Dreaming is free

I think I need to follow up a bit on yesterday’s entry.

I’m not a dreamkiller, for the most part. I’m not one to ridicule people for having ideas, or to shoot down someone’s dreams and aspirations. However, I am also überrealistic. Superpragmatic. Hyperpractical.

I saw this photo earlier today and it kind of gelled my thinking on this. (Marty’s comment about how dreaming is great, but you’ve got to have a plan to back it up was also excellent, and expressed my thoughts better than I did. Thank you, Marty!) The childlike graffiti of this Banksy wannabe shows a distinct lack of talent. (Scroll down a little further to see what the real Banksy is capable of.) Having a dream is fine, but you’ve still got to have some aptitude and talent there to build on.

Perhaps it’s important to distinguish between dreams and fantasies. I would equate dreams with achievable goals--as I mentioned yesterday, I got my degree, was good at my job, was able to qualify for a house loan. These are things that were within my grasp if I worked hard, and I did. However, the fantasy of being a rock star, although still technically achievable, was highly unlikely...astronomically unlikely. Why? Because I have little to no innate talent! Sure, I can try to learn and can probably get to the point where I can kind of play, kind of sing...but I don’t have that sort of talent that results in great songs and great music. It would be like if I said, “I may be five-foot-nothing, but if I work hard enough and practice hard enough, I can be a great basketball player!” That’s just silly. Maybe I’m cruel for thinking that not all fantasies should be encouraged, but I think I’m just being realistic.

I did okay in my math classes in high school, but I kind of struggled with them at times. (I still recall with fear and loathing the nine-week period that we focused on story problems in Algebra. It was a dark time for me.) What did I show an aptitude for? I did great in my English and lit classes, and I did great in my science classes. I chose to go the science route, and ended up in a health care job that I found rewarding and interesting for many years (and I still find it interesting and try to keep up on things...stay tuned for an Infection Connection coming your way soon!). It would have been foolish for me to pursue some sort of career that involved a lot of math (although some of my laboratory jobs did involve a fair amount), like astronomy or physics or engineering. I wouldn’t have found it enjoyable, and I wouldn’t have been good at it.

Dreams and ambitions can drive us and help us to reach our goals. That should be encouraged. But those who constantly talk about how they’ll achieve their fantasies, no matter how unrealistic, are just setting themselves up for failure, and possibly ridicule. After seeing many years of how this and that is going to happen, trips planned and never taken, books promised and never delivered (or flat-out plagiarized!), weird promises of homemade gifts or nothing at all, I find such posturings easy to dismiss. It’s been my experience that when your life is a constant litany of the next big thing, and when you never deliver...isn’t it time to quit fantasizing and start living?

What a Day for a Daydream

Did everyone survive the Big Snow? It looks like Nutwood got about a foot; the drifting wasn’t too bad because there are so many trees here. In areas that are wide open, though, the drifting was nasty. It was a legitimate blizzard, with 40+ mph winds. Chicago got hit really hard, and it was so surreal to see pictures of a closed Lake Shore Drive with hundreds of abandoned cars surrounded by snowdrifts! Areas further south got nailed with ice, which is a horrible and dangerous mess. I hope this evening finds you all safe and warm!

I finally got up enough guts to start to tackle the guitar my sister got me for Christmas. Keep in mind that I know nothing about how to play. The extent of my knowledge is that you hold down on certain strings in certain areas to make certain sounds. I started looking at a couple of website tutorials, and at first I was just completely lost. But I kept reading and trying to figure things out, and I made some pretty good progress. I learned the strings, I learned how to tune the guitar, I learned how to do scales, and I kind of learned to do a couple of chords. I say “kind of” because I’m not very good at it. I find it hard to contort my left hand properly in order to press the strings. But I’m going to keep working at it. I’ve also found that what I’d always heard is true: it is PURE HELL on your fingertips! Ouch!

