Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Guns

"Shoot a few, knock 'em down, cost you half a buck now,
Guns, guns, guns"--The Guess Who

So, here’s the scene:
It’s late spring/early summer, my parents’ farm. It’s one of those long stretches of fixing machinery and waiting for things to ripen.
I’ve come to a visit to southwest Saskatchewan from wherever I’m living this particular year. This scene has been replayed continuously since the mid-90s.
I discuss books and politics with my mother over breakfast, then get caught up on the latest family news and gossip. I step outside to enjoy the steadily heating morning air and the peace of this place.
Then, my dad and I pile into a half-ton or his Rhino ATV, clinging to our .22 calibre rifles. Boxes of ammo rattle on the seat between us as we tear out into the prairie in search of gophers marauding the frail wheat plants. We spend hours chatting, listening to the wind or the piercing whistles of our soon-to-be victims. The stillness is only broken by these and the reports of our “plinkin,’” and perhaps by the squeals of the dying.
This massacre also brings me a peace. I’m a farm boy enjoying a farm boy’s pastime, and it’s more of a hobby than a job—for we’ll never make a dent on the gopher population this way.
I love it. Mark me as a hypocrite.

I grew up playing Cops and Robbers with my brothers and friends, my action figure of choice was G. I. Joe. Though it horrifies me to see it in my own son, I know that for every little boy, a hockey stick or a twig or a pointed finger and thumb are all eventually turned into a gun by boys who may have never even seen one.
Today, I hate guns.
When Democrat Gabrielle Giffords and eighteen other people were gunned down in Tucson last month in an “It Can Only Happen There” spree, any Canadian haughtiness was shut right up when Canmore police shot and killed a man a few days later. He’d been making threats and brandishing a mock handgun, and officers claimed they had little choice. It’s not good that it happened, but it drove home for me that it can happen anywhere—all that where needs is guns.
In the wake of the Tucson shooting, CBC’s Anna Maria Tremonti interviewed a Charles Heller of the Arizona Citizens Defence League, a pro-gun group who believe that gunman Jared Lee Loughner would have been stopped sooner (than the fifteen seconds it took) if more of those present were armed, and had the training to use their weapons. If they were in, “a constant state of code yellow.” This is because having a gun makes you a different type of person, though Heller and I would disagree on what kind.
More guns and more itchy fingers would prevent gun violence? Come the hell on.
When prodded on Arizona’s lax (read: insane) gun laws, which allowed Loughner—a former student who had been brought to the attention of authorities before for his Travis Bickle potential—to purchase a weapon with a 30+ magazine, and which allow teenagers to buy assault rifles at gun shows, Heller remarked that anybody can buy a muscle car too, and a car is much more dangerous than a gun.
Seriously?
Even a shiny, $50,000 penis-extension is, at root, a form of transportation. Yes, the wrong driver can make it dangerous, but a gun is a killing instrument right from the start. It serves no other purpose than to kill.
I’m no hunter—those of you more appalled by guns than I am might question my seasonal vermin-blasting habits, and rightly so—so I don’t get any sporting angle to gun ownership. Many of my friends and family hunt for fun. I don’t like those guns, but I also know that none of these men—and they’re all men—carry a gun with them at all times, or would even turn it on another human being. At least I sure hope not.
I do know that there are some nutty rednecks on both sides of the 49th who are insistent on keeping their mounds of weaponry free from official hands and eyes because, y’know, if the Nuclear Holocaust ain’t coming, then the Zombie Apocalypse sure as hell is. I recall being an appalled at about seventeen when my MP stood up in parliament and told Chretien’s Liberals that he would openly disobey their gun registry laws. Imagine a Marijuana Party or Neo-Nazi getting elected and saying the same thing.
There’s just something so passionate about gun owners, in their insistence on being free from government imposition, in their defence of accumulating an arsenal, in their hazy purposes for needing it. Freedom, they say, or the U.S. Second Amendment, or perhaps that idiotic “gotta protect yer house” philosophy. Oh sure, home invasion can happen, and then if the odds start stretching and you’re home when it happens, you’ve then got to have the cajones to put a bullet in another human being. Buddy, it’s 2011 and you aren’t in a war—you may, but I don’t have it in me to put a bullet in another human being. Threaten? Frighten? Intimidate? Call those whose job it is to deal with this? Yes, yes, yes and yes. Shoot? Nope. Not even if they damage my daddy’s crops.
Prime Minister Harper’s attempts to undo the gun registry—for reasons he has never made clear, and despite the opposition of law enforcement—has its fans and foes, but I’ll tell you this: if you told me that tomorrow all guns were banned in North America, Dad and I would simply start playing more games of cribbage before checking crops on a sunny morning.
There is no sensible reason for private citizens to own guns, and I’ve never heard a logical attestation to the contrary.

