about how we respond to this.)

Donald Fagen, Kamakiriad

Mon, 22 Feb 2010 22:50:44 +0700

Cover of Kamakiriad

I'm not a big fan of jazz. I've never understood the appeal of Miles Davis, John Coltrane, and Charles Mingus. I've tried, lord how I've tried, but with the exception of Take Five, most jazz albums leave me cold. Then again, maybe Davis and Coltrane and Mingus are just a variety of jazz that I don't care for. Is "swing" jazz, because I like swing, in both its original and retro versions, from Louis Jordan and _The Wildest_ to Big Bad Voodoo Daddy and The Squirrel Nut Zippers. And then there's Steely Dan, who aren't swing, and they're not Miles Davis, but while they are undeniably rock and pop in some kind of combination, they also contain some kind of jazz influence. Possibly it's the level of allowed improvization--from my brief time playing in a swing band in high school, I understand the structure of a swing song and that at any one time, only one instrument--two at the very most--are engaged in improv, while the rest are pretty constrained to follow an agreed upon script. Rock follows that (with the exception of, say, King Crimson's second period), for the most part, even such that it became a 1980's joke (I'll never forget the Styx video--for some entirely forgetable song--but which had the pop-up note "obligatory solo" at the 2:45 mark ). When rock doesn't follow this, such as the jam bands Phish and Dave Matthews, I get easily bored. Steely Dan play rule-following jazz. Perhaps the songs were originally conceived in jam sessions, but when they get recorded, it's pretty obvious everyone knows just what's going down and where. Kamakiriad is not a Steely Dan album, but that's in name only. Everything else about this album--its style, vocal sound, production quality, level of expertise--not only screams Steely Dan, but is basically on the same trend line that Aja was leading to, more so than even Donald Fagen's first solo album, The Nightfly, which actually had some departures from the Steely Dan sound. This is smooth stuff, and a little David Sanborn saxophone wouldn't be out-of-place here. If anything, it's all a little too smooth, and doesn't strain itself much. All of the songs are pleasing, with no note out of place, a very tight horn and rhythm section, and a chorus of sweet-voiced background singers. Only Donald Fagen's own vocal delivery, with its somewhat limited range and wispy nasality, is a unique sound. So why is this one of my favorite albums? I'm not entirely sure upon listening to it again in its entirety. I can tell you that I hate none of these songs, but if you had asked me before putting this song in the player to review if I could name any of the tracks, as a favorite or not, I would have been hard-pressed. "Springtime," the funkiest track, is one of the many I've rated five stars. The other tracks I've rated five star include "Trans-Island Skyway," "Countermoon," "Springtime," and "Tomorrow's Girls." Only one track was rated less than four stars, "On the Dunes." Listening to it all together, though, and I'm struck by just how much of a snoozer it is. I'm tempted to rate some of the songs down just on this realization.

Joe Jackson, Look Sharp

Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:47:38 +0700

Cover of Look Sharp!

