Inflammatory Writ

I've been listening to Joanna Newsom's first album and a few of her EP songs almost nonstop lately. In fact, I'm listening to her right now.

Ironically, when I listen to her songs I can't help but think about the kind of singers one usually finds on American Idol: cookie cutter voices lacking almost entirely in emotion of humanity, even though they may be able to hold the "glory notes" for 20 seconds or more. "Yelling", is apprantly the new "singing". But this is also why Newsom's songs are so refreshing; if she were to try out for American Idol, she would not only be cut in the first round, but she would be featured with the other horrible, self-deluded singers who can't carry a tune to save their lives.

Her harshest critics focus on her bizarre, untrained voice for their mockery, and, yeah, she is constantly off-key, out of tune, and she's never met a note that she could hold. Her song "Peach, Plum, Pear" is a nice example: it is a wretched trainwreck of discordant screeching which make one think, "What the hell?" And yet, her raw, untrained voice with its Appalachian-sounding accents are what make her music so hypnotic.

More than that, though, (and here is where she should be distinguished from the William Hungs of the world) she always manages to inject real, honest feeling and humanity into her songs as she sings. She sound like a real person, not some robot. Her song, "Clam, Crab, Cockle, Cowrie" is, despite her voice (or maybe because of it), absolutely beautiful, and one of the finest examples of songwriting that I have heard this year.

The town halo

Couple of notable deaths recently: Christopher Reeve and Jaques Derrida. The Reeve death, naturally, is getting most of the news coverage since he is a Holloywood celebrity, though perhaps his death was more of a shock, since I guess everyone had hope that maybe someday he could recover from his paralysis.

But Derrida is a figure who, in the long run, will likely have made more of an impact on humanity (even more than Superman!). Derrida is/was one of the pre-eminent philosophers of the 20th century, ranking with Sartre or Wittgenstein. Although a philosopher, his ideas translated best in the realm of literary criticism since the foundation of Derrida's deconstructionist critiques lay in a critique of language as an instrument that contains and transmits knowledge. Derrida was the founder of deconcstruction, a term that is overused in pop culture by a lot of people who don't really understand what it is (or think it is somehow synonymous with "destruction" - it is NOT). Derrida was a prolific author, but his texts are notoriously difficult to read. A few years ago, a documentary film was made with his cooperation (here) which serves as a nice introduction (and historical archive) of a brilliant philosopher.

Hysterical bending

I've been so busy lately, and it's only going to get worse this month - but I'm still making time to update this blog!

I'm in the midst of trying to finish my dissertation, apply to professorship positions around the country, and send an article manuscript out for publication. The second of those is the most time consuming because I am attempting to craft a unique letter for every job rather than just mail out a bunch of form letters. Of course, I might still get back a bunch of form rejection letters from the schools I apply to, but I'm hoping that some schools will appreciate my attempt to speak to them directly and maybe that will buy me some interview time with the search committees. We'll see. At least in my field of study - modernist lit. - there isn't a lot of jobs to apply to. Actually, that's probably a bad thing.

Everything and nothing

The first of three presidential debates was last night. I agree with most pundits that Kerry won; it seemed pretty obvious that Kerry had Bush on the defensive most of the night. Kerry was attacking everything about the Bush administration's foreign policy, and Bush seemed to be trying to explain and justify his policies.

So many media and debate "experts" keep making a big deal about the most superficial of things: the candidates' facial expressions, their stance, their overall body language, the tone of their voices, etc. Are American voters really so shallow as to let those things play an important factor in determining how they choose a candidate? I read an article a couple days ago which suggested that maybe the best way to "watch" a debate is to listen to it on the radio (or turn away from the TV) so that one can focus more on what is said than on how the message is delivered. Makes sense to me, but as someone who studies and teaches persuasive writing, I've had enough experience that I don't let such superficial considerations affect me - or at least I'm aware when they do affect me!