The Importance of the "Gateway" Book

In The Book that Changed my Life, seventy-one writers reflect on the texts that had the biggest influence on them when they were children, adolescents or young adults. Some, like novelist Elizabeth Berg, whose life was changed by reading Catcher in the Rye, cite a single volume: “I couldn’t sit still after I read that book. It was the literary aphrodisiac to end all literary aphrodisiacs.” Others, like Yale University’s Harold Bloom, cannot nominate just one book. The closest he can get is the complete works of Shakespeare. Regardless, all fledgling writers have literary epiphanies that compel them to create their own works, whether they are poems, essays, plays, novels, articles or blogs.

Even if one does not become a professional writer, the pleasures of reading engender the enduring benefits of learning about the human condition, experiencing the lives of others, both real and fictional, and gaining knowledge about the myriad mysteries of life, our world and the universe. Whether one is reading in print or online, the experience gives one the comfort that no one is alone and the awareness that knowledge is limitless. As the poet Billy Collins observes, “We read in order to travel, or be borne, to that other place [beyond our own reality] and thus interrupt the curse of having only one life to lead.”

Even though I lived in a literate household with plenty of printed material lying around for the taking, I would not have classified myself as a serious reader prior to my mid-teens. I like to share with my students that my life-altering book was Kurt Vonnegut’s Breakfast of Champions. When I read this novel in 1974, at the impressionable age of fifteen, I had the sudden insight that reading can be a pleasurable activity, not a chore or something I had to do only for school. Vonnegut’s satirical and somewhat taboo sense of humour appealed to me in a way that no other writer’s sensibility had up to that point. From that book on, I was hooked. Thirty-six years later, words still transport my imagination to places and states of mind I may never experience otherwise.

On some level, perhaps instinctively, I have come to realize that reading is highly personal and based entirely on one’s interests and personality. This is why I always counsel parents to find books that will appeal to their children’s passions. The fire of reading can be lit by a single text, so do your best as a parent to search out titles that will provide the spark. If you are having trouble locating this “gateway” book, contact, your child’s teachers and school librarians, your local library or bookstore. I maintain that every child can become an avid reader, but only if he or she associates reading with pleasure, not drudgery. If a person gets hooked on books, the habit of reading will become second nature and intellectual growth will be a matter of course. And, to paraphrase Dr. Seuss, who knows the places they will go…

"What's a Tie, Daddy?"

The other day my nine-year-old son asked, "What's a tie, Daddy?" A tie? What's a tie? He was referring not to a fashion item, but to an even final score score in sports. Initially flummoxed, I recovered by saying, "A tie is when the final score in a game remains even, like 2-2." My son, an otherwise observant and astute little man, did not possess the concept of tie in his capacious brain because in North American major league sports a tie score is rare. Overtime has replaced what was once the final outcome after regulation time. If two teams battle to a tie in hockey, basketball, football and, of course, baseball, they must resolve the deadlock with an overtime period, inning and/or shootout. This is not quite true, as NFL regular season games can remain tied after overtime. However, as these tie matches are few and far between, my son may never have witnessed one. Why is it that ties are no longer acceptable? Even in soccer, the world's most popular sport, matches can remain tied during the regular season. I can understand the necessity of tie-breaks in the playoffs, but what compels us to determine a winner of a regular season game? My inference is that North American society cannot abide the irresolution of a stalemate because of our increasingly Darwinian nature. There must be winners and losers; "tie-ers" are verboten (the word doesn't even exist). The terrorists must be defeated. We cannot accept that two teams played equally well. One team must be better; one team must be worse. One army must win; one army must lose. Like Newtonian physics, for every winner in society, there must be "an equal and opposite" loser. Ties were part of a kinder, gentler age, when sportsmanship and the quality of the match counted more than the outcome. The old adage "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game" is no longer common parlance. A tie score is wishy-washy, namby-pamby; it is not acceptable in our winner-takes-all, Malthusian world. This is a shame, as tie scores say to humanity: "Ultimately, we can respect one another's will to play as well as possible without necessarily determining a winner and a loser." The simple concept of bringing back the tie in North American major league sports has far-reaching implications for restoring civility. But who's going to buy this? It's too late. Overtime is here to stay; ties are passé. "Whatever you do, son, do not walk away from a tie score."