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

Comments

I like and encourage comments on my blog, and wanted to open it to anyone who doesn't have a Google account to comment (though they can't follow it). If you're a frequent commenter (Jennifer, Kent, Carla . . .) please don't be put off by the moderation statement that now appears--I'll still post and try to reply. I just want a bit more control now that it's open to a wider group of people who can remark on it.

Saturday, January 1, 2011

2010 in Music

As is my tradition (hey, twice makes custom, they say), I wanted to comment on the music I listened to this year. Now 2009 was, to me, one of the most serendipitous twelvemonths ever, audio-wise. There was some great music this year, too, some great surprises, and in some cases, disappointments. They’re ordered based on discovery, not preference.

1. Sounds of Vancouver: 2010 Closing Ceremonies.

If you go out an buy this thing, you’ll be disappointyed because most of the songs on here are just album tracks by Neil Young, Hedley, Alanis Morrisette, Nickelback, rather than the performances—makes sense as some were lip-sunk. However, what is on there is a great snapshot at the fun that was had playing up our own Canadaian stereotypes.

Choice track: “The Maple Leaf Forever/Made in Canada” by Michael BublĂ©.
2. Timbaland, Shock Value

One of a few albums technically released in ’09, but this list is all about when I heard them—the tunes that defined the year for me. Timbaland is one of my favourite performers in a genre I’m hardly attached to as a die hard, air guitaring white boy from Saskatchewan. Rather than shake his ego in the camera, surrounded by jiggling girls in shiny bikinis, rapping about his “cash and hos”, he smiles at himself ironically, looking for all his style and talent like a goof not quite sure what to do in front of a camera. Best of all, he surrounds himself with (usually) fully-dressed female talent of the vocal variety. He makes good music.

Choice track: “Morning After Dark.”

3. Young Artists for Haiti, “Wavin’ Flag”

It’s just one song, but in my head it’s the best of the year. Yeah, the cynics will bash it, but this anthem of Haitian relief (part 1) and FIFA South Africa comprises two things the cynics don’t have: youth and hope. This is the power of the young, these are the future greats of this country getting together to do some good. If you can remember the days of “Feed the World”, “Tears are Not Enough”, and “We Are the World”, you can appreciate the value of this despite the inclusion of Justin Bieber.

4. Billy Talent, III.

Also an 09-er, but I got it in February. This thing is raw, pure rock energy. Always just short of the line of annoying screamo, these guys dish out some of the best electric guitar work I have heard in consistency in years. Wondrous licks, wild rhythm shifts and catchy, catchy hooks. The best of this year’s punk rock.

Choice track: “Devil on My Shoulder” took me a week to learn on bass.

5. Andy Trithardt, Secret Fun.

Listen to this one on some very good head-phones. Andy has always worked on cool sound layering, with simple yet perfect guitar hooks, but on Fun, he really shows how far he’s come as a lyricist, and in translating those lyrics into his melodies. He always seems to be desperate to avoid pop-catchy hooks, but he’s managed to showcase his already-considerable song writing skills without compromising the cleverness of his verse. Rather, he enhances it. I say that, but once again his music is the power of this thing.

Choice track: “Call in the Priest!”

6. Peter Gabriel, Scratch My Back.

It seemed like a great idea when I first heard about it. One of the best progressivists of the past quarter century covering songs by Radiohead, David Bowie, Neil Young, with the plan being that these artists would scratch back by covering “Sledgehammer” or “Steam”. Pretty desperate way to get a tribute album, but whatever. Issues that cropped up: nobody seemed interested in doing it back, and most of the covers, despite the varied sources, all sound the same—and are far inferior to the originals.

Choice track: I guess you could check out David Bowie’s “Heroes” just to be glad it’s a slightly better job than the Wallflowers did. That’s how hard this is to compliment, though.

7. Crash Karma, Crash Karma.


What? It’s 1997 again? You take the supporting casts from four (uh, three—what the hell was Zeitgeist?) of the greatest rock groups of the 90s, slap them together, and it’s passable, but you’ll also realize a couple things:
1.      Our Lady Peace, I Mother Earth and The Tea Party sounded nothing alike and melding their disparate noises is a fool’s quest.
2.      You can’t go back again. This sounds like it’s thirteen years off.
Still, with the pop stain Our Lady Peace has become, the flaming wreck I Mother Earth came to—they found the one dude who was a worse singer than Edwin—it’s a decent enough nostalgic alternative. But of the survivors of these four (three) groups, I think it’s second only to Jeff Martin’s solo material.

