In response to the Megan Meier story that broke this past week I wanted to write something about what I think being online means. I also want to confess to more than a little curiosity about the process of how a given story becomes newsworthy. I want to know why various media outlets do or do not cover a given story, and in what manner. The coverage of this story from the St. Charles Journal and the Chicago Tribune are quite disparate.

I don’t think being on the Internet is an all-or-nothing sort of thing. Maybe that’s a perspective I’ve come to from working and playing on the Internet in various ways for the last few years. Like many of my friends, I am rather leery of the proliferation of social networking sites. The first one I joined was Six Degrees in the late 90s. I did not enjoy it, and cannot say that I have taken advantage of any more since then. I have had invitations for MySpace, LinkedIn, LiveJournal, Facebook, Classmates.com, Flickr, 43things, Last.fm and Twitter. I have declined all of these save Flickr. Maybe it is more a reflection of an introverted side of my personality, but I guess I see the Internet primarily as academic, a communication medium to exchange ideas, rather than primarily social, a communication medium to exchange phone numbers.

(I’m now worrying I’m sounding overly arrogant or bombastic, so I apologize if that’s the case. I don’t mean to.) Are some people predisposed to finding the predominant definition of themselves in the opinions of others? Is that the essential allure to social networking? Is it a predisposition to voyeurism? Is it a reaction to isolationism? As my friend, John, said the Internet provides for a much wider audience. Is the appeal there that with a broader audience I’m able to find more people like me than I normally would at my school, or in my hometown?

I’m not saying the Megan Meier story is not a sad one. It is. It is a sad story. I think what I’m saying is that this is not a necessarily new sad story. People can and will be cruel to other people. I think that the Internet gives people a longer reach to do just that. I guess I’m just struggling with answering the question: Why is this news? The cynic in me keeps crying that this is news because it is sexy. The Internet is shiny and mysterious, ambiguous and (seemingly) essential, pervasive and adaptable. — Sounds like the perfect monster to me. That condition has me thinking that the Megan Meier story is the new boogeyman horror story. (Parallel thought, it does not surprise me that one of the more recent Stephen King novels, Cell, is a zombie story about cellphones.)

I’d like to hope that this is news for some other reason. I’m just having trouble seeing what that might be.

I want to write about scale, to write about the scale of things– or rather to write down my thoughts after reading Tom Robbins’ cautionary consideration when confronting the ideology of realism:

Most of the activity in the universe is occurring at speeds too fast or too slow for normal human senses to register it, and most of the matter in the universe exists in amounts too vast or too tiny to be accurately observed by us. With that in mind, isn’t it a bit unrealistic to talk about “realism”?

Robbins struck out for the far end of the spectrum by invoking the universe in his observation. But if you will pardon the pun, let us scale it back a bit to see where the sentiment no longer rings true. What if we substitute the word universe with the word world? Does that still seem a reasonable or insightful observation? How about nation or state? City? — What about neighborhood, office, church, temple, school or even home? I could go smaller: body, organs, blood, brain, cells, atoms, quarks. Just when do things happen on a human scale?

What is the human scale?

Read the rest of this entry »

A few years ago I had the opportunity to attend a reading at the Printers Row Book Fair. Neil Gaiman read from his children’s story, The Wolves in the Walls. He spoke about writing and comic books and film. He told stories about his life and his family. At the time, The Wolves in the Walls was not yet published. Dave McKean had not finished most of the artwork. After he had read the story, Gaiman took questions from the audience and signed books. I had recently finished his novel, Neverwhere, and had added him to my ever expanding list of favorite authors. I have anticipated each of his new books as they come out.

Fragile Things is Gaiman’s latest book. Published in 2006, Fragile Things is the third Gaiman collection of short stories and poetry. One short story in this compendium, “How to Talk to Girls at Parties”, was nominated for a 2006 Hugo Award. Another, “A Study in Emerald,” won the Hugo Award in 2004 for best short story. In “A Study in Emerald”, Gaiman fulfills an editor’s request: “I want a story in which Sherlock Holmes meets the world of H. P. Lovecraft.” Reviews of this collection have been mixed– the San Diego Union-Tribune took real issue with Gaiman and described him as “a bantamweight Poe”. I attribute this accusation to the fact that they do not know how to categorize Gaiman as an author and this condition makes them uncomfortable. I find the comparison to Poe short-sighted. Like so many other authors I enjoy, Gaiman refuses to sit quietly in a particular genre or literary space. I cherish these sorts of collections as a way to showcase the breadth of an author’s talents; I see them as literary sandboxes into which they have invited me to play along.

