LEEDS United video

I'm a hardcore fan of Amanda Palmer. If you haven't heard of her, she's the lead singer of The Dresden Dolls who recently released her own album (note, the Dresden Dolls aren't over necessarily, just on a much needed break). Her CD, "Who Killed Amanda Palmer?" was produced by Ben Folds and put out by Roadrunner Records. A lot about this album is similar to your typical Dresden Dolls CD (self-titled, "Yes, Virginia," and "No, Virginia."). The theme of Cabaret-Punk still seems to be in-tact. However, Amanda's album proves to be much more personal, much more intense, and much more theatrical. She's on tour in the U.S. now, just recently returning from Europe with a lot of adrenaline.

Her performances are the highlight of my life (or, my music-life anyway). They are circus-like, loud, flashy, and equivalent to an ear-orgasm. I am planning on attending her show on Dec. 2nd in Detroit. Check out her Myspace Page for tour dates.
She has also been making multiple music videos for each song on the album. She has a page on YouTube devoted to them. She hangs around for hours after shows, signing fan's t-shirts (sometimes with a bleach pen...if you ask), boobs, faces, etc. She also updates her blog religiously. Needless to say that she is dedicated to her fans. I'm pretty sure she'd die for them, and most of them would undoubtedly do so for her. Most of those traveling with her, especially the Danger Ensemble who puts on most of the theatrics at the shows, are paid through donations and merch. So, if you do go to a show, bring some cash with you to show your gratitude.

She posted her video for the song, "LEEDS United," just the other day.



Roadrunner Records wanted to edit the video, stating that she looked fat. Her fans are pretty pissed about the comment, as you can imagine. Her persona and her message as a musician go against this type of censorship, so she literally made them keep the video as is. It was a good decision, in my opinion. Amanda is quite thin, and has no qualms with how she looks in the video - something which is a breath of fresh air in her industry.

Silly, silly Roadrunner jerks.

Can we say, "Depression," yet?

For those of you who are wondering why I have so much time on my hands, it's because Michigan is in an economic melt-down. Everyone here is either unemployed or worried about unemployment. General Motors is going bankrupt, which means that my grandfather is doomed to no health insurance. I'm beginning to wonder if Michigan is going to look like a Cormac McCarthy novel.




















That's really the mental image that's been in my head for the past month. Just take out the car, and we're in business. Or, out of business to be more frank. Now we just need some whacko to blow up a temp agency or a job-hunting office and everyone will be dead...or fifty percent of us anyway.

I saw a billboard yesterday (yes, we still use billboards here) for a walk-in clinic. It read, "Got the flu? S'not a problem!" and almost started crying. I'm in the twilight zone. My first thought was, "That advertising agency should really hire me." And then I remembered that it probably was done by the Clinic. No one here believes in Ad Agencies. Is the Clinic hiring? No, they closed down last week.

Couldn't have said it better myself...

Here is a video my friend, Rajeev, and his sister, Manju posted on Facebook. I did as well, but I figure reinforcement never hurt anyone. It's on Prop 8. I realize everyone is a bit tired of hearing about it, but it really is quite important. Point blank - everyone deserves equal rights.

I am...not...Humbert Humbert...

.ReviewTime.

(Lolita By Vladimir Nabokov)

Nabovok’s Lolita presents an excellent character study for writers. Mr. Humbert is an utterly despicable character to someone who has never read the novel. He’s a pedophile, a rapist, and just kind of pathetic. To someone who has read the book (specifically someone who has just recently read it), however, Humbert Humbert is a likeable man. His character makes for an exasperating predicament; the reader is disgusted with Humbert at times, but is oddly enough willing to overlook his sexual interactions with twelve year-old Dolores Haze. The novel is thought, by writer for Vanity Fair, to be one of the most compelling love stories of its century. Now, if Lolita is the most convincing and honest love stories of 1900’s (and let’s note that the article was written before that century was over and is strictly based on one person’s opinion), then I’m a bit confused. I’d have to ask, “What does love actually mean to us?”

The problem with this question is the word, “us.” I’m referring to everyone who is not a pedophile, and let us not forget that individuals with this fetish are human beings as well (Nabokov certainly didn’t). What the author presents to us is not a “fetish” as we would like it to be, and not even a preference. Humbert does not choose to lust over adolescent women, in fact he tries avoid his feelings for them. Pedophelia is in his genetic makeup; it is unavoidable. The way we see Humbert is quite similar to how we might see the protagonist in E.M. Forster’s Maurice, or any gay character in modern literature. Just as Maurice cannot avoid his feelings for males no matter how hard he attempts to suppress them, Humbert is unable to discontinue his attraction to young girls. Likewise, “we” believe that lesbian women only have sexual preference for other women, and, finally, bi-sexuals for both sexes. In an odd way, Humbert’s inclination makes sense to the reader who does not want to see themself as a pervert, but is trying to understand the perversion in their own language. The reader thinks to his/herself, “I suppose I only have sexual preference for people in my acceptable age group, so this is plausible.” It is another case of the “norm” attempting to define “deviance.” This was my train of thought as I was reading the novel; I could relate to him because I was not like him, but have my own inclinations toward women and older men so perhaps…perhaps Humbert is normal?

In reality, he is not. In reality, Humbert Humbert possibly caused the character Lolita a great deal of childhood trauma. Her mother passed away early on in the novel and she was left with a man who seduced her, kidnapped her, and was overwhelmingly abusive psychologically, physically and sexually. She was married and with child by age seventeen. This is the horror that underlies the novel throughout. It is because we believe Humbert cannot change his love for this “nymphet” that it is somehow acceptable, but Nabokov is honest and allows us awareness of the character’s actions. I would venture to say that Lolita is such a “compelling” love story because of its inherent perversity. Without the underlying uneasiness that the reader feels, the novel would be similar to Madame Bovary; I would be nauseated with the flowery language. Apologies to those who like Madame Bovary, but I hate the novel. The only thing redeeming, and actually satisfying about it, is the end. I was (sadistically) elated when Bovary repeatedly vomited after taking arsenic. Afterward I was thinking, “YES! DEATH TO ROMATICISM!”

And, in this way, Lolita is actually quite similar in more ways than its language. Nabokov, in a sense, murders romanticism or at least the image we might have for an average romantic relationship. The main difference is that Flaubert tortures us through the entire book until the end, which is the only passage I can bare to read. Nabovok, so to speak, vomits all over us throughout the book, so that we don’t have to wait until the very end to be satisfied. By allowing us to be horrified and in love at the same time, we don’t tire of Humbert’s obnoxious poetry and ramblings. As odd as it may sound, this combination is what does make a real love story. Sorry Flaubert, you were not as crafty as a Vladimir. Perhaps you should have worked on it. What Nabokov understood is that most of us fail at love. Until we find any kind of solid partner, there is that underlying horror that our relationships will end. That sentiment of doom, perhaps, is what Vanity Fair was referring to.