Et Tu Babe

 ET TU BABE

It is now time to consider whether ET TU BABE by Mark Leyner is a Book for Bigots.  Interestingly, the main character in this work of fiction is Mark Leyner himself who transcends most of our ideas of wealth, power, popularity, and personal attributes.  After half a century of reading books, this is a new one - - the author as main character. 

If one looks at the reviews of the book reflected by a cursory Google search, one does not see much of an analysis:  such epithets are used as "cyberpunk", "rabid egotism", "exhilaratingly bizarre", "exhaustingly funny", "hilarious", "hyperglandular", "extravagant", and "kaleidoscopic" all of which would superficially suggest the book worth reading by anyone who reads novels.  This normally excludes Bigots since Bigots don't normally read novels (with the possible exception of Goldilocks) in the event they might run across a character that does not meet with their approval.  And in this case, they certainly would not approve.

I do not characterize ET TU BABE with any of the above.  It is a novel, since it is designated as such by those in the trade, only with the understanding that there is no other term that is appropriate to describe it.  Mr. Leyner, the fictional Mr. Leyner, has everything that any human being could imagine in the genre of superhero but a superhero totally self-indulgent.  One reaches the end of the book without the slightest inclination to be acquainted with him or anyone like him.

But more to the point, the author relates in one section of the book:  'Dr. Williams handed Todd a glossy brochure entitled "The Auto-Erotic Repetitive Motion Disorder Association of America"'.  Now this suggests right off that this is not a book for bigots - - autoeroticism is not normally a general topic of conversation for Bigots at meal time or while watching the Disney Channel.  In addition, since the main character is insatiable, all-wealthy, all-powerful, and all-popular with amazing personal attributes, sex is easy to come by and constantly appearing in one form or another making it verboten for all Bigots and those besotted with Bigotry, since sex, above all things, does not exist and not to be spoken of in their world.

As with most modern American literature in novel form, it is a book that would be subject to banning and burning by Bigotry and could not possibly be allowed to grace the library shelves of  our public schools.  What the intent of the author was in writing the book and structuring it as he has, is uncertain.  But one is left after reading it, not particularly caring for anyone portrayed in it.  One must gather that this was the intent; and consequently, a book that might actually have a beneficial effect on those who are  allowed to read it - - the characters here are not people you may want to emulate and as far as I can tell, have no admirable traits whatsoever.

At any rate, ET TU BABE is a candidate for banning and burning.  No erstwhile Bigot could possibly come to any other conclusion; the circumstances and references in it would cause serious discomfort.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

My Cousin, My Gastroentologist

 MY COUSIN, MY GASTROENTEROLOGIST

In my continuing series of Books for Bigots, Mark Leyner's MY COUSIN, MY GASTROENTEROLOGIST is the next suggested title for those of professed bigotry.  Other than the fact that it is a difficult book: I had to read it twice to try to come to some  understanding of it and have probably failed.  Other than clearly written by a person with a considerable vocabulary and a large store of literary references, I am still not settled on a category.

Clearly, any bigot would be appalled after the first few pages and would find it extremely difficult not only to follow it, since it can't be followed in the normal manner, and with subject matter that will appear on almost every page to be profane, vulgar, sexual, and in most others manners extremely upsetting to bigotry.  There is something in it for all bigots to be pissed about.  It is as if it were met specifically to annoy and will certainly be banned even though there is not one  representation of actual coitus.

I see that several references call the work "postmodern".  Most references I see of it online consider it a positive treatment of something or other such as "Every sentence is a stand alone short story . . ." or "a bunch of weird stream of consciousness shorts that don't quite go together . . . ".  I don't see much positive in the book, but am willing to give it a chance to be banned or burned with the best of them. 

The book is incoherent and appears to be purposely so.  It is a Jackson Pollock painting.  It has no flow, nothing linear.  It is a complication of references and events with no connection.  Simply by having a sentence containing his cousin the gastroenterologist here and there throughout the book does not render it coherent; it has no sense of a story or stories or snippets of personality; it is simply a jumble of random thoughts and references most of which may reflect the postmodern human being (at least to the mind of our author).  Most bigots want coherence and words they understand.  They will get neither from MY COUSIN, MY GASTROENTROLOGIST.  

The book will be banned and burned on two bases:  one it has language unacceptable to bigots and two, it is beyond their comprehension.  When a work is not understood, bigotry is at its finest.  We don't understand it, ergo ban it and burn it.  Be done with it and do not allow our children access to something that actually takes work and effort to understand; life's too short for that sort of thing.

This series of Books for Bigots has an inherent contradiction:  They are books that bigots ought to read and they are books that will  be banned and burned by any serious bigot.  As with many things in life, a significant contradiction exists between what should be done with the book and what will be done with the book.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

 

Let's 3-D Them

 LET'S 3-D PRINT THEM

As a follow-up to Guns for Third Graders, having introduced an idea with obvious value, a suggestion to alleviate some of the cost of the new emphasis on being able to shoot people while in school, it would seem the ideal solution is to introduce the 3-D firearm production to high school shop classes.  I remember my shop class in high school although I will not disclose the project that I was required to display in the high school gym.

