It’s nice to be mobile and young.  My wife and I are switching apartments for three months (well, three-and-a-half), after which we’ll be going to Austin and staying indefinitely.  "Indefinitely" does not mean a great deal of time, though it does mean at least three or four years, which is how long my wife will take to finish her degree.  I’ll be done in two years with San Marcos and then…we’ll see.

But despite all the moving, I’ve had some time to read.  I’ve been reading Dave Eggers’s A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius.  It’s right up my alley and gives me my literary style fix that I needed after six (more or less uninterrupted) J.K. Rowling novels.* 

I say it’s right up my alley because it’s all about how the first-person narrative works.  I have always found the narrator to be the most interesting character in any given book.  Descriptions, for example, tell me more about the narrator than the person being described–that is, the traits the narrator picks out as important are indicators of who the narrator really is.  Thus, I adore books that play with the narrator function.** 

Eggers’s memoirish book has been sitting on my shelf for ages, and I’m glad I finally picked it up.  I think the aspect of the book that I find so intriguing is how it is not so much about Eggers but about his attempt to capture what has happened to him*** in some coherent manner.  Of course, that’s the definition of meta-fiction, but Eggers is doing something beyond what one might expect in meta-fiction.  He’s conscious that he’s conscious that he’s writing a book about the human experience (I’m paraphrasing his words), and I see (so far) a hyper-ambivalent attitude toward art.  On the one hand, Eggers beautifully adapts his life and his personality to the written word; on the other hand, he must bend the truth to adapt his life…er…truthfully.  And despite his best efforts, the reader is still conscious that Eggers is conscious, etc., so the reader cannot entirely trust the narrative.  Very complicated, but very funny and satisfying.

By the way: I know that somewhere between 90 and 97 people subscribe and plenty of people read this little blog.  Anyone have any favorite messing-with-the-narrator-function works they’d like to share? 

*I’m happy to say that Eggers never uses all-caps.

 **A couple of my favorites in this category are Tim O’Brien’s The Lake of the Woods and Neil Gaiman’s Anansi Boys.  In the former, the narrator (presumably a journalist) speaks to the reader via occasional, cryptic footnotes that confound rather than clarify the story.  The latter is reasonably straight-forward third-person omnipotent, except for a few passages in which it seems that Anansi the trickster god is singing the story to the reader; the effect is marvelous.

***Namely, his parents’ almost simultaneous deaths from cancer and his subsequent guardianship of a brother half his age.

—–

I was driving to the store, running your typical Saturday afternoon errands, thinking about the prospect of moving.  Well,  it’s not really a prospect,  it’s a reality. We are moving in late August to Austin.  Don’t get  me wrong,  I am glad I am moving to a land of flip flops, used books and small, privately-owned coffee shops (take that Starbucks!),  but I am annoyed that I’ll have to get to know the area and find a decent place to shop.

Shopping, you say? Mr. Refuge for the Literate cares about shopping? I had thought he was a poor bohemian who likes books in a freakish sort of way, but definitely not a shopper.  Well, this is not Mr. Refuge for the Literate writing–this is his wife, writing a guest post*.

Out of the blue, I said out loud, "A good dollar store is hard to find."  Tim laughed.  I then went on to explain to him the differences in dollar stores.  You must be thinking right now that we must be some poor trailer trash people, but I assure you, we are not.  Tim reads too much to be trailer trash.  The reason I like shopping at dollar stores, is because you get the same damn things–but for less.  Sure, part of the reason why dollar stores are able to offer such low prices is because they don’t pay their workers nearly enough, but hey, at least it’s not Wal Mart.

That’s another reason I shop at dollar stores–I hate Wal Mart.  Every time I have gone there, the alarm goes off when I exit.  I have asked and apparently the reason the alarm goes off is because I carry a cell phone.  Do they mean to imply that they are not advanced enough to put alarms on that will not go off if you have a cell phone?  Or is it that their primary patrons don’t carry cell phones with them?  Besides, what kind of scum shops at an establishment where they have to check your receipt at the door to make sure you did not steal anything?  But I digress.

On to dollar stores.   I actually used to refuse to shop there–until I became a poor college student who went on to marry an academic.  I realized that there was no point in paying $3.95 for a box of dishwashing soap I could get for a dollar at the dollar store (department of redundancy department, yes I know).  Thus, I started getting my cleaning supplies there.  I am sad at the fact that when we move, I will have to locate a good dollar store where to get my cleaning supplies.  Tim still does not understand the fact that there are differences between dollar stores.  Thus, I offer you my treatise on dollar stores.

1) Selectivity of items depends solely on location.  Better items will be found at dollar stores located in suburbs.  Furthermore, dollar stores located in suburbs tend to be bigger and cleaner.  Sure, we can debate on the socio-economic implications of why this is a truth of our society, but I am not here to debate on such topic.  I am here to talk about dollar stores.  So…  When I used to live near Little Mexico, the dollar stores were sub-par at best.  Now that we live out in the ‘burbs, the dollar store is actually a safe place in which to shop.  Thus, if you live near a ‘burb, shop there.  Sure, we can discuss the possibility that the amount of money it would take you to drive to a ‘burb would offset the cost of shopping at a dollar store, but then you would be deprived of the elation of knowing you saved $2.50 for a three pack of paper towels.

