orangiah: (O is for [orange])
I tell myself I don't write as much as I used to anymore, which is probably true, but I guess my 3000+ word chapter summaries and impressions I've been trying to log for each book I read are better than nothing, so for lack of any other content lately I guess I'll copy-paste a few excerpts from my Calibre comments over here. I'd call these more personal "reactions" than "reviews," really, so they might not be too coherent without having read the source work.

The Orthodox Heretic: And Other Impossible Tales by Peter Rollins
A collection of short "parables" by Peter Rollins that question the nature of Christian faith.
I first read this collection back when I was struggling with my faith, and despite ultimately deciding to leave it, I still remember the powerful impression these stories left on me. Even now, from a largely atheistic perspective, I still find them compelling. They call to the type of Christian I would want to be and the radical nature of faith that strikes me as closest to truth. But perhaps it is no surprise, then, that I extracted the more humanist elements from it (Finding Faith) and left the trappings behind. Even so, there is something in here that still resonates with me―not just in the call to radical grace, but also in the overwhelming yearning for Christ himself, not for the sake of a promised reward but for his own sake (Being the Resurrection; The Last Trial). I remember crying the first time I read Mansions. Descriptions of the splendor of Heaven have never particularly appealed to me. But to live simply, with Jesus, in love, for eternity―I almost yearn for a return to faith, just to hold that image.

A few of these hit me in a more romantic way―I suppose parallels have often been drawn between Christ and his bride, seeing Christ as a lover, but since that doesn't really apply to me anymore I can fully project all mention of the unknowability of the infinite interior world of our beloved onto a human being instead (Awaiting the Messiah).

Darwin Comes to Town: How the Urban Jungle Drives Evolution by Menno Schilthuizen
Evolutionary biologist Menno Schilthuizen provides an overview of how wildlife has adapted to urban environments.
I've been wanting to read more on urban biodiversity ever since hearing about Unseen City on NPR, but I ended up buying this book first since I saw it on sale. I love the city and have often been frustrated by characterizations of it as opposite to nature, when in fact cities are a powerful part and force of nature itself, so I really appreciated Schilthuizen's appreciation for the adaptability of nature while still allowing for some sadness at what has been lost in exchange. The examples provided in each chapter are fascinating and the tone is breezy and conversational, and I'm curious to read more as the field of urban ecology continues to develop.

House of Leaves by Mark Z. Danielewski
Johnny Truant pieces together scraps of an essay on a documentary film about a mysterious house that is larger on the inside than on the outside.
I've had this in my mind as one of my favorite books ever since reading it in high school, but I didn't remember the actual details of it so I was excited to read it again! In the end I found myself skimming through most of Johnny's segments and overall uninterested in his storyline, but The Navidson Record itself more than makes up for it all. I wonder if it's partly because I'm used to reading academic prose, or even just that I've been more in the mood for non-fiction lately―even the drier parts of Zampanò's analyses were more interesting than Johnny's rambling imagery, however poetic and evocative that rambling was when I did try to read it in earnest. I think it succeeds in conveying precisely the haunting atmosphere I've been searching for in horror films (now that I think about it, maybe I find written horror overall more convincing than cinematic horror).

The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis
An allegorical tale about a bus ride from Hell to Heaven.
I have trouble reading such moralizing composed of exaggerated strawmen. Not that such people don't exist, and perhaps not even that I am immune to such fallacies, but it's hard to shake the feeling of condescension and superiority in depicting other people's flaws so shallowly. Then again, I've always felt uncomfortable deigning to place judgment on others. I think my main objection is that Lewis never convincingly explains how a Christian belief is necessary to avoid such pitfalls of sin―is it so impossible for one to enjoy a process more than a result, or to hold controversial views with genuine conviction, or to achieve an atheistic understanding of truly selfless love? That said, I found the imagery of Heaven as being so "real" that the Ghosts could not affect it fascinating, and although I remain unconvinced of its exclusivity or existence, descriptions of the glory and joy of Heaven always move me powerfully.