As an aside only, our shop class, in toto, was required to go to the principal's office for disciplinary purposes - twice. It was quite a room full of would-be scholars and we were severely reprimanded as a group for untoward behavior not only concerning our shop class projects but for our lack of respect for the shop teacher.

But back to guns for third graders.  The cost of providing firearms schools wide, if falling on parents, could be a special burden not willingly undertaken by those of modest income.  So, rather than making stupid stuff in shop class, shop was required in my high school and most of us did not want to be there as was apparent by the occurrence of visits to the principal's office, the kids will learn how to make guns.

After all, the money for materials and the machinery necessary to concoct whatever is being concocted in shop class, is already available.  So the limited resources available to the school will not be stretched any further than already stretched.  And politically, we know that our current state administration and legislature would support the idea of a  "Shop of Guns".

"Shop for Guns".  It is a catchy little phrase that would quickly catch on.  It could even become a mantra for the new effort to arm our student bodies with firearms making it very dangerous indeed for a potential mass shooter to enter the doors of the school building with the intent of committing mayhem and otherwise being disagreeable.  So folks, let's give this idea some serious consideration and possibly get some legislative proposals prepared for the next legislative session.

Richard E. H Phelps II

Mingo

Guns for Third Graders

 GUNS FOR THIRD GRADERS

Having been apprised that children at the third grade level in this country have reached a level of maturity not seen previously in their young lives, it is time to consider firearm training for third graders.  Rather than spending time running up and down the gym floor chasing a ball or playing tag on the school grounds, target practice and the mechanics of firing a pistol should be implemented throughout the country.

After all, we come up with new criteria for educating the next generation of Americans quite regularly, so one more amendment to the complex statutory authority of childhood education should not be difficult to implement.  And the only cost to the school would be to construct indoor shooting ranges on school grounds - - just a big box with targets and chairs is all we would need.

The cost though, that must be considered, is the cost of the firearms and the ammo.  Obviously, the ammo will be the biggest expenditure; the firearms would be a one time cost to the parental units.  Recess would be for target practice.  We should consider the purchase of firearms and ammo the same as school lunches; for those who cannot afford the gun and the bullets, they would have to be provided by the school district in question.  The firearm itself would remain with the child through graduation.

Storage is another issue.  Unfortunately, we have somewhat got away from providing desks for each student with space to store things.  It really wouldn't be very effective if the kids had to keep their guns in their lockers; they wouldn't be available if, of a sudden, they needed to shoot someone.  For older students, say highschool or middle, they should rather be required to have them in a holster during the school day always at the ready - - or at least in their backpacks next to their desks.

I see three necessary elements of providing third graders and up with firearms then:  a firing range, the mindset to shoot fellow humans (when necessary of course), and ample and accessible availability for both the gun and the ammo.  Obviously, a loaded firearm should be as necessary to possess as the other school supplies required of a student.

The main issue with giving each student a loaded firearm is to insure that they only shoot people who require shooting.  This, of course, will be one element of the firearm training for these students.  We all know a third grader and older children can get picked on by classmates or otherwise traumatized; and, then we have teachers who can be rather unpleasant.   We really don't want any unnecessary gunfights in the classroom where not only other students get shot but an occasional teacher (they'll have guns too).  This would really destroy the whole purpose of guns in schools now wouldn't it?

But on the whole, the benefits obviously outweigh the costs of an occasional dead or wounded student or teacher. Such occurrences should not deter us from implementing such a policy throughout the country. Parents will sleep much better knowing that everyone at school is fully armed and trained to kill.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

The Gene Pool

 THE GENE POOL

Being a criminal defense attorney, I am somewhat familiar with the gene pool in this country and there are days when I'm not so sure about it - - its quality I mean.  Hence, after some consideration and being aware of the hue and cry over immigration, I have a solution to both the issue of immigration and that of  the  deterioration in the country's gene pool.

My suggestion is quite simple, and possibly a comprehensive solution to both issues.  For every person who crosses the border illegally from whatever country of origin, we give that country one of ours.  For instance, a person from Mexico crossing illegally, we in turn would grab some American citizen, presumably one that is in jail for some misdemeanor and  give him or her a passport and a handfull of pesos and put them on a plane for Mexico City. C'est la vie!

I realize there may be objections to this procedure, but  with an act of Congress we could get it done.  Any family who traipes hundreds of miles on foot to get to America has some hutzpah.  It seems to me that these people might just be an asset to our society and give our country's gene pool a boost in the process.  Now, I know that there are some here who think these people coming into our country are criminals; and they are because we have defined them as such.  After all, crime and criminal are simply  matters of definition. Our legislature is making new crimes and criminals every legislative session.  Being a criminal is really no big deal here in this country.  I would be willing to bet you commit a crime driving to work every morning and if not then, driving home. We're all criminals so let's get over it already.

This horror that the country is being flooded with criminals will subside. Just pass some laws saying they are no longer criminals; that takes care of this imaginary problem that everyone is so worked up about.  And from my observations, these people do work, contrary to many of my clientele regardless of the cause; whether lack of intelligence, mental illness, or substance abuse. 