It made me think about dreams, aspirations, hopes, all that kind of stuff. Why? Like anyone who was and is really into music, I always had that daydream of wanting to play, and the ultimate fantasy...being a freakin’ rock star, baby! I think everyone daydreams like that. At worst, it’s a pleasant diversion. At best, it can be an impetus to work at it and can motivate us to make a change. Either way, and no matter what sort of fame you secretly want to pursue, it’s harmless.

However, most of us have also known that person who enjoys their dreams more than working on their reality. When do dreams become harmful? I’ve always joked about my dreams of being in a band by saying, “I’d love to do that...but I have no talent!” I suppose I’m being a little too harsh on myself, but it’s really kind of true. I can play the piano, but I’m firmly rooted in reality and know that I’m far from a concert pianist. I love to sing along with songs on the radio, or sing in Rock Band, but I know that I don’t have Janis Joplin-caliber pipes. I’m not going to turn into Keef on guitar, but I’m having fun just trying to learn.

I never had any grandiose schemes to make a million bucks. My schemes were more mundane: get my degree, get a job, buy a house...you know. Reality. It’s always annoying to talk to those people who are constantly coming up with their next big thing. A plan that is going to reap bountiful financial rewards. A plan that is going to somehow fulfill them and make them more worthy/attractive/famous or whatever it is they’re seeking. They talk constantly about what they want to do, tout their plans as just around the corner...but somehow it never seems to work out. They say they don’t have the money, or they say life intervened, or they say that others are keeping them from doing it. Whatever. What it all comes down to is that they don’t have the fortitude—the BALLS, if you will—to follow through. Or they were just voicing their fantasies, delusional ideas that had no basis in reality. Scheme after scheme never comes to fruition, and it’s all just laughable. I’m reminded of Michael Keaton in “Night Shift,” dictating into his little recorder to feed mayonnaise to live tuna, thus eliminating the necessity for mixing after it’s been canned. Or his idea to eliminate garbage: “Edible paper!” He was an idea man. “Note to self!”

It’s great to have dreams and ideas. Ideas are what drive inventions. Having dreams motivates us to work towards them, drives us to achieve, prods us to get busy and get to it. An unexpected gift from my sister prompted me to do something that I’d always wanted to do; I have no illusions about my spectacular lack of talent, but it’s so much fun to be trying it. This is not my next career—it’s just something I’m doing for me, and I’m enjoying it. I have no unrealistic dreams about it, so those dreams aren’t shattered (shadoobee) by my lack of ability. Those who constantly go on about their next big thing, the next crowning jewel in their amazing life, especially when it’s rooted in delusion about their own abilities, are just talking out of their ass. What’s the next big plan? What is your tuna fish and mayonnaise moment? I won’t hold my breath. Bated or otherwise.

Good grief!

I’ve been catching up on some magazine reading this weekend (along with continuing on my book), and last night I read an article in Time about a new way of looking at the accepted grief model. (“Good News About Grief,” Ruth Davis Konigsberg, Time, January 24, 2011)

In the traditional model made famous by Elizabeth Kübler-Ross, the stages are denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. What most of us don’t realize—or haven’t been taught—is that she was writing about facing one’s own death, not the death of others. Other practitioners glommed onto her stages of grief as applicable to all causes of grief, and Kübler-Ross didn’t discourage this. This is unfortunate, because after my Dad’s death, I was kind of starting to wonder if something was wrong with me because I didn’t react as predicted!

First of all, denial. If you could have been a fly on the wall during the whole time, you never would have heard me saying something like “No, no...this can’t be happening.” Maybe it’s the rational scientist in me, but it would be silly to deny what was unfolding right in front of me. Also, Dad was 86 when he had his stroke. He was in good health, but he was not a young man, and had had surgery several years ago to unblock one of his carotids. Of course, I wish he would have had many more quality years with us, but how foolish to deny something that has undeniably happened. What is the point?