Look Sharp! contains some of the cleverest songs from the 1970s, one of which was a huge radio hit. Jackson emerged just as Elvis Costello and Graham Parker did, both incredibly clever and caustic songwriters in their own right, and the three quickly became known as the angry young men of the rock scene. Some people today label and group them with punk, but that disregards that all three were accomplished musicians, Joe Jackson most of all, as he had even studied music at university. What more they did have in common was spending the 70s touring England's pub scene, and if one had to specify a subgenre for them, pub-rock would do in a pinch, along with Brinsley Schwarz, Nick Lowe, Dave Edmunds, and the too short-lived Rockpile. The hit, which overshadows the album and Jackson's entire career until he hit big again with Night and Day, is of course "Is She Really Going Out With Him?" It unfortunately suffers from two things: it has been overplayed by classic rock radio everywhere and, while very clever, it is a bit of an extended joke where the punchline loses its impact with repetition. The music, with it's simple bass'n'drums loping verse and full band chorus, stays fresh, as does Jackson's sneer-cum-whine vocal delivery (especially in the classic insult line, "they say that looks don't count for much and there goes your proof"). The other thing that strikes me upon listening to it for yet another time is how clean the recording is--in fact this entire record is a prime example of how giving the instruments quietness around them emphasizes them so much better than just turning everything up to ten as they do nowadays. That said, there are exceptions. "Throw It Away" and "(Do the) Instant Mash" are as close as this album gets to punk and both fill the channel with some pretty high octane playing. Take the hit away and this still would have been a great album. None of the songs is a clunker that begs for the skip button. Several of them are all-time favorites of mine. "Fools in Love" is really a companion piece to the hit, and holds up better with time for me. It has the same loping, near reggae feeling, verse and big bold chorus with more vitriolic vocals. It is also somewhat creepy. In this, as well as in "Pretty Girls," Jackson seems to have a problem with this whole dating/love business--an honest portrait of the conflicting emotions that surround a 20-or-so-year-old. What's most surprising, however, given Jackson's later career and claim-to-fame as one if the few rock pianists (can you name more than five? Jerry Lee Lewis, Elton John, Billy Joel, Bruce Hornsby, and Ben Folds. I know more, but most of them are in bands rather than solo artists, and I play piano, so it's something of interest to me) is the relative absence of piano on this recording. It's there, but definitely not as a main instrument--almost as if Jackson had a problem playing and singing at the same time when this was recorded since when you notice the piano it's in the solos. This is my favorite Jackson album, but only because every song here is a winner. I actually prefer to listen these days to Jumpin' Jive or Beat Crazy, neither of which did very well for him when they were released.

Things You Might Like, if You Like These Kinds of Things

Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:57:36 +0700

A selection of a few items that came across my feedreader in the last couple of weeks:

This snow shovel looks like it would have been perfect for the very long driveway that we used to have in Maryland. Since DC just got some more of that white stuff dumped on them, I wanted to alert my friends there to this possible solution. In other news, it's still summer in Malaysia.
What's the real cost of the sugar water that you are drinking? Because of the small sums involved, people miss the cost increases that they would scream about for things that cost more, even though you likely spend more on soda in a given period. It also underscores the hypocrisy of the soda companies who screamed about the proposed tax of 1 cent per soda to help combat the rise of obesity in the U.S.
As someone who seems to be untangling my iPhone earbuds every time I take them out of my pocket, I find this zipper design to be absolute genius, especially with the added feature that the zip also contains separate volume controls. Now, there's some innovative thinking for you.
In a similar inspired-design vein, check out this travel plug that folds up so you don't poke holes in your bag. I need one of these, like, immediately.
My buddy Stainless is doing a great series on the Leadership Secrets of Fictional Characters. While I'm not a necessarily a fan of the fiction that he's pulling this from, what he's quoting and his analysis of it is spot on. I'll be sad when this little series ends.
Jonathan Carroll, one of my favorite writers, reproduces this list of 'Rules' from Esquire. I like a lot of these, including "The only thing worse than words ending in 'ly' are words ending in 'ize.'"
Bruce Sterling, another of my favorite writers, points out this inspired graphic depicting what China censors. I should do something similar for Malaysia, although it would have to be a tag cloud on what the local newspapers deem is important news (which, as J put it recently on Facebook, combines the worst part of the Monica Lewinsky and BoA scandals).
You want indignation? Here's a rant on the insane amount of money we spend on the military. We can debate about whether or not this is actually making the U.S. "secure," but there's no doubt that it's driving the U.S. into bankruptcy.
An ad that points out that, really, there's only one way to recharge yourself if you're feeling out of energy.

Best. Band. Name. Ever.

Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:48:27 +0700

Oh, this is what we should have used for our band name. Or, since he's out of a job, I offer it to Conan O'Brien, in case he wanted to be a rock star.