China in Ten Words by Yu Hua, translated by Allan H. Barr
An autobiographical collection of essays on Chinese society during and since the Cultural Revolution.
I realized while reading this book that I know shamefully little about Chinese history, but I was pleasantly surprised at how accessible it was, even to me. Yu writes with a simplistic poignancy―he self-deprecatingly attributes this to a lack of vocabulary, but I think his matter-of-factness about his experiences lends even more weight to his analyses about contemporary society. China itself remains a distant mystery to me, and I often find myself unwittingly carrying over some of the resentment from Hong Kong and Taiwan―which is all the more reason why I think it's important for me to try to understand it and its people better.
orangiah: (G is for [green])
I have nothing new to say
to you, that has not been whispered
in countless histories,
ancestors to another
millennia of adorations,
children mocking the
palest smoke of lineage.

But all I say is for the first time―
I have never whispered these words
so tenderly to another,
neither has the universe
 (that is you)
ever heard them.

You do not want to leave anything behind in this world,

but you leave me.

I’m sorry you can no longer disappear so kindly.
orangiah: (B is for [blue])
今日もツイッターで呟いたんだけど、昔、友達が言ってた言葉を思い出す。

「みんなはきっと、自分の理想に届かないままで生きている」って

自分は確かにそうだけど、自分のことしか知らないから、その理想と現実のギャップをいつも意識して自分を責める。もっと良い人になりたい。もっとしっかりした人になりたい。何が怖いんだ。何が悲しいんだ。友達を助けたい。誰も傷つけたくない。

でも、毎日接している人たちはみんな、不完全の自分として世界で存在している。そう考えると、みんなへ、人類への気持ちがなんだか、すごく暖かく感じる。何が正しいのか、今何をするべきなのかは分からない。でも、世界の何億人の中でそれを知ってる人はいないんだ。

この言葉をくれた友達は、知っている人の中で多分一番心が優しい人だと思う。すごく尊敬している友人だ。あの人も、どんな理想してるのかな。

最近、メアリー・オリバーさんの「ワイルド・ギース(訳:野鳥の雁)」という詩が頭に流れている。日本語で調べてみたらいくつか和訳があるらしいんだけど、どっちが一番良いのかは決められなくて……多分、全部読んでそれらの印象を混ぜたら、なんだか原文に近づけるようになれるでしょう。

とりあえず、決められないから和訳を二首も載せちゃおう……どっちの方が良いと思う?

( Read more... )
orangiah: (B is for [black])
普段音楽を聴いている時は歌詞に注目せずメロディ中心に聴いている方だけど(特に日本語での歌詞は集中力が必要💦)今日はたまたま最近流れている曲の歌詞をちゃんと聴いてみたらすごく心にグッと来た歌詞で一日中少し憂鬱になってしまった…

正直、まだ色々で自分が大人って認識がない。まあ、それは今の歳でそんなに珍しくないとは思うけど、ただ、人生の経験が周りの人とは違う気がする。少ないというか多いというか、ただただ色々違って、共通感がなくて、時々人に対しての言動や感情が子供っぽいって言われる。(何が子供っぽいって聞いてもまだよく分からない👶)

でも、この歌詞をもし3年前に聴いてたら、きっとこんなに心に響かなかったと思う。これって成長したってこと?だとしたら元の方が好きだった🤔
orangiah: (P is for [purple])
今日は『The Last Days of Ptolemy Grey (訳:トレミー・グレーの最後の日々)』を読了しました!

残念ながらまだ和訳されていないようですが、自分で軽いあらすじを書いてみます。まあ、本の感想はともかく、日本語であらすじを書くだけで十分練習になると思うので……😂
主人公は認知症にかかってる91歳の黒人おじいさん、トレミー・グレー。記憶力が衰えてきて、何が何だか分からなくなってて、形見やゴミが酷く溜め込んでるアパートで一人暮らししている。けど、認知症の初期なので自分の状態をまだ自覚していてかなり痛ましい……

曾姪孫のレジーが日頃の世話をしていたけど、ある日、レジーが謎の犯人に銃殺された。レジーの通夜で、ロビンという17歳の女性に出会い、ロビンが新しくお世話係になる。

それから、レジーが殺された前に頼んだソーシャルワーカーが、ロビンと一緒にトレミーを医者に連れて行く。その医者は、記憶スペシャリストで、トレミーに試験薬を投与したいと持ち掛ける。認知症を治して、記憶力を回復させる薬だけど、代わりに余命を数週間に縮める。