Wild Ducks Flying Backward is Tom Robbins’ latest book. This anthology contains short stories and poems, reviews and essays written throughout Robbins’ career. Some of the material in this collection appeared previously in publications ranging from Esquire to Harper’s to Playboy to the New York Times. His introduction is a story in itself, describing the anticipation and culmination of opening your new Tom Robbins’ book for the first time. He describes the steps necessary to ensure privacy for this intimate encounter: finding the proper climate, the proper space and reminding us that “every halfway serious reader is perpetually subject to a form of coitus interruptus.” Those issues addressed, he continues to the heart of the matter:

Okay. At last you’re set. You prop up your feet (we should always read with our feet up, even on the subway or a bus) and retrieve the book, feeling in your hands the weight, the newness, the bookness of it. For a brief second you close your eyes, sip your libation, and allow yourself to wonder what Robbins is up to this time around. What strange lights on what distant mountainside have attracted his focus? Over whose campfire– gypsy? guerrilla? Girl Scout? shaman?– has he been toasting his ideas, his images, his figures of speech?

Curiosity suitably aroused, anticipation at a delicious pitch, you take a small breath and open the book and … Whoa! Wait a damn minute. Hold on. This isn’t the new Tom Robbins novel. Oh, it’s by Robbins alright, but … You look again at the cover. The Short Writings of … It’s printed right here on the jacket. Maybe it could have been in bigger type, but it isn’t as if you’ve been tricked. It’s your own fault and you should have paid closer attention. This will teach you to dash into a bookshop on your lunch hour. Wild Ducks Flying Backward is not a novel at all.

I have loved Tom Robbins’ work for over two decades when I first read Even Cowgirls Get the Blues. I fashioned my online nickname as a reverent reference to the mysterious man with a helmet of swarming bees in Robbins’ novel, Jitterbug Perfume. Robbins’ deteriorating eyesight reminds me just how great a treasure each new book, each new story must be.

La Galerie des Glaces 1I am a time traveler. No, I am not talking about literally going back in time as numerous authors have speculated. Unfortunately— or fortunately, depending on which author you read— literal time travel is still unavailable. Rather, I am talking about the powers of sentiment and memory, coupled with conversation and photographs and more permanent artifacts of times gone past, to transport me to a time and place I have been before.

On Sunday, Whirl had to go into the Museum to work. She had told me about an extensive photograph scanning system in the biology research wing. She and I had been recently experimenting with ways to quickly and easily convert some of our print photographs into digital photographs. Our first attempts consisted of simply taking pictures of the prints with our camera mounted on a tripod. That was not ideal, but it worked well enough to get some satisfaction out of the process. The biology photo scanning system is much better suited. Of particular interest to me, the system is able to scan black-and-white negatives.

HölderlinturmIn 1991 I lived in Germany. I spent the entire year there, landing in Berlin on January 1st. New Year’s Eve came to me that year on a Boeing 747 somewhere over the North Atlantic. I returned to the United States a day before Christmas Eve. I brought my camera with me: a 1965 Nikon Nikkormat FT Dad had given me. This was not the first camera I had ever used, but it was certainly the camera I learned the most about photography using.

In the mid-80s, Dad converted the smallest bathroom in our house into an amateur darkroom. He built a table over the bathtub out of an old closet door. He obtained second-hand enlargers, first black-and-white and eventually color, wherever he could find them inexpensively. He taught me how to shoot, develop film, and enlarge pictures. I went on to use what I had learned to shoot photographs and develop pictures for my High School newspaper and yearbook. And in college, I took the camera along with dozens of rolls of bulk-loaded black-and-white film with me to Europe.

Read the rest of this entry »

In 1940, Robert Heinlein wrote the story “The Roads Must Roll”. The rolling roads in the title were high-speed conveyors that connected cities. They carried people, freight and even restaurants and bars along for the ride. The express lanes of these roads had a top speed of 100 miles per hour. It is now sixty-seven years later and the best we can do to approach this idea are the moving walkways of Helmut Jahn‘s Concourse 1 out at O’Hare. That’s damned disappointing, right there. Don’t even get me started on the promises of flying cars, underwater resorts, moon colonies, and X-Ray glasses. And, hey! Where is my jetpack!?

Daniel H. Wilson has a Ph.D. in robotics from the Carnegie Mellon University Robotics Institute. And he has as many questions as I do about the future science-fiction authors have been promising us for the past fifty years. Not the least of which is the title of his latest book, Where’s My Jetpack? He also has some hilarious answers. He tells us what technologies do exist, who provides them, and where to find them. If the technology is not publicly available, he teaches you how to build, borrow or steal it. Now this is satire that doubles as real, practical education.

The Chicago Public Library picked The Crucible as the Fall 2007 selection for One Book, One Chicago. Writing The Crucible in 1952, Arthur Miller presents the Salem witch trials as a mirror by which to reflect the anti-communist hysteria embodied by Senator Joseph McCarthy. But more than that, the play—like so many Arthur Miller plays—revolves around the concepts of power and betrayal. In the introduction to my edition of the play, Christopher Bigsby writes:

What replaces the sense of natural community in The Crucible, […] and, on a different scale, 1950s America is a sense of participating in a ritual, of conformity to a ruling orthodoxy and hence a hostility to those who threaten it. The purity of one’s religious principles is confirmed by collaborating, at least by proxy, in the punishment of those who reject them. Racial identity is reinforced by eliminating those who might “contaminate” it, as one’s Americanness is underscored by identifying those who could be said to be un-American.