Choice track: “Next Life”. Good rock, some cool lyrics.

8. Angels & Airwaves, LOVE.

Hmm. I listen to a lot of bands that are made up of members of old bands. Hey, I miss Audioslave. Anyway, I like this band a lot, but this third album and soundtrack to the film of the same name stumbles in a few places. Their first two albums were track after track of genius melding of Radiohead and U2, but this one gets off the rail at times. Still, good band.

Choice track: “Flight of Apollo”.

9. Smashing Pumpkins, Teargarden by Kaleidyscope Volumes I and II.
  
After Pearl Jam, this is the only “grunge” band still kicking out anything worth listening to. Even with the roatating membership—ZWAN?!—over the past ten years, the Billy Corgan experiment still pumps out great music. This newest venture—forty-four songs released online for free one at a time—was cool, but is quickly looking like an undeliverable promise. Eight songs so far. I love it, it’s some of his best work, but I don’t know that I’ll stick around for six years for him to finish it.

Choice track: “Song For A Son”.

10. Arcade Fire, The Suburbs

The best album on this list that was actually released in 2010. These folks have done it. Three albums in and they keep improving and changing with each one. They could quit now and would remain a band for the ages, but luckily, they’ll keep going. They are the true definition of alternative if you’re whacky enough to keep trying to apply that to music. This is a perfect album, one of only three on this list (Neil and Biffy), and it was the soundtrack to my summer.

Choice track: “City With No Children”.

11. Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, Mojo.

It’s good blues rock, and I dig Tom Petty, but I’ve decided that since about 1994, his best work has been sans-Heartbreakers: more variety, less basic blues format. I mean, this is a cool album, but it’s got no surprises.

Choice track: “First Flash of Freedom”.

12. Neil Young, Le Noise

The man is sixty-five and released a better album than almost all the kids on this list. Man? Young’s a god. This album’s only problem is it’s only got eight songs. It’s simply Neil grinding away on an electric guitar—no accompaniment—and then another icon gets his hands on it: Daniel Lanois. You end up with one of the most unique releases from an artist who has churned one out almost annually since the 60s. Its autobiographical lyrics are a little too close to a swan song for my taste, though.

Choice track: “Angry World”.

13. The Black Keys, Brothers.

My buddy Ed got me into these guys, their whole catalogue. Feel like I’ve missed the boat since about 2002. At first I thought they were the thinking man’s alternative to the White Stripes, but they’re so much richer than that. 21st century folk rock. Touches of Beck, but no lack of originality. Every track works.

Choice track: “Everlasting Light” played very loud on old speakers.

14. Biffy Clyro, Only Revolutions.

Though released in late 2009, this is the best album of 2010. My favourite Scottish trio has managed one of these very, very rare “all killer, no filler” albums. Their past two albums were their genre-bending triumphs or punk and power-pop, with some odd timing and chugging rhythms. Oh, and then there are those melodies.

Choice track: “The Captain”.

15. Slash, Slash.

Dear Slash, you are one of the greatest guitarists of all time. You could probably pull a Joe Satriani and leave at least half of these songs instrumental. Most of these vocalists mean nothing to us and don’t help the song at all. I mean, I’m a Chris Cornell fan, but his track sucks.

Choice track: “Paradise City” with Cypress Hill and Fergie doing Axil better than Axil can.

16. Loreena McKennit, The Wind That Shakes the Barley.

What? This is good stuff. You saying it can’t follow Slash? Shaddap, s’my list. One of Canada’s greatest talents is also a fine Celtic storyteller, and she has this way of classing up the season with her near-Yuletime releases.

Choice track: “The Star of County Down”.

17. Robert Plant, Band of Joy.

Y’know, I didn’t really buy into the whole Alison Krauss, Grammy hype, but I like what the former Zeppelin golden god is up to these days. Lots of covers, too, but unlike Peter Gabriel, Plant explores all kinds of rock and blues—even country—avenues like he owns them, and was never the guy to screech “Stairway to Heaven”.

Choice Track: “Angel Dance”.




18. How to Desroy Angels, How to Destroy Angels.

I enjoyed it, but when Trent Reznor releases an album with his wife, what do you get? Nine Inch Nails with a woman singing. Nothing new, sounds a lot like Ghosts I-IV.