そして、トレミーは承知し、残りの人生で回復した知的能力を使って色々処理して、過去の約束を果たして、レジーを殺した犯人を探す……
著者のウォルター・モーズリイさんは、主にハードボイルドな探偵小説シリーズで知られているようで、この作品も一応ミステリーに分類されているが、ミステリーよりも、老化の悔しさ、トレミーの思い出深い人生、トレミーとロビンの絆に主眼を置きました。ずっとトレミーの視点なので、特に薬を取った前の本の前半は、漠然とした思考の渦で世界から浮いてる気がしました。自分のおじいさんも認知症だったので読む途中で時々おじいさんのことを思い出しました……
orangiah: (R is for [red])
Had a good talk with a friend yesterday about "queer" as an umbrella term and I want to jot down my thoughts, although I still haven't reached a conclusion and I'm still not sure what a good solution is.

It seems like the main point of contention around the whole "queer is a slur" issue is whether or not "queer" is acceptable to use as an umbrella term for all non-cishet people―individuals can choose to reclaim it for themselves, or reject it for themselves, but nobody should be coercively labeling people against their will.

My two main issues with this:

There is no perfect alternative. Every term has been used as a slur. Every term has ideological problems. Different terms have different applications. While I can say queer community and just follow it up with "if you don't consider yourself part of the queer community then I'm not talking to you," it gets complicated when using "queer" to actually discuss, you know, what it's like to be queer.

Personally, I hate that "gay" has in many circles become the replacement umbrella term, because it's… literally not one. I'm not gay, by definition. Sure, I may sometimes join my friends in playfully screaming "IM GAY" on Twitter, because it's fun and catchy and I like screaming and I pick up slang trends really easily, but at the end of the day, I'm not gay. I'm trans and pan and queer and I take issue with those identities being erased.

On top of that, I personally have had much more experience with "gay" being used as a slur than "queer." I realize this may not be everyone's experience, but I know for sure that I'm not the only one with this experience. "Gay" itself is a reclaimed slur with its own history of hurt.

Then what about LGBT? Aside from the fact that LGBTQ+ is just clunky and awkward and not as catchy, it also erases identities that don't fit within its letters, which is why you end up getting the alphabet soup that is LGBTQIA+ (which I not only also have bad associations with, of people mockingly saying LGBTQIAPKEDMWTFBBQ and so on, but is also ridiculously clunkier and I do think that it's sociolinguistically important to have a label that is easy to say).

In a way it brings up the issue of who, at the end of the day, gets to define terms. I actually disliked "bisexual" for a while, because I did associate it with only acknowledging and being attracted to two binary genders. But now the general consensus among the bi community seems to be that bisexuality refers to being attracted to "same" and "other" genders, as opposed to "male" and "female." And I still feel uncomfortable labeling myself as bi most of the time because of my associations with the word. But if someone called me bi I guess they wouldn't technically be wrong, even though I generally won't use it as a label for myself.

"Queer" is the only word I've found that I can feel fully recognized and safe in. My experience with it is so formative and positive, admittedly, that I do sometimes feel defensive when I see posts on Twitter/Tumblr that feel like they are trying to take that away from me, even though the things that I've gotten from that word have also taken away just as much from other people. It's hard, if not impossible, to find and spread a word that works for everyone, because any word we find will be used as a slur at some point. And I think this speaks to the diversity of experience within the community, which is important to recognize, and I don't particularly care for arguments dismissing all people uncomfortable with being labeled queer as TERFs, or too young to know their own history.

That said, queer is valuable to me specifically as a community identifier.

I used to really dislike the term "person of color." I didn't like the term and I didn't like people labeling me with it and it got to a point where I would even avoid community events solely based on the name. But at the same time, it's very much a community/umbrella identity―that's the whole concept behind it and how it was coined―so it was difficult to tell people that they couldn't use it as one even if I personally didn't identify with it. Ultimately I accepted that the term was used as an umbrella term for non-white people to refer to shared experiences of systemic racism, but it was also a term of political solidarity that individual people might choose not to identify with. (And I've gotten a bit more comfortable with it since then, after contextualizing it more within a US/western-centric political identity rather than a global racial identity, but that's a different discussion.)