Conan and the Barbarians

Social Network Etiquette

Sat, 30 Jan 2010 11:12:39 +0700

Image by engelcox via Flickr

I don't want to become a curmudgeon (well, no more than I already am) and taking on the role of the Dear Abby for the web set is almost equally appalling, but there's a couple of things regarding using electronic communication that I'd like to address, especially for those of my friends and acquaintances who are only now starting to use this on your computers and cell phones. Note: I was doing computer communication before most of you even owned a computer or cell phone--some of my friends and I were doing it before there were even cell phones. So, I feel like I've got a bit of time invested in this and would like to share some collected experience with you. First off, the best way to think about online communication is to compare it to something you are more familiar with. The best analogy is to that of a party. Sometimes you go to a party where you don't know that many people. The way you handle yourself online should be the same as you would at such an event. You introduce yourself, you ask about others, and you follow the flow and ebb of the conversation before starting to engage. You don't (or at least you shouldn't) immediately yell out that everyone in the room doesn't know what they hell they are talking about and they are all stupid. It gets you attention, yes; everyone in the room will turn to see who the asshole is, and some of 'em might deign to insult you, but you just made the worst first impression, and a long-term experience doesn't look positive. To extend this analogy to Facebook, the social site of least resistance as I'm writing this, when you and I agree to be friends, we're inviting each other to our personal parties. Remember that what you comment on my status update, that happens in my party, just as I need to remember that what I say to you is at your party. Some people's parties are huge! They have 500 friends and a network of thousands that could overhear your comment. Some people have very private parties--I have one friend who caps his friends on Facebook at 50 people. The difference between these two sorts of approaches is as night and day between a college kegger and a formal dinner party. It behooves you to know this. Unfortunately, Facebook doesn't make this easy to understand intuitively. That's a technological failing, but one that you have to deal with. Some people play games at their private parties. That's great. I'm a gameplayer, and I love games. Not everyone does. Luckily, Facebook helps the latter group by giving you the ability to ignore (per game) messages about that particular function. That's like hosting a party and there's a group of your friends over by the side playing Risk while another group is drinking beer and hanging around the bar-be-que. If you go to a party, and all that's happening is games, and you don't want to engage in that, you have the option of leaving. In Facebook lingo, that's when you click the little X next to that friend and remove them from your friend's list. It's not that you don't think he or she is a wonderful acquaintance, just that you're not interested in going to that party. You can always send email to that person--it's like calling them on the phone. Which, by the way, you can do, too. I'm sure you've seen this: a friend of yours puts a status update up that says something like "If you love your pet snail, repost this on your own status update so everyone knows that you really appreciate your pet snail." You may have even been tempted to copy and post it as your update. Resist the temptation. If you want people to know how much you love Slowpoke, why not write something about how cute Slowpoke is when he's traveling across the lettuce leaf and you turn the leaf 180-degrees, thus mitigating his process. That is, if you really love your pet snail, why don't you "show, don't tell" your friends about that love. Clicking the "Like" button is like nodding at the party. It's a nice thing to do, because it tells your friend that you were actually able to hear and appreciate the comment over the din of all the other talkers. Also, take the time to comment on your friends' statuses. If all you do is talk and talk at your own party, without engaging people in their parties, you come across either as a celebrity or an egotistical bastard, such terms being not necessarily mutually exclusive. On the other hand, never saying anything at your own party or at others is like being the wallflower. No one hates you, but people wonder why you bothered to show up at all. Engaging in political or religious discussions at someone's party is very dangerous, but it's a two-way street. If you mention that kind of thing at your party, don't be surprised at your friends mentioning at their party. So, as a host, if you don't want to talk about politics and religion, don't bring it up. And, if you do bring it up, don't be surprised if a friend of yours disagrees with you. The ultimate rudeness is to then tell them that you don't care what they have to say. What kind of host are you. I left a friend's party because of a similar experience. I didn't feel welcome there anymore. That said, I like having friends at my party who have different opinions from mine. If all I invited were yes men and sycophants to my party, I think it would be a very dull place. That said, if your opinion differs from mine and all you do is insult my position, don't be surprised if I don't invite you back or show you the boot out the back door. Finally, think about how you project yourself at your party and at others' parties. That is, are you the joker who's always quick with a witty saying and good-natured ribbing? Are you the dour sourpuss who sits in the corner except to say how life sucks every 15 minutes? Are you a well-rounded person who can talk and enjoy everything or do you have only a couple of push-button topics that consume you? Yes, this is online communication, but chances are that you might actually meet up with some of these people outside of Facebook. How you come across online can determine if people invite you to their in-person parties, as well, not to mention whatever replaces Facebook in the future.