Anger? Again, why be angry about something you can’t change? I suppose if he’d been hit by a drunk driver or something like that, I’d be plenty angry. On the verge of blind rage angry. (He was once, and yes, I was furious with that other driver. Dad was okay…lucky break for the driver, both from a prosecution standpoint and that of having to deal with me and my sisters. Believe me.) But that wasn’t the case. Who would I be angry at? Dad? For something that was beyond his control? Myself, for not being able to prevent something that was beyond MY control? God? Not even a factor. There was nothing to be angry about.

Bargaining. I suppose this is where people say things like “God, if you just give him five more years, I’ll do this or that, quit this or start that, blah blah blah.” I don’t make such bargains with anyone, let alone someone who, again, is not even a factor. Any entity who would harm an innocent person in order to get another one to believe or behave in a certain way is no one I want to be associated with. I don’t negotiate with terrorists.

Depression. That one did get me for a while, at least it seemed like it. However, when speaking to my doctor during a regular checkup, she said that she didn’t think I was experiencing actual depression, and that there is a big difference between depression and simply grieving the loss of a loved one. I was keeping a close eye on myself, believe me. My sleep patterns were wonky for a while, but I didn’t lose a bunch of weight or put a bunch on, I was perfectly capable of functioning, and I didn’t take to my bed like a sad flower and not get out for days at a time. I went through a very sad time, definitely, but I don’t believe I went through a clinical depression. Not even close.

Acceptance. See #1 above, Denial. Although acceptance is supposed to be the final stage in the Kübler-Ross model, I accepted it from the very beginning. What was not to accept? Talking with the doctors, finding out the damage, hearing that there would be no recovery. I accepted it as soon as I heard from Cousin Ron what the doctors were saying. At first, things were chaotic, and I didn’t know how bad it was. People recover from strokes all the time. But not this time. That was reality, and we had to accept it. There was no other choice.

Well, talking about all that kind of bummed me out! haha That was my personal experience with the loss of someone very near and dear to me. I’ll write a little more about what the article said. It addressed several myths about grieving.

We grieve in stages. As was my experience, subsequent studies showed that the majority of participants accepted reality almost immediately. Rather than anger and depression, most feel a yearning for their loved one. That’s me, too. I’m not angry that Dad is gone, and I’m not depressed about it...but sometimes I sure miss him. Just being able to pick up the phone to talk about a game. Or just to shoot the breeze.

Repression prolongs the process; we need to talk about it with others. Further studies have shown that expressing negative emotions can actually prolong your sadness. In fact, avoiding those feelings is termed “repressive coping,” and can actually protect us psychologically. Of course, you do have to deal with it, but perhaps repressing some of the most painful feelings is what allows us to go on until we’re a little stronger and a little more capable of coming to terms with our loss.

Grief is harder on women. The studies that showed this seem to be flawed based on gender biases. Many of these studies dealt mainly with widows who were dependent upon their husbands; a female psychologist conducting a study from 1967 to 1973 wrote that “a woman’s identity is largely framed by relationships...In losing an essential relationship, she loses an essential part of herself.” For those of us who have lived on our own and supported ourselves, that seems horribly antiquated. Although relationships are important, if you define yourself only by that, you’ve got a problem. Women also have higher rates of depression in general, and when they accounted for that and previous depression levels, they found that men suffer more from and have a harder time dealing with bereavement.

Grief never ends. Researchers have found that the worst of grief is over in about six months. Most people deal with loss with resilience, which some interpret incorrectly as delayed grief or coldness. Researcher George Bonanno writes, “If you’re resilient after a horrible car accident or a traumatic event, then you’re a hero, but if you’re resilient after a death, then you’re considered cold.” We all cope in different ways. I have been perceived as cold by some, and probably rightly so; however, that doesn’t mean that I don’t feel things acutely. It just means that I’m not demonstrative in my grief, or any other strong emotion. The more that people around me are losing it, the more likely I am to shut down and keep my cool. Is that a good approach? I don’t know. It’s just the way I am. (I guarantee that if we’re in some sort of a situation where people all around us are losing their shit, you’ll be happy I’m with you.) The researchers can’t predict resilience in people; it has to do with personality, financial security, social support, little stress in other areas, and other undefinable factors. The article states “What we do know is that while loss is forever, acute grief is not.”