I have tried to read each season’s selection since the program was inaugurated in 2001. Some selections have been familiar, many unfamiliar. The Crucible belongs to the former category. I read it in high school twenty years ago. I am reading it again; now, with what I hope is a keener eye and a clearer understanding of its place in the social discourse: what art can bring to culture, tradition, politics and religion.

At the turn of the 20th Century, the sisters Ada and Minna Everleigh ran one of the most upscale brothels in Chicago: the Everleigh Club. The house, decorated with perfumed fountains, mirrored ceilings and a $15,000 gold-leafed piano in the Music Room, stood at 2131-2133 South Dearborn Street, not far from where Whirl and I now live. Custom House Row and the Levee District– as our neighborhoods were known at the time– were lousy with brothels and gambling halls, drifters, grifters and tramps.

Karen Abbott’s first book, Sin in the Second City, tells the story of “probably the most famous whorehouse in America’s history.” The comparisons to Erik Larson and Devil in the White City are unavoidable: Abbott writes in a similar, literary non-fiction style. She writes about a similar time and place. Many names are repeated in both works. I do not see these as criticisms.

The Chicago Tribune writes in its review:

At the heart of Abbott’s story beats the protracted war between the city’s purveyors of sin and its hawkers of salvation, between the city’s on-the-take pols, cops and brothelkeepers, and its social reformers, crusaders and Bible-thumpers.

So on this day when five colorful men have been convicted on all counts in the landmark Family Secrets mob-conspiracy trial, I return to the seedy Chicago of yesteryear to visit with my friends Michael “Hinky Dink” Kenna and “Bathhouse” John Coughlin. Hope to see you at the Club.

The short biography of Richard Bachman— written in 1984– states, “Bachman was a fairly unpleasant fellow who was born in New York and spent about ten years in the merchant marine after four years in the Coast Guard. He ultimately settled in rural central New Hampshire, where he wrote at night and tended to his medium-sized dairy farm during the day. [He and his wife, Claudia,] had one child, a boy, who died in an unfortunate accident at the age of six (he fell through a well cover and drowned). Three years ago a brain tumor was discovered near the base of Bachman’s brain; tricky surgery removed it.” Bachman died suddenly in February of 1985. He was killed by the Bangor Daily News when that paper published a story that Richard Bachman was actually Stephen King. King confirmed the story immediately.

The Bachman Books now refer to five novels written early in Stephen King’s career: Rage (1977), The Long Walk (1979), Road Work (1981), The Running Man (1982) and Thinner (1985). I read all of these but Thinner late last year. Blaze is now the sixth Richard Bachman novel in the classic sense: namely a novel originally written early in King’s career– before Carrie. The book jacket reads:

A fellow named Richard Bachman wrote Blaze in 1973 on an Olivetti typewriter then turned the machine over to Stephen King, who used it to write Carrie. Bachman died in 1985 (“cancer of the pseudonym”), but in late 2006 King found the original typescript of Blaze among his papers at the University of Maine’s Fogler Library (“How did this get here?!”), and decided that with it little revision it ought to be published.

Blaze is the story of Clayton Blaisdell, Jr.– of the crimes committed against him and the crimes he commits, including his last, the kidnapping of a baby heir worth millions. Blaze has been a slow thinker since childhood, when his father threw him down the stairs – and then threw him down again. After escaping an abusive institution for boys when he was a teenager, Blaze hooks up with George, a seasoned criminal who thinks he has all the answers. But then George is killed, and Blaze, though haunted by his partner is on his own.

With more than a nod to the John Steinbeck classic Of Mice and Men, Blaze promises to be a mix of classic storytelling by a young man who was convinced he was writing for the ages and edited by an older author who has succeeded in doing just that.

A little more than I year ago I finally read the Erik Larson blockbuster thriller, The Devil in the White City. I thoroughly enjoyed that book for a number of reasons: the book was factual, with hundreds of sources cited; it was set in nineteenth century America, a time and place with which I am repeatedly fascinated; it chronicled the 1893 Columbian Exposition that arguably brought Chicago back from the fire; and it illuminated– in great detail– the actions of one of America’s very first known serial killers.

Larson’s follow-up book, Thunderstruck, returns to this formula of marrying two seemingly incongruous true stories: the scientific work of Guglielmo Marconi, inventor of wireless communication and the “North London Cellar Murder,” a bizarre and detailed murder that captured popular imagination even fifteen years after the events themselves. Larson delves into the development of technology from wireless, to steamships to the emergence of forensic science to capture the events of a time and place not so far removed from our own as to be unrecognizable.