Everyday Drinking

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 17:16:47 +0700

Image via Wikipedia

I joked with a family member who asked what I was going to read next that I hoped this was going to be a "how to" book. While it could conceivably be followed in some instances, Everyday Drinking is actually a collection of three smaller books that themselves were collections of the newspaper writings on alcohol by Kingsley Amis, more famous as the author of such novels as Lucky Jim and The Green Man, although it is pretty apparent from this book that he was more than familiar with the artistic merits of a couple of cocktails before and, especially, after the work day. This was a good addition to my growing library on bacchanalia, as it fulfills my rigorous requirements of (a) being more than just a recipe book (I have enough of those now, plus there's always the Internet Cocktail Database) and (b) having a strong, personal, opinionated voice. Amis has the latter in spades, as he ranges between saying that drinking is always a subjective enterprise to lambasting the heathens who would mix something with a single-malt scotch (even Drambuie, as in the Rusty Nail, which is better suited to mixing with a blend, in both his and my entirely not-so-humble opinions). Amis is clear that he's a beer man with a taste for gin, and that while he has some expert and experience with other liquor and wine, that's not where his heart lies. He does pretty well at covering the gamut, still, and as an intermediate wine drinker, I still found plenty to learn from him. These columns are somewhat dated, having been written mainly the in the late 70s and early 80s, as far as I can tell, but given that everything that once was old in cocktails is now new again, that's not so much of a problem. Finally, I was happy to obtain from this at least one new drink that I've quickly grown to enjoy quite a lot: the "Pink Gin," which is simply gin with a couple of dashes of Angostura (or other) bitters (I suggest serving it on the rocks if you don't keep the gin in the freezer as I do). It's a wonderful drink for those for whom adding ever the sight of the vermouth bottle to a martini reduces its dry nature; the bitters actually increases the dry quotient. Marvelous!

Tips for Moving to Malaysia

Tue, 05 Jan 2010 19:49:55 +0700

Now that I'm a veteran expat in Malaysia, I thought I would share a few things I've learned in the past year and a half. These are applicable for those expats coming from the U.S.; your mileage may vary if you are relocating here from other countries.

Malaysia pharmacies carry Panadol for pain relief and Actival for heartburn. I found both poor substitutes for aspirin/Advil and Tum/Rolaids. If there are other over-the-counter drugs that you are partial to, you might want to put a year's supply of that in your luggage. On the other hand, obtaining prescription drugs isn't as much of a problem, although the name may not be the same as what you received in the U.S.
Transformers should be bought and brought for any U.S. appliance you are bringing with you that can't handle the 220 voltage. Note that some appliances draw a lot of watts when they start up, so the watt requirement for your transformer should be double the amount listed for the appliance(s) you expect to connect to it. (Converters for two-prong U.S. cords to three-prong outlets are also very useful.)
Live close to what is important to you. If you don't like to sit in traffic, live close to your work. If you want to be able to walk home from any number of restaurants, live in an apartment downtown. If it's important to you that your kids be close to their school, live close to it. Because the traffic is BAD. New York, L.A., Washington bad. We've been stuck in jams from 1 hour to 3 hours. Be prepared.
Things will mildew here, especially stuff that you sweat on. Think: hat bands, leather shoes, gloves, armrests of furniture. Things also melt and collect moisture here. Soggy Rolaids and melted zinc lozenges are tough to stomach. Bring lots of ziplocs and dessicant packs (food-grade for things you plan to ingest).
Internet speed is slow. My wife explains it thusly, "You never really understand the concept of the digital divide until you are on the other side." This is not something you can spend more money to get faster access (i.e., the U.S. model)--it's an infrastructure problem emerging from the state-owned telephony monopoly. So, if there's something that you need Internet speed for, think of what your alternatives might be. Also, note that many internet services don't work here because of copyright issues: Pandora, Roku, Hulu, etc.
You can't have enough light-weight clothes for this climate. In the last year and a half, my casual clothing collection has blossomed with more shorts and sleeveless shirts than I have ever owned in my life.
There are two things that I know of that are much more expensive in Malaysia than in the U.S.: automobiles and alcohol. The solution for the auto is to either live without (taxis are cheap here) or buy local (if you can live with the safety and reliability issues for the locally produced cars). Your alcohol solution is to always remember to buy a bottle per person from the duty free, and make sure that all your out-of-country visitors do the same. I never understood the point of duty free when I lived in the U.S. In Malaysia, a 1-liter bottle of gin from duty free is Rm66 while a fifth of gin is Rm120 in the store. Also, if you're partial to a certain brand of liquor, pack it in your suitcase (sealed within a ziplock and surrounded by bubble wrap).
Don't ship batteries, and remember to remove batteries from all the appliances in your sea shipment. Trust me. Battery leakage is ugly.