2) Follow the Targets.  Best dollar stores are located near Targets.  Don’t ask me, I don’t know why.  But it’s the truth, the best dollar stores are located near Targets.  Better yet, find a dollar store, near a Target, in the ‘burbs.  Now that’s some superior dollar store shopping!

3) Beware of Dollar General stores!  These are not dollar stores! These are stores where "most everything" is a dollar.  Which really means that most everything is $2.99 or so.  You’d think that people would figure it out by the use of the word "general" in the store’s name, but you’d be surprised.  Besides, their selection is not as good.  You will mostly find things that were in vogue five years ago–insofar as something in a grocery store can be "in vogue."  Seriously, my sister and I have found stuff that is that old.  By the way, my sister likes Dollar General stores, I like Dollar Tree stores.  It causes commotion every Christmas time at dinner.  We don’t like to mention it.   In any case, Dollar  Tree stores is where you want to go.

 Thus, my treatise on dollar stores concludes.  But this will not take away the fact that I still have to locate a good dollar store when we move.  Moreover, this post will probably not enlighten my husband in the ways of dollar store shopping.  But I hope that it  might have enlightened some of you–or at least made you chuckle once.

*Do not worry, he is still alive and well. Actually reading a book at the moment**.

 ** I thought a Refuge for the Literate post would not be complete without footnotes.  They are used almost religiously around here, and I would not want to dissapoint you.

—–

Refuge is not a religious blog, because I am not a theologian.  I leave theology to the qualified, and I do not count myself in that group.

I am,  however, an observer of popular culture, and popular religion has been on my mind for a long time now.  By "popular religion," I do not mean folklore; rather, I mean psuedo-religious and psuedo-spiritual beliefs held by people based not on study of source texts* but on mass culture.  I saw an example of popular religion recently when I met a young man who spoke of "Father God" and "Mother Karma."  The young man in question had, at the very least, perused some of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures.  He did not give any indication that he had delved into Eastern source texts, though, nor did he speak of being taught such theology.  I knew, instinctively, that "Mother Karma" was his conception of what he has seen in the mass culture.

I do not believe in Karma.  I do not have a problem with Eastern thought, but I do disagree with it on general principles.  I belong to a fairly traditional, monotheistic church; Eastern religion is generally contrary to my belief system.  I do not believe in Karma specifically because I know nothing about it.  I have not read the relevant texts, nor have I received training from anyone who has read said texts.   Instinctively, I disagree with the idea that a spiritual force rewards and punishes our actions.  Such a concept sounds an awful lot like the "prosperity Gospel," which I think is at best selfish and at worst heretical.  But, again, I can’t say either of those things about Karma itself because, again, I know so little about it.

I may sound demanding of other people, but I’m not.  I simply wish that, as a populace, we would not profess belief without research.   It’s actually much easier not to have an opinion if you haven’t reviewed the information; if someone were to ask if I believed in Karma, I could just shrug and say "No, because I haven’t looked into it."  Like everyone else, I struggle with the instinct to have an opinion on everything; I’m not expecting perfection of other people, but I do wish they would try.

*And I do see source texts as the basis for faith in any religion.  If you want to be Catholic, read the Scriptures and go to mass; if you want to be Protestant, read your Scriptures; if you want to be Hindu, read the Gita.  Et cetera.  You cannot have faith in something you know nothing about.

I can finally get back to A Series of Unfortunate Events and, for that matter, the rest of my life.  This saga has proven that having ADHD sucks because one tends to want to finish the whole series in one fell swoop.

Anyway…

To answer PGE’s objection to the racial conflicts in Rowling’s novels: I agree, I think.  I’m not entirely sure that the Harry Potter novels have sufficiently dealt with the racial conflict contradiction–that is, Harry Potter et al. are fighting for racial equality (house elves, Muggle-borns, etc.) while they are members of an elite class.  To explain, I do see the wizards as a sort of elite class, mainly because they know of and can influence the Muggle world, but Muggles cannot influence the wizard world unless they become part of it.  The wizard world is deliberately hidden from the Muggles, while the wizards have (more or less) free reign to wander the Muggle world.  I’m not faulting Rowling too much; in fact, I’m confident she’ll find some way of dealing with this problem in later novels.*

I’d also agree that she does not plunge into "PC."  Maybe she’s inconsistent or maybe her construct lacks proper depth, but PC carries a far different connotation to me.  I think of PC as correctness for the sake of correctness.**  I think Rowling is trying to point out a general principle of racial inequality–namely, that most of us do not recognize the chains we put people under because we are so dependant on the oppression of others.  I don’t think that principle counts as PC.  To reinforce her point, she uses outsiders (Hermione, Harry) to point out the inequality because the "insiders" do not recognize the problems.  I don’t think there’s a one-to-one allegory present here,*** but I do think she’s producing effective commentary on Western society.