You haven’t seen me write a lot about my feelings on the loss of my Dad for a reason. I have appreciated all the support you’ve all given me throughout these months, and I have plenty of people that I know are there for me if and when I need them, but I know that ultimately it is up to me and my own psyche to find that healing place.

Get thee to a counselor. Although grief counseling is widely accepted as appropriate and, some say, even necessary after a loss, no evidence supports that counseling helps people any more than the simple passage of time. Almost everyone eventually gets better: time heals all wounds. Counseling doesn’t hurt, but it doesn’t lessen the period of grief. For those who have an obvious problem in dealing with their loss and a grief period extended beyond the norm, counseling is beneficial. For those who are experiencing the normal time frame of the grief response to a loss, it makes little difference.

The article concludes that these recent studies allow for a different, more liberating response. I heartily concur! I can’t begin to tell you what a feeling of relief I felt after reading this article. We all deal with loss in our own way. If my response is different from others, that doesn’t mean it is wrong. The accepted response has meant an inflexibility in how we believe others should behave; rather than showing understanding and realizing that people are strong enough to make their way on their own path (with a little help from their friends and family), we try to pigeonhole and categorize them and say “You should be better by now,” or “You shouldn’t be acting this happy this soon,” or “Why aren’t you following the prescribed formula of recovery?” Grief is a very personal response, one that each individual must navigate on their own, with the one universal truth that the majority of us will feel our loss less acutely after some time has passed. Social support is a necessity, but time and our own strength and resilience will get us to a brighter place.

We will survive.

The Great Divide

Did you watch Tuesday night’s State of the Union address? You all know me well enough by now to know that I was excited about it for a couple of days, and was glued to the TV while it was going on. I even took a few notes.

My impression of it was that although it wasn’t one of President Obama’s more inspiring speeches (like the one he gave at the Arizona memorial recently), it set a good tone. It was short on specifics, but touched on what we need to do in order to move forward. And it mentioned that we move forward together, or not at all, which is exactly right. It was generally optimistic, asserting that Americans have what it takes to come back from the brink of disaster, if we all work together. Even if it means making some tough decisions. (Of course, to me, tax cuts for the rich isn’t a tough decision...more like a no-brainer.)

In the past couple of days, I’ve been reading a lot of analyses of the President’s speech, and late last night I read a short article in Time (an issue from a couple of weeks ago) that sort of crystallized my thoughts. One thing that struck me was the President’s call for investment in infrastructure and education. Much has been made of the word “investment,” with the righties saying that it’s just more spending. Well, sure...but there is an important difference between reckless spending and investment in our future.

It seems to me that this might very well be the fundamental difference between the right and the left, even beyond their differences when it comes to social issues. I don’t think anyone will argue that we need to spend our money wisely, but to completely stop funding for so many of the projects and issues and institutions that make us unique and wonderful (as well as keeping us healthy) seems like the height of folly to me. Whether it’s the National Park System or NPR, literacy programs or free clinics, highway projects or scientific research (yes, including fruit flies!), these are things that enrich, educate, and edify us. ALL of us, as a country.

One of the things that I liked about Barack Obama from the moment I read The Audacity of Hope was that he seemed to have vision. He seemed to be able to look at the big picture and the long view, and understand how interconnected all of these things are. To realize that we are part of a global economy now, and what happens on the other side of the world can affect us here. He is still taking that view, and I agree with it. Although everyone needs to suck it up and make some sacrifices, there are still certain things that we need to maintain and improve upon if we want to compete globally. We are rapidly losing that contest, and we ignore these things (or don’t fund them) at our own peril.