That's all I can think of at the moment.

Rush, Permanent Waves

Mon, 04 Jan 2010 19:39:44 +0700

The lead off track of this album by Rush, "The Spirit of Radio," was written for and about a Canadian radio station, and it perfectly captures a moment in radio history, between the payola of the 60s and the corporate conglomerates of the 90s. For those of us who grew up listening to radio in that period, the tune is bittersweet, especially the prescient ending wherein Neal Peart rewrites Simon and Garfunkel's lyrics from "The Sound of Silence" to lambast the emerging profit-only centered radio programming. It's a strong statement and song, and one of Rush's best singles (it may even have been released as a single, which would have been unusual for Rush). Permanent Waves is the first album that adds synthesizers to their three main instruments of guitar, bass and drums. Subsequent albums would increasingly feature the use of synthesizers, but it is here where Lee began to use them for more than atmospheric effect; there's an occasional solo as well as background melody/harmony provided by synth here. There are still remnants of the excesses of previous Rush albums present here, with two songs extending over 7 minutes. All of the songs are self-contained (rather than multi-part suites), however. Peart's lyrics reflect his literary aspirations; some people, like me, find them intelligent; detractors find them pretentious. "Freewill" puts forward a basic philosophical concept across in 5 minutes (not deciding to choose something is still making a choice), while "Natural Science" uses biology (tide pools) to illustrate how humans can't see the bigger picture. But this is still Rush, with many time/key changes contained in each song, syncopation plays between bass and drums, and some of the best coordinated playing of the time. There's not a dud song on this album, although the long ones do seem to go on a little more than you expect them to. This would be resolved in their next, and best, album, Moving Pictures.

