A (semi-)Recent Publication & My Answers to the Proust Questionnaire

Hello; 2 Things:

1) This is a bit late, but earlier this month (Oct. 3), I had two poems published in Bluestockings Magazine's recent issue, which was in collaboration with Nudity in the Upspace.You can read the entire, beautiful issue here (hint: my poems, "not that that would be, nor has been, difficult to find" and "[untitled] for @Aurist" are on pages 19 and 36, respectively).

&

2) A few days ago, I took the Proust Questionnaire, courtesy of Fawzy Zablah, who is a fantastic writer and great person. He very kindly posted my replies on his blog, which you can read right here. Fawzy's written a great book, "Rarity of the Century," and he was so gracious as to invite me to answer these thought-provoking questions, popularized by French author Marcel Proust.

Okay, that's basically it for now. Thanks!

dom.

Rarity of the Century by Fawzy Zablah

Fawzy Zablah's debut novel, "Rarity of the Century," is a gem, available from Tiny TOE Press or as a Kindle version. "Rarity of the Century" is an apocalyptic sci-fi novel, but it is also, at it's heart, a love story. Despite the apocalypse-like setting, despite the science-fiction plot, there is love standing at the novel's thematic center. Zablah's novel is a love story because love is the driving force behind each character, which centers their stories, motivating their actions. And the novel itself is a labor of love for the science fiction genre. Consider the direct reference to Stephen King, via the Busboy's gay uncle's bookshelf. Stephen King, who wrote "The Tommyknockers" and "Dreamcatcher," which I read and loved in high school, are both sci-fi/UFO-driven novels, and "Rarity of the Century," I felt, comes out of that same tradition. Namely, Zablah's novel is deeply rooted within characters who must live with the reality of what is happening to them, a reality best informed and described by those who live lives within the context of UFO phenomenon. King's two aforementioned novels describe what it must be like to live every day experiencing UFO/alien activity and, likewise, "Rarity of the Century" does the same, but much more drastically--there is mystery, intrigue, and Zablah's personal thematic flare: love.

The novel opens with the first character, Chucho, proclaiming and addressing the novel's centric theme: "When the world ended I fell in love for the first time." This is the story of the Busboy, his perspective on some/most of the goings-on throughout the novel. Zablah's novel has, essentially, one main timeframe: The end of the world takes place and, we come to find out, there are precious few people left. As it should happen, the three people left on earth are in a menage a trois, albeit later learned. First, we learn what happens from Chucho. His approach to the end of the world is wonder in the guise of calm acceptance. Yet, what starts at first as acceptance quickly turns into struck thrill when he seemingly meets the only other person: Shiraz Zirel, a woman with whom he works and with whom he is in love. Chucho is an everyman, leading a boring, loser lifestyle, but he has an optimistic, scrappy dog-like personality. Always seemingly one step behind fully registering the full implications of what's going on, he is, for all that, endearing and loveable. He has charm and, when his dream come true is granted in meeting Shiraz post-"the end of the world," he uses their circumstances to win her heart. But Chucho--dog illusions aside--is not stupid. He has made observations and come to know some personal truths, mainly about how he stands in relation to women, particularly those who he finds to be very attractive. Chucho is no Alpha-Male, which he kind of knows, often desiring girls who he feels to be out of his league. So he views the end of the world as his opportunity to be with Shiraz, a woman he views as out of his league. Shiraz, seemingly, has no interest in him, but as the two remain together post-apocalypse, a bond forms and they soon come together. For Chucho, it is a literal dream come true.

For Shiraz, her relationship with Chucho is an acceptance of stability, as opposed to heartache and disappointment. As the novel unfolds, plot point by plot point, mystery by mystery, petal by petal, so too does our understanding of these characters as each is given his/her chance to share themselves with us: their histories, their interests, their selves. Shiraz, again given a slight nod to King's brand, seems to have precognitive dreams, which the reader is invited to interpret. For us, it is easy to make out what the dreams mean in relation to the happenings of the novel. But apart from her dreams, Shiraz gives us another, deeper level to the story Chucho has shared. Namely, her story doubles back in the plot to when Shiraz learns about everyone's disappearance, thus giving us a background story akin to Selena's background story from "28 Days Later." Although Selena's actual back story is withheld from the film, according to production notes, the reason Selena is tough as nails is because she had to kill her family at the outbreak of infection due to them becoming infected. Zablah's novel, giving nod to Selena's story, pays homage to the strong, tough-as-nails female character, which is a common motif in horror/sci-fi stories; but, in "Rarity of the Century," Zablah gives Shiraz the courtesy of revealing her back story, rather than withholding it. Albeit, Shiraz is not forced to kill her family, but must, in fact, do away with other neighborhood creatures, a fact that will surely tug on the heartstrings of both animal lovers and members of the internet-based "dogge" culture. Additionally, Shiraz's dealings with dogs, particularly Bebo, is a bit like commentary on the later relationship she forms with Chucho.