A couple of examples. In our highly mobile culture, we need to have decent highways upon which to drive, and safe bridges. Our interstate system dates to the 1950s, and these things must be maintained. It’s how your food gets to your supermarket, it’s how goods and products get to the store so that YOU, the consumer, can spend your hard-earned cash at places like hardware stores, where you buy things to improve your own home so that your quality of life is better! See how it’s all connected? Some repairs have to be made; if you’ve got a leak in your roof and just let it go, the problem is going to become much worse and cost much more to fix. A simple roof repair vs. structural repair due to water damage, possible environmental cleanup due to mold, replacement of damaged household goods, and so on. I think we need to understand that we need to fix our country’s leaky roof. An added bonus is that such projects will create jobs. (Think the WPA.) More about jobs in a moment.

One very leaky roof right now is our education problem, and people, we really do have a problem. We are falling behind many others, especially when it comes to science education. (I’ll attribute part of that to the idiotic notion that creationism is in any way science and should be taught along REAL science, but that’s a post for another day.) The decent-paying jobs of the future—indeed, the jobs of the present—are going to come in the scientific field.

During the 2008 Presidential campaign, John McCain made a campaign stop in Michigan and talked about the auto industry and those jobs. He said something to the effect of Michigan has lost a lot of manufacturing jobs, and here’s a hard truth, folks...a lot of them aren’t coming back. Although I didn’t support McCain, I gave him credit for telling it like it is. There will always be manufacturing jobs, but not to the extent that our post-WWII manufacturing boom guaranteed. There was a recent story in my local paper about all the manufacturing jobs that South Bend is losing; comments on the story blamed the local government for the job losses. I believe it is not a local phenomenon, and what is happening on a local scale is reflected across the entire country. We MUST begin to put more of a focus on education beyond high school. We need to change our mindset, encourage kids to study, and to place a value on knowledge—and especially a value on our teachers. The days when you could follow in your father’s footsteps at the Studebaker factory have gone the way of...well, the Studebaker.

The article I mentioned was titled “Where the Jobs Aren’t” (Zachary Karabell) and raised the possibility that our current rate of unemployment is not cyclical as in years past (a reaction to a crisis or recession) and is now structural. Advances in technology and increasing globalization have resulted in higher productivity, which then results in fewer workers necessary. There is no going back from that. The jobs we need to expand upon are those in research and development, jobs in which we work to solve problems like oil dependence, and health care jobs to care for our aging populace. All of these require advanced degrees.

It’s all connected. The Time article states “...the U.S. can manage high unemployment if it focuses on building a new economy with cutting-edge infrastructure and education that rivals that found anywhere else in the world.” As Rand Paul and his fellow teabaggers propose cuts in the Department of Education, the NIH, and the FDA, I despair for the future of our country. This is exactly what we need to ensure that we continue to fund, and yes...invest in.

Empathy for the Devil

“You don’t know how I feel! NOBODY knows how I feel!”

Remember Rob Petrie’s brother Stacy (played by Dick Van Dyke’s real brother, Jerry) yelling that whenever anyone told him they knew how he felt? Have you ever had to deal with that person for real?

I have, and it gets old real quick. People who feel that way seem to be saying that no matter what you’ve experienced, no matter what you’ve thought, or how much you’ve studied a situation or an issue, you can’t possibly know how they feel unless you’re exactly like them.

Technically, I suppose that’s true. Unless I’m your clone and have experienced every single thing that you have, lived every moment the exact same way you have, I probably can’t fully comprehend how you feel.

That doesn’t mean that I am not sympathetic to your situation, or that I don’t have empathy for what you have been through. It doesn’t mean that I lack the intellectual capacity to comprehend how your experiences might have made you feel, or how they might have colored your perception of the world around you. It also doesn’t mean that I have no right to comment on a situation merely because I am not the same stripe as the people involved. I may not be a child in Africa, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t be horrified by the perils that the majority of them face, and that certainly doesn’t mean that I can’t recommend donations to wonderful organizations like Nothing But Nets or Doctors Without Borders because of the aid that they provide to these kids.