There we are.  Enough of Harry Potter for a while, though.  I can now happily move on to other things. 

*And to be clear–I’m not saying she hasn’t dealt with the problem at all.  I seem to remember Arthur Weasley saying something about "wizard-Muggle" relations.  It’s there, but not in the abundance I’d like.

 **Think gender-inclusive translations of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures.  I think that, no matter where we fall on the "liberal-conservative" church divide, we can all agree that we should read the Scriptures as they were written.  To change the words is to change the meaning.  To change the meaning is to dilude the meaning.  In other words, I don’t see gender-inclusive translations of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures as better expressing the words, but confounding the words for the sake of correctness.  Just my opinion.  Lobby me if you disagree.

***Of course, the lack of a one-to-one allegory will not stop some people from making such conclusions.  Think of all those who wasted reams on the "Lord of the Rings=World War II" silliness.

—–

So this blog has been on hiatus, more or less, for a week while I’ve been reading Harry Potter, Part the Fifth.  I finished it a few days ago, and I’m knee-deep in Part the Sixth.  I also feel like J.K. Rowling is playing right into my publishing hands, because she’s hitting on the points I want to use for a manuscript.

I am also more and more convinced that those who oppose Rowling’s novels as invitations to satanism are wrong.   I’m finding secular humanism, not satanism, is the moral inspiration for her work.  Then again, I guess I don’t worry about such things since I joined the Romish* Army of Oppression three years ago.  Or something like that.

*Ten points to the best use of the word "Romish" in the comments.

I’ve spent two good days at the College English Association conference. I finally presented my paper (to a small but attentive audience) and even stayed under the time limit. I got to talk a great deal about Neil Gaiman, which is always a great joy for me. Since Gaiman is not often known in the Hallowed Halls of Academe, most of the discussion about my presentation was spent answering the question, “Just who is this Gaiman fellow?” That is, I didn’t talk much about the specifics of the paper,* but rather about Gaiman and his work. So lots of talk about Gaiman, leading to several new readers of his work.

And this post is as good a place as any to announce with finality one of the two opportunities I mentioned earlier: I’m heading to Texas State University-San Marcos in the Fall. At the CEA, I met a professor and a student at Texas State who presented on the use of graphic novels in the classroom. Afterward, I spoke to them, and I later relayed the encounter to my wife. I said that they were the “resident” science fiction scholars. I said that both had heard of Gaiman; indeed, the student sung his praises. My wife told me that the encounter pretty much made the decision for us: I was looking for a place where, at the least, I could write an untraditional or forward-thinking thesis. I think I’ve found it.

And what else of the conference? Lots of good talk with good people, several excellent panels (including one on Toni Morisson that was so superb it bordered on inspiring), and a couple good lectures.

*One amusing question (from an ordained minister who presented at the same session): “So religion is just a cultural construct?” I started to explain that I did not necessarily agree with Gaiman, but then I found out that she got the point and was only poking fun.

Found this link while wasting my time on the Internet.  Enjoy the fruits of my non-labor.

I do believe I am on the second-to-last draft of my presentation at the CEA conference. I had trouble distilling my point into so narrow a time constraint, but I’ve made a better point for the effort. For those who are scratching their heads at the title–I don’t assert that America is a pagan nation, but that Gaiman seems to think so, sort of. My point is that I simply don’t see Christianity as primary in our national culture. We pay lip service to Christianity in civic exercises (which I don’t necessarily oppose), but not much more.

I was awakened to this idea when the crazy judge out in Alabama dropped a two-ton, granite sculpture of the Ten Commandments in the foyer of the state courthouse. He justified it by saying that the Commandments are at the core of our system of law, a dubious statement at best (certainly murder and theft are illegal, but adultery, dishonesty, and blasphemy remain legal–indeed, protected–in most contexts). The judge’s actions were clearly improper evangelization,* and he was rightly booted out of his lofty position. I realized that the judge wasn’t asserting the presence of Christian culture, but trying to place it there. The sculpture was newly commissioned, not part of the history of the state’s legal system. He was forcing it, and he failed.**

On the whole, I guess I am too cynical to believe that America is in any way Christ-like. Yes, we have Christian images and rituals ingrained in our lives and in our calendars, but we also have pagan symbols like the Easter Bunny. We also have a pop culture creation, Santa Claus, that was once a heroic Eastern bishop.* We have drunkenness and debauchery on the feast day of St. Patrick, who prayed for “God’s hosts” to deliver him from “temptations of vices.” Ours is not a Christian culture, but a confused national culturewith some strong Christian elements. Some of those elements need to be solidified, but we should not fool ourselves by claiming we have placed Christ at the heart and soul of the nation. We aren’t even close.

*Improper because the judge is an arbitor, not an evangelist. How can a non-believer in the Judeo-Christian God expect to find solace in a courthouse that yells in carved granite, “I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other gods before me”?

**Sort of. Now he’s an activist, and his two-ton evangelization tool tours the nation.