While Chucho's story is a slowly unfolding love story between himself and Shiraz, Shiraz's explanation of how she comes to love Chucho is both refreshing (for it gives us the woman's perspective) and also, thankfully, quick, since we already know what happens from Chucho. What is more interesting is the menage a trois fully revealed and confirmed that existed between herself and Chucho and, from before "the end of the world," Benito, a Cuban exile living in Miami. Shiraz's background story is well-handled and her menage a trois story is, seemingly, accurately represented, detailing the difficulties that exist when one must pick between two lovers. Something I first noticed while reading Shiraz's part is that the dialogue between the three main characters is ever so slightly off; that is, the dialogue is not "neat and clean" from one of the novel's three parts to the other two. However, rather than seeming like a flaw, Zablah's handling of this discrepancy is such that I believe it to have been done on purpose, which, then, functions as an interesting commentary regarding perception and memory of everyday life. The way Chucho perceives a conversation with Shiraz is different than how Shiraz perceives it; of course, we're told this via access to what each character is thinking, but to have the dialogue reflect that via slight discrepancies is, I think, very smart.

As Shiraz's storyline approaches the point where Chucho's storyline is cliff-hung, her background story jumps back even further, to her history with Benito. Zablah's use of cliffhangers from one part to the next is also well-handled, keeping the suspense and tension high, compelling the reader to keep reading. In this respect, Zablah's novel is again like a Stephen King novel: the suspense is sustained, turning the book into a real page-turner. And it's smart, too. To keep the mystery, I won't say too much else about Benito or his storyline (although we're given quite a view of what life was like for him in Cuba), but what I will say is that, given what Benito says and sees and shows us/Chucho-&-Shiraz, Zablah's grasp and understanding of UFO lore is surprisingly and refreshingly accurate. All too often a movie or a novel will try to do too much and explain too much and be too "weird" while handling such topics, but Zablah gives us just enough, just a taste, of such subjects, but he does not presume to provide too many answers or get too obnoxiously "weird." Perhaps most accurately depicted, I felt, was when Shiraz saw lights in the sky for the first time. During this incident, Shiraz wanted to leave to tell Chucho about the lights, but she was too mesmerized to actually take her eyes away from them, which resulted in "lost time," i.e. much more time had passed than she had realized; by the time she did look away and went to get him, the lights were gone.

Fawzy Zablah's "Rarity of the Century" is a fantastic sci-fi novel, which is informed and grounded in love; additionally, Zablah's novel demands a second reading. The carefully placed and appropriately timed revelations and cliffhangers keep the story going and the pages turning. But there also exists plenty for the reader to ponder, particularly regarding the fate of the characters and the entire world. Yet, if one reads "Rarity of the Century" carefully, and reads it twice, hints are given, but definite answers are withheld, which is another homage to Stephen King brand horror/sci-fi. These hints and suggestions can be easily missed if the novel is read through only once, so a second reading is, if for no other reason, necessary (although, truthfully, a second reading is warranted anyway because Zablah has written and crafted a beautiful novel). So be sure to buy this beautiful book, whether hand-pressed from Tiny TOE or digitally via Kindle. You will not regret it!

Unnecessarily Embarrassingly Bad: James Franco's "Child of God"

Felt like people will say positive things about James Franco because of this movie, but I think those things will be unwarranted. The film itself is okay, particularly the middle.

The entire time up to until Franco showed up, I kept thinking, "I don't want to see James Franco. I don't want James Franco to actually be in this." Felt the same thing, really, when James Franco did show up, because his appearance was so small that it was honestly banal, unnecessary, and stupid.

Felt as though someone told James Franco about this "fucked up," "dark," "morbid," "twisted" novel, which made James Franco think, "Woah. I want to shock audiences with feces, necrophilia, cross-dressing, and human face-mask wearing a la 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre'." But Franco's film was NOT as dark/morbid/twisted as it was trying to be.

Felt weird by people who laughed or snickered whenever Lester spoke to his stuffed animals. Yes, it would be funny if you or I spoke to stuffed animals, since you and I live in the city and can connect with literally anyone. But it was not funny for Haze's character to speak to stuffed animals; on the contrary, his doing so spoke volumes about the necessity of companionship against loneliness.

Also, felt it was very clear-cut that Lester was mentally retarded, making the story much more heartbreaking because it was set in a time and place where other people didn't understand that.

Felt as though this could have been made much darker than it was; could have been made to be actually shocking and, thus, actually worth seeing as a movie instead of reading as a book. For example: Do Not burn a teddy bear lying face down in the coals of a fire to visually symbolize the fact that Lester's beloved girl-corpse is burning to ashes--show it, James Fracno, you fucking coward! If one of James Franco's purposes for making the the film was a desire to 'shock audience' with a 'dark and twisted' story, then he failed. The story is, in fact, dark and twisted, but that has nothing to do with James Franco or the film he co-wrote, directed, and appeared in; that is, the novel's complex darkness comes from Cormac McCarthy's story. A mere glance at the Wikipedia Page for the novel will show just how much more enriching the text is compared to the film.