I have opinions on racial prejudice and bigotry; are my opinions and thoughts on such subjects invalid because I am a white woman? Am I not allowed to say that I deplore such attitudes without hearing that I have no right to speak of such things because “NOBODY knows how we feel!” Do I not get to call people out on their racist remarks because there is simply no way I can possibly speak with any sort of authority or even voice my condemnation of such behavior because it hasn’t been my experience? If I speak out on such things, am I merely playing lip service to ending prejudice, am I trying to prove my progressive credentials, and am I busily congratulating myself because I voted for Barack Obama, thereby personally solving every prejudice problem in the country?

You know one of the things that has been my experience? It’s that sometimes people have such a Sequoia-sized chip on their shoulder that they can’t recognize when someone is on their side. Maybe it’s easier for them to say that NOBODY knows how they feel! and that no one can possibly relate, that no one can ever truly support them because no one else is like them. Maybe years of being the victim has left them unable to realize that not everyone wants to paint them into that corner...and maybe by their continued obstinacy in refusing to recognize that someone just wanted to be a friend to them, and was willing to discuss such matters—without being unfairly accused as being some sort of racist—they have effectively painted themselves into that very same corner, all on their own. You lost a friendship because of your unreasonable accusations? Congratulations. You’re a victim.

Beth’s Music Moment: The Glimmer Twins and the Rise of Rock and Roll

In my previous entry, I mentioned that I was reading Keith Richards’ autobiography, Life. I am still enjoying it immensely (thanks, Darren!), and I’m on the part where The Rolling Stones have just formed, and are starting to get some local gigs.

Keith writes about running into Mick Jagger (who he knew as a schoolkid) at a train station and finding out that Mick was heavily into the kind of music that Keith liked, the blues. Keith said that whoever had the records was the one you wanted to hang out with, and Mick had ‘em. He had sources in Chicago where he was able to get records that no one else in the area could get, and the two of them spent endless hours playing the records, over and over and over, as they tried to get the sound, tried to figure out the chord changes, tried to learn the lyrics. It’s fascinating.

What struck me about much of this was Keith’s reverence for the blues and the musicians who play them. He mentions Chicago often, showing how much influence Chicago blues had on rock and roll. Keith, one of the biggest rock stars in the world, writes of these artists with the air of an awestruck teenager. (Which I find charming, and it reminds me of the time Cousin Shane and I got to see the Stones on the Steel Wheels tour. It is the one and only concert I’ve been to where I screamed like a teenager when the band took the stage. True story. I thought I was cooler than that, but I was moved.) I find it incredibly cool to read of what was essentially the birth of rock and roll, at least as we know it today. I’m not saying that the Stones invented rock and roll, not at all. It was a nascent movement at that time, and many musicians were trying to figure out their own sound. Keith writes of blues purists who felt that anything other than a black man playing an acoustic guitar with no accompaniment was most definitely NOT the blues. Even Chicago blues artists were booed when some dared to break out an electric guitar!

Perhaps there are some who find solace or superiority in being such purists, but they’re kind of missing the point. The Stones and others of the time were emulating the artists they loved and admired. The key thing in the context of which I am writing is that they built on that sound and formed their own. They weren’t ripping off the artists by stealing their music and releasing their versions of it, although they did release a few older songs as singles. (People do remakes all the time, and some are good and some are not.) They loved the roots of the songs, learned the rhythms and the key changes, and then got creative and wrote their own. Are their subsequent songs simply rehashing the old songs, stealing the sounds for their own? Yes and no. Their songs contain elements of those blues roots, include many of the same key changes, but there is no denying that they made their own sound and made their own songs. (For those of you that don’t know, the Glimmer Twins are Mick and Keith’s nickname as a songwriting pair, and also the name of their production company. Check out that link to see the list of incredible songs that they’ve written together. Blows my mind.)