Impressions of Amsterdam

Sun, 03 Jan 2010 19:27:37 +0700

On our way back to Malaysia from the U.S., we stopped off at Amsterdam for three days, including New Year's Eve. It wasn't necessarily a planned trip, but the fortunate occurrence of a flight routing and timing that enabled us to do so without increasing the cost of the plane ticket. Since I hadn't ever been to Amsterdam, and J hadn't been there since she was 12, it proved perfect. We stayed in the heart of the city at the Hotel Estheria, which was a fairly impressive boutique hotel that was still family owned. We weren't in the smallest room, but not by much--it reminded me of the rooms we used to get in New York, where the bed takes up the majority of the floor space. Since you're just in a hotel to sleep, it makes sense, but the cramped quarters makes it somewhat difficult to access your luggage, not to mention increasing your proximity to the folks next door. Overall, though, we were happy with the Hotel, except for the afternoon when we returned to find a note hanging with our key that basically accused us of smoking in the room. Since we weren't even visiting smoking establishments, we were dumbfounded, but suspect that it was the room next door and the maid misreported the number. It was cold (snowy, even, which natives reported as unusual), so most of our pursuits were indoors. We visited the Rijksmuseum, which housed paintings by Rembrandt and his contemporaries. The museum is in the final stages of a remodel, so many sections were closed off. We were able to see everything in around three hours. After that, we headed to the Van Gogh museum, which was much more crowded, especially in the summary highlights on the first floor. The crowding was exacerbated by the now ubiquitous audio tour crowd. Since nearly every painting on the first floor had audio commentary, and once you pay for the dang thing, you're going to use it, the headphone gang would simply stand gaping in front of painting after painting, hindering the natural progress. It's kind of like getting caught behind a school group where each kid has to mouth the words of the informational plaque hanging beside the art. Thankfully, the upper floors, which showed Van Gogh's development as an artist by exhibiting a fairly large percentage of his output, wasn't as crowded, and the special exhibit on Alfred Stevens nearly empty. The next day, we got up early and stood in line for the Anne Frank House for thirty minutes before gaining entry. I had never read the book, although I knew most of the salient details of Anne Frank's life, but I found the way they had turned the house into a museum very affecting and powerful, like a small version of D.C.'s Holocaust museum, and about as sad. The special exhibit when we visited was an interactive survey of museum visitors about various freedoms (privacy, speech, etc.). A brief note for anyone going to Amsterdam: buy your museum tickets online. We were able to do so for the Rijksmuseum and the Van Gogh, but the Anne Frank House had already sold out. For the ones that we had e-tickets for, we were able to skip some fairly long lines (on the order of an hour or more in the cold). We spent a lot of time walking around the city. Yes, we walked through the red light district and saw the legendary windows with their wares. I was surprised because I thought the "windows" would be on the second floor with the women half-naked gesturing you to come up and visit them sometime, but instead they are more like plate glass doors to the street, with the ladies sitting on stools on the other side in their lingerie. The other side of Amsterdam's famous tolerance for vice was mainly contained in establishments labeled "coffeeshops," but which instead of coffee featured "Dutch gold," the locally grown weed. You didn't have to see a sign for these, as they were pretty obvious from the smells that emerged from the occasionally opened door. Amsterdam's architecture was also impressive, but the general weather conditions led us to a fairly hurried walk and we didn't linger much. Our other major indoor activity was eating and drinking. People had told us that Amsterdam wasn't known for its food, and I'll have to agree; nothing was horribly bad, but nothing was that wonderful either. Our best meal was on New Year's Eve, at the Casa di David, where we were able to get a reservation the day before for 5:30pm, and we were happy about that. Seems that restaurants in Amsterdam pay their servers on salary, and really had no desire to max out their seatings on such a popular eating out evening. Casa di David provided us with excellent service and some nice bruschetta (zucchini and truffles) and salads, with decent pastas. Other meals didn't pan out so well: the best thing about the rifstaafl (an Indonesian rice table, one of the imports of the Dutch trading past) was our conversation with the Malaysian waiter who had lived in Amsterdam for 40 years, while our one traditional Dutch meal was notably only for the cold fish appetizer. On the drinking side, we had much better luck. One night found us drinking three different types of jenever with a dubblebock at a bar popular with the university set, while we found a jenever tasting room on New Year's Eve that proved fantastic, with some great conversations with both the bartenders and the patrons about cocktails and Amsterdam. I also got to visit the Bols Experience, where you could test your olfactory senses in a room filled with bottles of their fruit and herbal liqueurs attached to bulbs that wafted the aroma to your nose (see picture below). The conversation with the bartender there was also nice, and the desk staff was very friendly. After the early dinner and our visit to the jenever tasting room, we hung out in our hotel room and watched a Lewis Black comedy special until minutes before the New Year's, where we re-bundled up and hit the roads to enjoy the fireworks. Our first indication that something wasn't the same as elsewhere was the folks from the hotel next door who had a string of orange firecrackers that had to be nearly nine feet long. Once the time arrived, fireworks began to be set off from everywhere in the city. While there may have been organized fireworks from certain spots (one of which we had seen being setup near the Westerkirk earlier in the day), every neighborhood seemed to have a group that had spent quite a lot of euros on fireworks and were doing their individual shows on the bridges. We walked from bridge to bridge, enjoying the shows. On one, the group had built their own bonfire in the middle of the street. The fireworks went on for quite some time--we returned to our room at 1am, but I could still hear fireworks going off before I finally got to sleep around 2am. Overall, we had a great time in Amsterdam, and three days seemed to be the right amount of time for the city itself. We wish we could have spent some time in the rest of the Netherlands, but that will have to wait until some future trip.