Felt, at the very beginning of the film, that it was clumsily handled and, upon further reflection, felt that the ending was very clumsily handled as well. Before the film, there was a brief hoopla given by the New York Film Critics-blah-blah-blah spokesman, during which he called the film "complex" and James Franco as "talented." Shortly after the start of the movie, I thought, "It (the film) would have been better/tighter/neater if James Franco wasn't trying to do/be literally all of these different things at once (actor, poet, writer, director, producer, etc.)." Thought, "Maybe if James Franco weren't doing so many different things all the time, maybe if he focused his energy on one project and really tackled that one project, he might actually produce something quite good and then (and only then) may he possibly be worthy of the label 'talented'." Doing a million things at once is not talent: it just means you're taking drugs that make you manically scatterbrained. Talent is the ability to say and express something beautiful and heartfelt through dedicated hard work and James Franco simply spreads himself too thin to be genuinely talented.

This was an okay movie, so I would recommend seeing it, but DO NOT, as I did, pay $14 to see it. I nearly jumped when the snotty ticket seller at The Music Box told me the price. Since I was with friends, I coughed up the money, but had I known the price beforehand, I wouldn't have paid that much to see anything James Franco was involved in. Since James Franco was the "director," I knew the film would suck in certain regards because James Franco was attached to it. My god, every poster and trailer prominently displays James Franco's name and face as a character of note in the film, but really: "James Franco" is highly mentioned as an important actor in the film because James Franco couldn't see enough "James Franco" on the promotional materials, what with James Franco being the film's director, co-writer, and (probably) a producer of some sort. And who knows: maybe the "talented" James Franco did more than just that: I'm talkin' he applied the makeup and stitched the costumes himself because James Franco is. So. God. Damn. Talented!

Speaking of talent: Scott Haze. And I sincerely mean real talent. Haze was phenomenal in the film, diving deeply into the character of Lester Ballard, although maybe the real talent was working so closely with James Franco. Aside from the story, which would be better enjoyed via reading the Cormac McCarthy novel, this film's real saving grace is Scott Haze's performance.

In the first part/chapter of the film, there is narration and text.
First: The narration sounded as though several people were speaking, as though it was not the same person, which I thought was a smart choice because the story was being set up in the form of small town gossip, so it made sense for there to be numerous persons speaking. But after the film, outside, my friend and her roommate both commented on the narration, saying it was unnecessary, which I inferred to mean they hadn't noticed the different voices, which made me wonder: were there different voices, which would have been a smart choice, or just one voice who was narrating terribly? I had thought the former, but maybe it was actually the latter, which would have been bad and another factor of the "clumsy" handling of the film.
Second: There were times when text appeared on the screen, which I assumed were actual passages from Cormac McCarthy's novel, which at first seemed interesting and I thought was done in an O.K. fashion. But here's what really sucked about it: text appeared on the screen literally only two (2) times. If one is going to put text in a film, particularly quotes from the novel itself, then there should be numerous instances of text appearing on the screen, not just two. Two just makes the use of text all the more unnecessary. What made it worse was, while the first textual passage was rather intriguing, the second textual passage was literally so dumb. The second passage was nothing more than saying that the sheriff walked through a door to stand on the porch outside. And then the film literally showed Tim Blake Nelson walk through a door to stand on the porch outside. Had the film been better handled, an interesting stylistic choice might have been to cut from the text (i.e. - the simple stage direction) to Tim Blake Nelson already standing on the porch, lighting up a cigarette. Don't show us what you just told us; pick one or the other, for Christ's sake! As a good artist friend of mine maintains: don't tell AND show all at once. And I'm not talking about all text; indeed, another form of technical text that appeared in the film was "I:, II:, III:" which segmented the film into three 'chapters'. I liked this, thinking that the 'chapter'-text segments were properly placed, so I suppose the film editor did a good job with that.

But Scott Haze gave a phenomenal performance.  Tim Blake Nelson did a good job too. I remember really thinking his face looked haggard, which I felt was done on purpose (i.e. - makeup) for his character. He did a good job, but two of the lines he delivered were, I thought, truly terrible. Upon hearing them, I had the impression that they had been penned by Mr. Talented! The first was just a clumsy line near the beginning, when Tim Blake Nelson's character asks what malignant plans Lester has lain out to do. I can't remember it properly, nor can I remember the second line at all, but it was so bad I literally cringed (I mean it: I literally, physically cringed from intellectual discomfort from that second line when I heard it) and then I was aware of my ass in an uncomfortable seat and I shifted uncomfortably because there was only just enough room for my legs before they banged into the chair in front of me and I have blocked the quote from my memory it was so fucking bad! Again, this second terrible quote from the sheriff seemed to have been the spawn of James Franco's wannabe writer desire.

Okay, so as I said, it's an okay movie, but I wouldn't pay high theater prices to see it if I were you and, actually, now that I think of it: Just read the novel instead, as I plan to do.

review of "The Persistence of Crows" by Grant Maierhofer

here is a link to a review on I AM ALT LIT of "The Persistence of Crows" by Grant Maierhofer:

http://iamaltlit.tumblr.com/post/63012675398/52-0-the-persistence-of-crows-by-grant-maiehofer

it's a good book and will be released Oct. 8th. Also, if you pre-order the novel, you can save yourself a few bucks. Definitely a good deal. Check it out!