Every music genre builds upon those that have come before it. After all, there are only a certain number of notes. But how do people put their own spin on it (so to speak)? How do they place their personal fingerprint on the music? What do they create on their own, after being influenced by these talented and amazing musicians? How are they inspired?

In the case of the Stones, they were motivated and inspired to create some of the most amazing rock and roll we’ve ever heard. Some will argue that the Stones are no longer making great music or relevant to the current music scene. I say, “So what?” I still love listening to stuff they released over four decades ago. Just as they loved listening to stuff that these blues musicians had released years before, and listening to those who were still making similar music. Just because something is old doesn’t make it irrelevant. The Stones are true geezers now, but they still rock like mofos.

An interesting point there, too. We’ve seen the popularity of rock and roll rise in our lifetimes. This is a fairly new phenomenon in the scheme of things. Bluesmen and other musicians make music into their ‘80s and beyond. When was the decision made that rock musicians have to quit at a certain age? The antics and the stage shows might take on a different, calmer tone (haha), but that doesn’t mean they aren’t still great musicians playing some great music. The guitar riff in "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction" was recently listed as the best/most memorable riff in rock and roll. That's not too shabby, even if it was written some forty years ago.

All I know is that if I put on the Stones, there are still songs that make me dance, make me move, make me feel all rebellious and junk. Isn’t that what rock and roll is all about?

Bibliotalk

I have a couple of books to write about. I’ll write about Keith after the first one, but I wanted to have that picture lead off this entry!

One of my Christmas gifts was The Passage by Justin Cronin. Events begin in the not-too-distant future. A scientific expedition is in the jungles of South America searching for a virus that will have an almost-inconceivable impact on the human race and on aging. As so often happens with these scientific expeditions, things go horribly awry. In a government research facility in the Colorado mountains, the virus is studied, experiments are conducted, and...you guessed it...things go horribly awry there, too.

Fast forward about a hundred years, and we find a very different America. Of course, I won’t go into any details, because I have some family and friends that are currently reading this, or planning to soon. But suffice it to say that this post-apocalyptic world is very bleak indeed. There is a pretty interesting cast of characters here, and they generated quite a bit of sympathy in me. Even the bad guys had a certain “I guess you can’t really blame them” factor, because it’s hard to judge someone in such an extreme situation.

The action sequences were taut and descriptive; the suspense generated was nail-biting. The straight-up narrative is interspersed with an occasional diary entry, a technique that I always enjoy. A few nights ago, I reached that “tipping point” in a book, when you want to read non-stop so you can find out how it ends. I stayed up until 5:30 one morning reading it and finally had to stop because I was getting a little insane in the membrane. Even then, I was so fascinated by this book that I had a hard time going to sleep! I finished it the other night, and it was one of those where you say, “Awww, man!” (I won’t tell you why!) Highly recommended!

Now to Keith Richards’ autobiography, Life. After the intensity of the previous book, I needed something fun and thought I’d start this one. I’m glad I did! I’m only a couple of chapters into it, but I am charmed, charmed I tell you! First of all, he’s hilarious. His description of getting stopped in Arkansas in the early ‘70s is a riot. He writes of his family life—you can tell that he has great affection for his family—and says this about being an only child:

…you’re basically exposed to the adult world unless you create your own. The imagination comes into play then, and also things to do by yourself. Like wanking.

HA! Keith! He’s developing a love for music at a young age, and writes about his grandfather’s acoustic guitar:

Even now, to open a guitar case, when it’s an old wooden guitar, I could crawl in and close the lid.

I can already tell that I’m going to enjoy this one a lot. He writes matter-of-factly and with great humor. This guy is just...well, he’s just the incarnation of rock and roll. He seems kind of sweet, but he’s so badass, too. It reminded me of this video. I believe it’s the very first video I ever posted on my blog, and it still delights me.