Lev Grossman, The Magicians

Sat, 02 Jan 2010 04:46:49 +0700

At some point in the development of a writer, you have to stop reading and start writing. Many writers find it difficult to write in their own style if they are simultaneously reading something very stylistic, as most writers are mimics--a thing that comes in quite handy when you are trying to write about characters very unlike you, but awkward in the case I'm describing where you unconsciously start copying another writer's style. This isn't confined to writers, of course, as musicians, painters, and most likely artists of any other stripe find that to create their own original work, they have to isolate themselves so that the influences aren't quite so immediate. Which makes it quite difficult for writers to work certain jobs, the worst being that of book critic or reviewer. Lev Grossman is the book critic for the news magazine, Time, and this is his second novel. I didn't read his first, Codex, but glancing at it recently in the bookstore, it was obviously marketed to the same folks who enjoyed the Dan Brown books (I can't say it's deriviative of Brown, as I didn't read the thing, as I said). This one, The Magicians, is very obviously a deriviative of the Harry Potter books crossed with C.S. Lewis's Narnia, and I might have dismissed it offhand if I hadn't seen some comments from people whose opinion I trust that said it was worthwhile. While they mentioned that it was "Harry Potter for adults," they noted that it transcended its source material. Rather than transcend, I think The Magicians is actually a meta-fictional commentary on its influences, while retaining enough of an interesting story line that if you don't care about thinking in such ways, you don't have to. Grossman clearly takes on themes that Rowling avoided in her books, including much more believable turns on alienation and sexuality. There's also an implied criticism of C.S. Lewis's simplistic moralistic and structured adventures, and a devil of a villain that comes close to being original except that I think I've seen all of his special effects in horror/fantasy movies of the last decade. I enjoyed the book quite a lot, but I would hesitate to suggest it to lovers of either of its major influences if they can't stand a bit of criticism, which seems appropriate in context, given Grossman's day job.

Ringing in 2010

Fri, 01 Jan 2010 06:17:23 +0700

Image via Wikipedia

This year, to say goodbye to the previous year, our annual letter was compiled from a selection of status updates over 2009 from Facebook. It was a cheap and easy way to create the letter, but I think it also reflects just how powerful Facebook has become. Medley noted the other day that she felt dirty when she used the Facebook interface to send a message to someone (as opposed to regular email), and I agree, but after dealing with 10+ years of increasing spam in our email boxes that reduce the chance that a message to someone will actually appear in their inbox and be recognized as an actual message, the Facebook interface becomes a godsend. (You can check out a bunch of the past year-end letters on this page, which also describes the theme for each.) And since it's the start of the new year, a summary of what I'm up to on the Internet is due. Here's where I am in 2010:

immediacy, my blog, somewhat sadly neglected in 2009. I'm hoping to reverse that little trend, but that's something I've been saying for a couple of years now, so I'm not going to be making any resolutions to that effect.
glEN World, my own personal forum, which was once used for some Play-by-Post role-play gaming, but now is just a place for my friends to hang out. I've contemplated shutting it down, but it's still up for now.
Facebook - it's an evil, but like Google, a known evil
RateYourMusic, a music rating and information site that I wished more of my musically-minded friends used so I could take advantage of recommendations based on friends rather than the greater RYM unwashed, who tend to like more death metal than I do
Flickr, where I'm trying to take advantage of my iPhone's camera and post more day-to-day pictures of life in Malaysia, as well as trip photos
Last.fm, another music site, which collects my listening data
Twitter, which remains a mystery to me--I like Facebook updates a bunch better, but some people are on Twitter who aren't on Facebook, so there I am

In addition to the social networking (i.e., Web 2.0) sites above, I am a regular listener to two podcasts (Coverville and All Songs Considered) and one videocast (iFanboy). I read some ungainly number of blogs, probably including yours. I manage that through Google Reader through the Next button that actually takes me to the site rather than reading it in the Reader itself, which I like a lot, except for it always does reverse time-order, where I'd rather read my oldest unread feed first (I'm not the only one who dislikes this). Think there's a site that I'm missing? Please leave a note!

2009 Favorite Cover Songs

Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:08:33 +0700

Every year, Coverville does a countdown at the end of the year of the best cover songs as voted on by the podcast listeners. Right now, the nomination process is underway. The following five songs are my nominees for the best covers (keeping in mind that I didn't nominate any of the songs recently featured as on the Coverville "Hall of Fame"):