Choice track: "The Space Between".

The Reading List, 2010

A friend got me onto this idea of keeping a list of the books I read by year. This is the second year I've done it but I'm not sure I'm going to do it again: too stressful. I actually found myself occasionally reaching for something thinner near the end of the month so I met my quota (three per month was the aim). Screw that; I have two kids and a busy job. Anyway, FYI. A few I've read before (Pi, etc), but needed to re-read for work. Comments and questions welcome.

January
1.      Shakey: Neil Young’s Biography by Jimmy McDonough
2.      The Burning Land by Bernard Cornwell
3.      A Writer’s Notebook by Caroline Sharp

February

4.      Notes for Monday by Barb Gordon
5.      Fight Club by Chuck Palahniuk

March

6.      Grendel by John Gardner
7.      The Book of Lists
8.      Write to Learn by Donald M. Murray
9.      For Whom the Bell Tolls by Ernest Hemingway

April

10.  Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes
11.  The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway
12.  Life of Pi by Yann Martel
13.  Shutter Island by Dennis Lehane

May

14.  Pygmy by Chuck Palahniuk
15.  501 Must-See Movies
16.  10 Simple Solutions by Glenn R. Schiraldi

June

17.  The Power of One by Bryce Courteney
18.  The Old Man and the Sea by Ernest Hemingway
19.  All My Creative Writing 25 Manuscripts
July

20.  Friday by Robert Heinlein
21.  How to Think Like Leonardo da Vinci by Michael J. Gelb

August

22.  Sarum by Edward Rutherfurd
23.  Riotous Assembly by Tom Sharpe

September

24.  The Whale Road by Robert Low
25.  The Bathroom Book of Saskatchewan Trivia by Glenda MacFarlane
26.  Jonathon Livingston Seagull by Richard Bach

October

27.  The Shining by Stephen King
28.  Life on the Refrigerator Door by Alice Kuipers
29.  Quintspinner by Dianne Greenlay

November

30.  1599: A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare by James Shapiro
31.  Blue Ink and Epiphany by Anna Kristina Schultz
32.  The Wolf Sea by Robert Low

December

33.  The Forest Laird by Jack Whyte

Sunday, December 12, 2010

Quote From Alberta's Greatest Writer

"Alberta is caught up in a kind of game--it plays hockey against the rest of the world. . . . It's in a competition--partly because of oil and gas--but we love the excitement of the game, we love to participate, and while we talk about being individuals in Alberta, we love being part of a crowd. We vote as a crowd.

"It's a competitive issue, too: we are really trying to win. And we'll do anything. Having to win is a dangerous compulsion. That's why we're willing to destroy landscapes and natural habitats, in the name of winning."

From interview by Aritha van Herk in December 2010 issue of Alberta Views.

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

Teaching Literature--Where's the Line?

         

           





           Contemporary high school English teachers are faced with a problematic choice: Harry Potter or William Shakespeare? Twilight or Gatsby? Do we teach quality literature that hits all curricular expectations, or do we choose popular literature that will engage—maybe even interest—our students?
            Problematic question. If you think back to your own school days, you might recall that not everyone was a reader. There were always a few kids that it was impossible to bring in, whether the piece was Les Miserables or a Rob Zombie screenplay. That’s an absolute fact, but we’re being bombarded with studies lately that suggest that literacy levels of all Canadians have been on a steady decline since the early 1990s. People are reading less, and fewer of those who are reading are reading what is considered literature, and still fewer are approaching what they read critically or analytically. They’re reading for entertainment.
            Now I could rant about “these days”, but in truth, our whole interest as a people has shifted. Teachers are competing with video games that demand hours and hours of attention for years—we’re just doing it more now. The Internet and social media gobble up reading time like Pac-Man on steroids, and again, the value in our pursuits seems to be entertainment.
            We are teaching in the world of Avatar, where the “greatest” film of the last decade or so was all spectacle and little substance, all flash and dash with no little concern for, y’know, meaning.
            “Writing? Oh, that’s the stuff we use to link explosion scenes.”
            It makes for a conundrum when teaching literature. At the foundation, all provincial curricula in Canada call for a teaching of quality literature that hits the bullets: character, narrative, theme, struggle, language, all of that. Listen, we know that pulling out Hamlet or To Kill a Mockingbird will get us eye rolls—we read them in high school, too—but it’s arduous to find suitable replacements. Many of us have tried out modern(ish) novels such as Life of Pi or Crow Lake, meeting with varying success. The thing about Harper Lee is she really is that accessible, there are tried and true resources abounding, and when attacking a diploma exam or a university course, it’s true that having a “known” text in your bank is advantageous.
            Some teachers bring in high-interest, plot-driven pieces like Harry Potter or Twilight, and as entertaining as they may be, as involving as they may be for kids, they’re hardly literary—and I say that as a huge Rowling fan. They don’t hit those bullets.
            Other teachers—myself included—have tried teaching film as a narrative text. I’m a reformed comic nerd, and so I know the difference between a graphic novel and a comic book, and I’ve toyed with teaching that genre as literature.
            All of these experiments speak to the problem of going down a level rather than attempting to bring our readers up. We begin questioning how many compromises we can make before we’re just teaching “books” instead of “literature”.
            Ah, but it begs the question, just what is literature? Isn’t it just the stuff that pretentious CBC-radio listeners say they read? Isn’t it just writing that is harder to read than fun? Well, no. It is writing that seeks to do something more than entertain you. If literature works, it makes you reassess life; it makes you consider how you think. A good piece of literature should haunt you. I’ve taught Life of Pi a couple of times and find it one of the better new novels to teach because of the discussion it brings. Without ruining the ending, I find that the question “Which story do you prefer?” can tell me more about a student than a three-hour interview.
            As literacy levels continue their gentle sag, as Avatar and Black Ops. continue to be credited as having “great stories” by the masses, need our expectations for our readers be lowered as well? If no, then it’s one of the only disciplines that we’re calling for a regression in. Imagine if we expected Apple to go back to its 1980s computers, or for doctors to start bloodletting again.
            Does it matter that we teach literature or that we teach what kids are interested in, no matter the quality?