Pone the Odium @ the 2010 Vancouver Olympics

You may be aware, dear reader, of Canada's "Own the Podium" campaign (http://www.ownthepodium2010.com/) that has been gathering momentum and controversy since its inception. The funding generated by this unprecedented effort to support Canada's athletes has earned both praise and derision. The US Olympians joked about how they were going to "rent the podium" in Vancouver. At the time of writing (early on February 27, 2010: the penultimate day of the Games), Canada lies in third place of the medal count with the most golds--ten. Our population is about one-tenth that of the US and less than half that of Germany, the two leaders in the total medal count. However, Norway, with a population of under five million, is fourth, not far behind. Frankly, even though I have been patriotically watching many of the Olympic events, I am conflicted about the excessive commercialism and jingoism. If I see one more trite product billing itself as the official such-and-such of the 2010 Olympics, I may not be responsible for my actions. However, I did buy at The Bay a beautiful Canada winter hat with earflaps. The Olympic spirit, rooted in amateur athleticism for the joy of sports, has been tarnished over the years by performance-enhancing drugs, spoiled, wealthy professional athletes and commercial excess. Nonetheless, one catches glimpses of what is inspiring about the Games: Alexandre Bilodeau's gold medal run in moguls skiing, with his disabled brother cheering him on; Joannie Frechette's bronze medal performance in women's figure skating only days after her mother's sudden death; Jon Montgomery's skeleton gold and subsequent partying in the Olympic village when he was drinking straight from a pitcher of beer; the "Snow Leopard" from Ghana, the first winter Olympian from his country, who finished 52nd in the slalom. Every two years, the world comes together to follow the Olympics, at least those who have access to cable and/or the Internet. We raise the flag, sing the anthem and tingle the old nerves when we support our country's athletes. And when one of our own wins a medal, we rejoice. With the billions of dollars, all the hype and politics that go into every Games, is it worth it? I am not sure we can accurately assess the Olympics' value to humanity. However, over the past two weeks, I have been moved by the tenacity of the human spirit. Okay, so it's not the gravity of the Haitian earthquake; but if you strip away the excessive commercialism and rampant nationalism, you can see the essence of what makes athletics uplifting. Odium aside and some downside, lest we deride, there is a podium upside--owned, rented, leased or merely over vied.

The Apex and Nadir of Modernism

If we agree that one of the prime tenets of Modernism is rooted in individual freedom of expression and freedom of choice, I would posit that we have actually reached simultaneously the apex and nadir of our approximately 500-year journey. On the up side, in the so-called free world, we do have the freedom to pursue our individualism in pretty much any way we please, as long as we do not contravene the laws of the land. On the down side, in the so-called free world, we have the freedom to pursue our individualism in pretty much any way we please, as long as we do not contravene the laws of the land. Has Modernism reached its reductio ad absurdum? In other words, are we now so fettered by our "freedom" that we no longer have the capacity to know we are free? With an iPod bud in every ear, an LCD image in every eye, the pervasive redolence of plastic, a touch of silicon for good measure and a soupcon of individual pleasure, do we not have all the ingredients to pursue our desires in any way we see fit? We stand on Everest, our flag of individualism planted firmly by one hand and our cell phone in the other, broadcasting to the world that we have reached the summit of our heroic lives; we wallow in Silicon Valley, our Facebook page controlled by one hand and our cell phone in the other, texting (or even worse, Twittering) to the world the most banal bumf of our trivial lives. Of course, Jean-Jacques Rousseau's dictum comes to mind: "Man is born free, but [or and, depending on the translation] everywhere he is in chains." What is our current social contract and does it come with an extended warranty? or no money down until January 2011? Frankly, I think the fine print has to be more closely scrutinized because our current far-sightedness (ironic, isn't it?) does not enable us to see the essential truths of decent human conduct in a caring world of compassion. Cast aside the frills and we are all the same species, governed by the same general rules, headed for the same fate and no better or worse than the other six billion of us inhabiting our planet or the billions who have trod here before. Memento mori