This idea sounds reasonable to me; not much different than trading baseball players before the deadline.  After your initial reaction to this proposal, reconsider and give it some thought.  It is a pretty radical idea, but one that might have some general acceptance with the right public interest campaign.  Maybe even something a major political party could pick up as an issue to mobilize the public around.  It just might get some votes.  This clamor for a resolution to the "border crisis" is then silenced and we can get back to some more rational issue such as guns in schools or some such thing.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Worst Person Ever

 WORST PERSON EVER

Definitely a candidate for banning the annals of Books for Bigots.  Brad Zaun would be pleased to be able to list this novel among those prohibited from all schools, libraries, and any other depository of learning.  Douglas Coupland in Worst Person Ever, A Novel, has truly given us a man, Raymond Gunt, a person to avoid.  Mr. Gunt is, as some would describe, disgusting, which according to Senator Zaun, is the criteria for determining whether a work of fiction, or any other work for that matter, is to be allowed into our libraries for the possible perusal by our younger and undeveloped minds.

I personally found Mr. Gunt disagreeable to an extent that although not unparalleled in the history of literature, ranking right up there in fictional characters I wouldn't want to hang with.  Unfortunately for the Senator, all works of fiction, including this one, usually have some idea of what they want to portray to their readers and often it is, in fact, a sense of disgust and dismay that the world could possibly include such disagreeable people.  One must point out, again, some books are not for the purpose of simply portraying agreeable people but to give us a perspective on just how disagreeable people can be and then to avoid, if possible.

What our good Senator does not understand, since he obviously does not read books and is therefore unfamiliar with their purpose, is to provide perspective where none currently exists.  In this particular book, our author, Mr. Coupland is giving us a really good example of obnoxiousness, along with, I might add, an insight into reality TV.

I would suggest that Senator Zaun read this book and then ban it.  He will not only be acquainted with a superbly disgusting human being, but a view of reality TV, which presumably, the Senator watches.  The good Senator may not be aware of the criteria for choosing participants to camp out in the jungle or wherever the filming may occur.  The criteria will not meet with the Senator's approval and he will be appalled at the treatment given by the author of the selection process.  

As with all novels, American novels (Canadian actually)  especially, that portray Americans, it would do the Senator some good to have some understanding of the people who may reside in his district so that he could deliver the proper tone.  Although Mr. Gunt is British and therefore, possibly to Mr. Zaun, more obnoxious inherently than the average American, this novel is bona fide since most of the supporting cast are American and show Americans as some really fine specimens.  It would also give the Senator the opportunity to indicate his displeasure in a Canadian writing a novel about obnoxious Americans - - as if they know anything about Americans!

What may be beneficial, our good Senator could probably be able to increase his vocabulary considerably by reading this book.  I will presume, once again, that the Senator's vocabulary is strictly limited as a result of not reading  modern novels.  Mr. Gunt's vocabulary is highly amusing in places and could assist a person in vocalizing slurs, vilifications, and insults; hence could be a valuable resource for one such as the Senator when dealing with people of different opinion from his own.  He might even be able to refine his literary criteria of disgusting.

In conclusion, Worst Person Ever, a Novel is clearly a candidate for banning.  This, once again, is based on the understanding that Brad Zaun would not approve and clearly declare it not appropriate.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

No-Fault

 NO-FAULT

It has been reported that Vance, the Republican vice presidential candidate, has publicly declared no-fault divorce should be legislated out of existence; that the election of marriage, once established, should remain throughout a lifetime.  One presumes that this will require legislative action to reintroduce "cause" for the granting of a divorce.

We don't call it divorce any longer but "dissolution of marriage", and it can be done without legal counsel which many, including those of us in the legal profession, find disturbing. It was a significant loss of income for those of us who practice in the area of family law.

Having given up family law a number of years ago though, I do still care about others in the legal profession who practice in that area including in what use to be called "divorce" and consequently am in full support of getting rid of this pro se practice of dissolution of marriage and creating business opportunities for my legal brethren.

I do remember fondly the lurid details of divorce court where you had to prove your spouse unfaithful.   One could even sue the third party involved in the transgression and receive money damages.  It was called alienation of affection.  Boy, those were the days. Trials could take days with private investigators, neighbors, and snitches. It would not only be beneficial to the legal profession but the profession of private investigation as well. The money was great; it made good press and the whole town had something to talk and giggle about.

A good divorce lawyer could get a slough of disgruntled, married men and women with an unquenchable new love interest that had to be nurtured and allowed to bloom.  And where there is love, there is money to be made; let me tell you, especially where there are kids involved.  Nothing like a weeklong trial proving infidelity where there are kids.  Presumably the theory will be that it is in the best interest of the children to maintain the marriage even if the parents hate each other and both want the divorce. The kids might even get a chance to testify before the matter is decided; give them a chance to see how a courtroom operates - - an educational opportunity. 

So, even though it is strictly a matter of self-interest, I'll have to come down in support of any proposal Vance may make or otherwise promote that would bring back the contested divorce trial.  And as I stated above, it will be fun for everyone - - hey folks, guess who so-n'-so was doin'!  Isn't that a kill!

Richard E H Phelps

Mingo