Monday, November 1, 2010

Did Mary Poppins Make Me Who I Am?

            Just how much can one piece of cinema affect a young lad’s persona, nurturally speaking?
            I have long suspected that a childhood spent devouring Spider-Man comics had something to do with my love for being the little guy trying to do right, and for caring about the little old ladies in my life.
            A recent re-viewing of Mary Poppins (what? My mom had class)—a film I saw nearly as many times as The Neverending Story and Return of the Jedi—I asked myself just how much this little forty-six year old musical was responsible for the man I is.
            Ponder: the impat of the music is itself a lesson for another time, but the film’s message is staggering with how in sync it is with my own value system. Mr. Banks conversion to the “Fly a Kite” school of philosophy is still one of the more moving in the world of cinema, his loony spouting off random bits of verse to his employers as it overtakes him beauty defined.
            There is a moment where Banks’ son Michael wishes only to spend his precious tuppence on bird seed, but his father pressures him to invest it. When Michael lashes out against a greedy senior partner—my lifelong soft spot for Dick van Dyke starts here—pandemonium runs the day, as everyone within earshot of Michael’s “Give me my money!” cry attempts to withdraw their own savings. The bank closes at the fear of a crash and a polite Georgian riot follows.
            I recall thinking, “That’s wrong. A bank should be there to serve you, not to make money from you.”
            And, “What kind of sad existence is there in only seeking more money?”
            Childishness, perhaps, but not too far removed from what I hold dearest in my opinions over all things monetary decades later. Banks are a service industry exploiting the common man—have been for centuries, and I don’t like it. The pursuit of money, living and working for the making of it, always seeking the acquisition of more capital, stands to me as a living hell.
            I recently caught a clip of the reality show Dragon's Den. Please keep in mind that I abhor television and I abhor reality television most of all, so there was some bias to begin with. One of these "dragons" was cheing into a prospective entrepreneur saying, "Money doesn't care, money has no love. Money cries no tears." His deep-seeded love for money and his philosophy that it's soulessness is what matters most about it made me pity this man. Rich, yes. Big house, yes. Happy? He'd say he has money. I can't define happiness that way.
            Did it all start with Mary Poppins?
            Bert is the most attractive character in the whole film, morally speaking. Every day a different job, taking adversity with a wink and a cockney smirk, he will die happy—no matter how horribly his accent is delivered.
            When you grow up, you have to shake off some of the black and white idealism of youth. I can’t be Bert. I’m a husband and a father and my responsibilities matter to me. But I’ll sure never be the pre-Poppinsinizationed Mr. Banks!
            My hatred for money’s dominance, my contempt for capitalism, my ire for conformity; my love for a good musical, my interest in Victorian/Georgian London—could it all be tied to a childhood viewing of Mary Poppins?
            If I really was that impressionable, then thank God I didn’t read Ayn Rand as a child.