Signs of Christmas Abound

Maybe it's the poor economy or people's poorer attention spans, but I don't think I've ever seen so much Christmas shilling. Of course, as soon as the Halloween pumpkins were smashed, the Christmas decorations, i.e., advertisements, began to blanket the horizon like a late fall blizzard. And just when I thought I'd witnessed the commercialism saturation point, I saw a Guinness sign in a certain establishment advertising St. Patrick's Day. Now, to be fair, I'm not sure if the sign is from last year's Celtic celebration or alerting us to 2010's frothy festivities. However, two thoughts sprang to mind when I saw the banner. The first one was the aforementioned observation on the sign's vintage; the second was, "Anyone who drinks Guinness does not need a reminder about March 17." I realize advertisers have only one goal: seducing the almighty consumer. Everyone is a potential spender. But I wonder if people can see the forest for the Christmas trees, so to speak. So many ads bombard our senses we have become desensitized. Do we really see the ads right in front of our faces? And even if we do, do we pay them any heed? Canada has suddenly adopted America's sacred "Black Friday." What's next? White Christmas? And I mean "white" in the sense of devoid of colour, as in I blanche in horror at the sight of my January credit card statement. Or Green Christmas, as in the American greenback, the currency of all currencies? When will it all end? Will we be consumed by our own insatiable desire for consumption? Has it already happened? And, as my good friend Dr. P likes to say, "Do one billion Chinese really give a damn?" (or words to that effect).

Technological Imperialist Imperative

“Western society has accepted as unquestionable a technological imperative that is quite as arbitrary as the most primitive taboo: not merely the duty to foster invention and constantly to create technological novelties, but equally the duty to surrender to these novelties unconditionally, just because they are offered, without respect to their human consequences.”-- Lewis Mumford (1934)

Mumford wrote these words in his Technics and Civilization, a book about the historical and sociological impact of technology on culture. As we are currently living through a monumental paradigm shift, we tend to lose sight of previous technologies and their dramatic influence on humankind and the planet. The clock, the printing press, the steam engine, to name a few, transformed the way people live, work and play. What Mumford is implying in the above quote is critical reflection on technology, particularly in terms of its impact on humanity. Where are the contemporary voices of the people? Where are the critics? Are they out there and not heard? Are they quelled by the "mediaocracy"? Or are they, like the characters in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, pacified by the soma of technology? Where are the Huxleys, the Orwells, the Mumfords?

To Purell, or not to Purell...

The threat of the H1N1 virus lurking on every surface has engendered a new word in our rapidly expanding lexicon of "verbified" proper nouns a la Google. To Purell, or not to Purell: that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the hand to suffer the germs and microbes of outrageous illness, or to take arms... . Alas, dear reader, I think you get the point. In our sanitized world, we often lose sight of the reality of disease and, G_d forbid, resulting death. Taking reasonable precautions against contracting common illnesses is one thing; becoming a manic, hysterical person exhibiting signs of OCD is quite another. How many people have you seen lately who "Purell" immediately after touching any surface or coming into contact with the flesh of another human being? Children are no longer allowed to shake hands after hockey games. Adults air kiss one another. Don't get me wrong. I am not keen to contract the H1N1 virus or any flu, for that matter. Yes, I will take the proper precautions, e. g., get the vaccination, if my turn ever comes up. However, I am not going to live in a hermetically sealed bubble until flu season passes. At this point, we are much more at risk of losing our common sense than our good health. My advice is to remain calm and not rush for the clinics at the first sign of illness. This too shall pass. And another flu strain, perhaps more virulent than H1N1, will come along next season, ad infinitum...