Intense Reading...

In memory of many wondrous cue cards,

The jury system is in conflict with itself.

(United States v. Dougherty inspired this lovely quip, for Mike, et al.)

Anyway, need to get back to reading, but for the peanut gallery, I'm currently taking Torts, Contracts, and Criminal Law, as well as Legal Writing and Research. So far it's been awesomely fun.

If I get some comments together (and good Internet) I'll say more...

There Is Just So Much

One day before school starts.

I am trying to draw out Nicholson Baker's A Box of Matches for all it is worth. The premise of the novel is almost idiotically simple: a middle-aged man decides to wake up early every morning, start a fire, and for an hour or so, just see where memory takes him. Each chapter feels like a random walk through the space of mundane life, yet all of the little inanities of getting sick, dropping the soap, etc. take on a majesty in that groggy pre-dawn den.

The book is complemented well by Belle & Sebastian playing softly in the background. I have so very little to do, now that I have moved in (and starting tomorrow, I will have so much to do), that I find myself just rolling in the cover of my bed, staring at a piece of paper, or dribbling a soccer ball back and forth, just reveling in minutiae for one more day.

At one point, Baker claims that the first thing you do when you wake up dictates the course of your day. Reading e-mail first thing will "put you in a hungry electronic funk" all morning. While I doubt I could have coined that phrase, I agree wholeheartedly. While at Tech, I used to jump at the sound of new e-mail and scurry down from the loft to check on what, nine times out of ten, was just spam.

Reading the newspaper is also not the way to start the say apparently. Doing so will leave you "full of puns and grievances." That tends to be true as well.

Baker seems fond of making coffee and lighting a fire. Not having a fireplace, this isn't an option for me.Yesterday however, I did wake up and go for a run. It was not nearly as cathartic as I would have hoped, though that may have been due to it being well past eight. Baker's fire lighting happens at four. By the time I had found my running shorts, shoes, keys, etc. I was already free of the grogginess that seems key to the early morning reveling Baker expounds.

Tomorrow we have orientation at 8:30. If I wake up at six, I can run for as long as possible (a paltry twenty minutes or so), do breakfast, and arrive to the first day of orientation invigorated (in theory).

........

I am not sure if improving one's writing can be done consciously. Practicing regularly with this blog has been limited, but I think that everything I wrote above was coherent and engaging. I edited a paper yesterday that was a jumble of ideas. I had to take a pad and diagram an entire new essay structure to recommend to the writer. This seems far more crucial to good writing than choosing the perfect word. Shaping the flow of the narrative, pruning off the clever but unnecessary insights, and consciously not bogging down sentences in clauses and parentheticals all appear more important.

("more crucial?" I may have to flog myself for that one...)

All Scholarly Activity - Halt!

I have been thoroughly seduced by Bangkok 8. The karmic detective motif is so fresh, it ranks up there with Holmes and Marlowe in my pantheon of great detectives. I'll have more to say when I finish the book.

And thanks to Shep's flattering comment on my aesthetics...

(the link)

Oh... it's almost five in the morning. I do not think I have ever read a mystery as taut or as brutal as this one. Wow. Chilling. That's all I can say. I give my highest recommendation.

Even the New York Times Laughs at France...

I quote, from the venerable bastion of France-loving latte-sipping Blue-state liberalism that is the New York Times:

While winemakers are pulling up vineyards, both to reduce production and to concentrate on better-quality wines, the Bordeaux Wine Council, which includes both the world-famous chateaus and the independent producers, said in June that its members would voluntarily hold wine off the market in an effort to push up prices for less expensive wines. The volume of the 2004 vintage sold would be cut by up to 35 percent, compared with 2003.

The unsold wine would be stored until conditions improve, Jean-Louis Trocard, a former president of the wine council, said.

Why higher prices would help when demand is already low is not clear.

Dear lord, economics has never been funnier!

(the link)

Prurient Prudence?

[I love that title]

I was reading Mike's bizarre ramble on the difference between porn and art and felt like I might be able to contribute, mostly by filling in where Mike claims to lack exposure. The question as posed, before Mike meandered, was "what inherently separates pornography from sexually explicit art, and how [do] they create a dialogue with each other, and with culture in general?"

I have a number of disjoint thoughts at the moment, but I think they can be forced to align. First, the line between porn and art is subjective and depends on the current social norm. Lady Chatterly's Lover would no longer be considered pornographic by modern standards, even if at the time it outraged society. Similarly, I imagine a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition would have been taboo at any time before the 1950s... just witness the progression of swimwear over the last twenty years! Cindy Crawford used to wear a one-piece, now the models have their "swimsuits" painted on! To flesh out the examples, think about what the troops get: now, they get all the porn they want, historically cheesecake paintings had to hold them over.