So I guess when I say queer I mean it in a similar context, in that individual people can choose not to identify with it, but I use it to refer to a community bound by experiences that those people might also share and also sometimes use it as an adjective to refer to those experiences. Because that's what it was coined for―not as an individual identity, but as a way of speaking to broader experiences of marginalization.

But I don't know if this is a satisfactory answer―if I refer to a big nebulous group of people with a label, I am also by extension referring to each individual within that group with the same label. The problem in this case is that sometimes that means labeling people against their will. And I wish we had a word that worked for everyone. I wish we could unite as a community without so much intracommunity discord and without so much hurt. I find that there's a lot of bitterness and anger in the "can queer be used as an umbrella term"/"is queer a slur" debate, on both sides―because it hurts, to feel like people are intentionally ignoring your request to not call you something because of the trauma it digs up. But it also hurts to have something that gave you so much strength and safety and belonging after a lifetime of struggling with self-hatred, and then suddenly be told that it's bad and you can't use it anymore.
orangiah: (P is for [purple])
Alright. Let's start with life, then.

I've been packing slowly. Moving house. Boxes of candy tins, wrappers still smelling of ten-year-old artificial fruit; children's books on Greek mythology, thoroughly read, falling apart at the seams; a giant red frog, one of a pair, that Ismet and I bought at Rite Aid the day after Valentine's Day. I never used to think of myself as a particularly sentimental person, but the degree of absolutely completely not true that is has been getting clearer with each year, with every new goodbye. My dad tells me I've always been this way. On the last day of nursery school, he tells me, I was the only one who cried―who felt what it meant to say goodbye, he says. I don't care to think of myself as so precocious. But maybe I do have some trouble letting go.

"Does this bring you joy?"

Adele and Aileen came up to visit last month, to get a glimpse of my room (and my kitchen!!!) before I move to Queens―to a smaller room (and a smaller kitchen). Adele tells me I have a lot of shit. Marie Kondo would have a field day. Of course my dancing rabbit baseball cap brings me joy!! It brings me so much joy!! Of course my giant peelable banana plush brings me joy!! SO MUCH JOY!!!

"Would you have less joy without it?"
orangiah: (Default)
I've been saying for years now that I'd like to return to long-form journaling. In the death throes of my old LiveJournal I would return once every half-year or so to write, "Hello everyone, I miss long-form journaling and I would like to get back into it," then disappear again before coming back a few months later. Rinse and repeat. It was so much easier before, and I wonder if it was because my thoughts were less complex; my emotions less inhibited―or if it was just that I had both the habit and the community, and now I have neither.

It's not that I haven't been journaling at all―I'm nearing the fifth anniversary of my daily log, and I still send myself rambling emails on occasion―but it's nice to have the catharsis of something that feels a bit more like a public venue, even if (for now) nobody is actually here to read it. Tumblr doesn't function too well for that―it's difficult to be completely open since there's no way to control for privacy (my old LJ was 98% public, yeah, but I did still lock down posts once in a while when I wanted to talk about more personal things or things that directly involved other people), and since it's primarily meant to be a media aggregate microblogging platform that I primarily use to share art, getting too real makes me feel… What, apologetic? Intrusive? Vulnerable?

Maybe this is just another iteration of my need to compartmentalize every thought; run away to a clean slate; hide everything in layers and labyrinths so that I can continue claiming to be open but only if you know where to look. Or maybe I just want to write again. I don't know! I am disgustingly introspective and I need somewhere to dump it!! To be honest, I actually hate being so introspective. I'd prefer not to think so deeply. But at the same time I don't think I'm nearly as deep as I try to dig, so my attempts to articulate myself often feel so contrived. What did I use to write about? My life? WHAT LIFE

Custom Text

Personal blog; something of an attempt at returning to long-form journaling. If you know me from somewhere and want to add me feel free!