This is the problem with obscenity legislation, and why the community standards idea was the best way out. No other crime (that I can think of) changes with time. Murder was murder in 1500 and 2004, as were rape, theft, and assault. Obscenity.. well, a miniskirt would still be obscene in parts of the world today (cough, Islamic regimes).

So what is the line between them? I'd go back to community standards, to some extent. Porn is what I don't want people to know I have on my computer. Edward Weston photographs of complete nudity can be fine desktop patterns though! A certain element of shame separates the two.

To take a page from Mike's book, we can abstract this out. What about pornographic violence? Where does that term/concept fit? I felt sick and ashamed watching Kill Bill, and ended up walking out on it because I considered it a gross spectacle. Pornographic in this context seems to mean irreverent, excessive, vicious, and well, prurient. It's there to satisfy a base, reptilian urge.

Pornography is meant to be consumed, in private, furiously clicking, with one goal in mind and quickly forgotten. No one remembers porn (hell, I can hardly remember what it was that was arousing to me five minutes after the browser window closes). Sensual or explicit art can also titillate, but it's meant to work at more than a sheer animal, instinctual level. It's engaging higher reasoning, making you think about what is arousing, how everything relates, what the hell is the point of all this sex anyway? It's memorable, respectful, and probing.

I'm getting a little tired, so the rhetoric is starting to unravel a bit (attention span waning a bit). But I think the line between porn and art is easily summarized by how memorable it is, what it makes you think about, and what your community standards are.

As for informing... art is fueled by porn. As GIlmartin would say in Gothic Lit, "HIgh literature is reenergized and rejuvenated by themes from low literature." Porn is lowest of them all, and constantly pressing the horizons of art and fashion forward... (upward?)

... Ok, and now back to the Bible and Law (tomorrow maybe)

Hang on a second...

I was thinking about the news, and about getting the 9/11 Report, and about Doug Feith's utterly non-sensical editorial in the Washington Post today, and I had a question:

What happened to the anthrax?

Remember the Capitol being closed down, postal workers dying, and the fear of the mailbox?

My morning reading and breakfast was a little less enjoyable after that.

Biblical Origins of the Law - Part 1

Levi argued that the law is built by example. I would argue that the law is also built, piece by piece on our old cultural notions. Ok, I know that isn't a revolutionary thesis, but it does spur my little research project. Western law, and the common law on which our system is based, grew up over hundreds of years in Christian nations. The Bible formed the basis of society in these feudal theocracies.

So in the interest of having a thorough grounding in this foundation, I've been poring my way through paying close attention to the development of legal institutions (and also finally getting a chance to read through the BIble with adult eyes). And so far, just halfway through Genesis, it's amazing how much we actually find.

First, God makes assorted covenants with man, first with Adam, then later with his descendants, notably Noah and Abraham. Covenants are our first contracts. They set forth rules for interacting, and they lay out penalties (as Adam discovered!). God's covenant with Abraham establishes that his descendants will flourish, in return for their worship. The rite of circumcision is used to prove compliance with the covenant.

Abraham later makes a contract with Azisasomethinglongandhardtoremember that establishes another aspect of the law, property. The two show up, Azzie with his army, and negotiate a pact whereby they respect each others property and decide to live peacefully. Abraham also establishes a claim to a well by giving Azzie some lambs.

Property claims also come up when discussing inheritance. Sarai throws out Hagar and Ishmael fearing that Hagar's son will claim the inheritance. Property claims also don't seem to hold up terribly well. God grants lands to his followers, irrespective of the claims of previous settlers. No mention is made (as of yet) of what happens when you move in and take other people's land... history would seem to imply that this could cause problems.

Criminal law appears earlier than property, though without any coherent framework. God is angered when Cain murders Abel, and turns him out. However, he warns that any who kill Cain will also be slain. God appears to reserve the right to deal out the death penalty exclusively. Mankind as a whole is condemned during the flood, and Sodom and Gommorah are destroyed for their wickedness, though the sins of none of these groups is ever made clear, except that they are "wicked" or "evil." Lot's wife receives a pretty harsh punishment for looking back on the destruction.

As of yet, criminal law appears to be an arbitrary institution. So far, the crimes worthy of punishment are loss of innocence, "evil," wickedness, gazing on destruction, and premeditated murder. No trials, no examination, and no pre-written set of rules to not violate. Compared to property or contracts, criminal law doesn't seem very advanced.

Thankfully, no appearance of torts yet. Procedure seems to be a bit lacking as well.

[Unfortunately, this is more of an exercise is reading rather than writing. I'm not terribly interested in honing my prose at the moment. it seems like that can only be done with red pens on printouts, not in text boxes on blogger. I have noticed that I have an unusual prediliction toward using the ellipsis that I need to purge.]

Anyway, more to come shortly when we get to Moses and the Commandments (ooh! A written legal code!)