July 27, 2011
Posted by on
Every so often I talk back to the book I’m reading. It’s fairly similar to the movie goer who calls out to the next victim in a zombie movie. Obviously that door doesn’t lead to safety! It’s where your zombified neighbor happens to be waiting patiently (if a bit peckish). Usually my outbursts come due to glaring mistakes. The misattributed quote, the obvious attempts to convey familiarity with a geographic location the author’s never visited, the horribly misspelled name, and the incredibly wrong date (particularly when it’s an easy date to look up) have all triggered a muttered outburst of “Turn back you fool!” (More accurately a simple “Wait…what? That’s not right!”)
Everybody makes mistakes and I’m certainly no exception. This means that I hold myself to a high standard when it comes to my own work. In fact, when I do mess up I tend to feel like the zombie victim: not only am I embarrassed to be caught in the gnashing embrace of Fred T. Zombie, but I’m mortified to realize that the audience was probably rooting for the zombie since I was being dumb.
This is all a long way of getting to the real reason for my post. Today’s infraction was of the wrong date variety regarding the song “I Dreamed I Saw Joe Hill Last Night.” I’m sure the zombie victim in question considered it a throwaway comment. The song was originally written by Alfred Hayes in 1925 and turned into a song by Earl Robinson in 1936. It was not performed, as the author erroneously asserts, at Hill’s funeral in 1915. It is more romantic to think that it was 1915 though. Admittedly, the book I found it in is not likely to be the first, second, or to be honest, eighteenth source anyone wanting to find out about the song would ever look up. I may have declared vigorously that the author was wrong and went straight to some books and the internet to prove it to myself, but it certainly doesn’t count as a serious infraction.
Whatever the case, I’m grateful for the mistake in the end. Besides fodder for a post here it also prompted me to listen to the song again and gain a new appreciation for the numerous versions there are of it online.
Joan Baez at Woodstock
Pete Seeger’s banjo and accompanying singers are particularly powerful given the focus of solidarity in the song. I’m also fond of the way Seeger’s version picks up tempo in the middle.
Paul Robeson’s performance of the song is in some ways my favorite. Robeson’s voice is simply incredible and I have to say that I prefer the subdued piano accompaniment here. It seems more fitting for the mournful visit from a ghost.
July 8, 2011
Posted by on
Well, I certainly didn’t. I’m quite interested in the collection Fantagraphics is putting out later this year though. Via the Onion A/V Club.
May 26, 2008
Posted by on
Jonathan Gottschall on why us literary scholars need to be more like scientists. I’m interested in thoughts on this. One of us is doing a horrible misreading.
Is an adoption of scientific positivism honestly what we should be going for? Given the kinds of debates that revolve around science in this nation you’d think it be easier to see the sorts of problems that revolve around the increasing volatile debate on everything from global warming to evolution. Science does not automatically equate into the betterment of mankind without the sorts of interpretations that we actually do for a living taking place as a middleman. A positive point of view isn’t fixing the environment and it isn’t doing enough to slow us down from continuing to screw it up. I figure that I’m on the same side of the debate as Gottschall in regards to science too. What I’m pointing at has more to do with how naive it is to assume that doing statistics and psychology automatically makes us mighty. Not that we shouldn’t use them. We just shouldn’t act like it’s the end all be all.
Gottschall declares that the profession is willfully blind to the inadequacies of theory. It feels as though he is blind to the inadequacies of science and the profession. Not to mention history, which is itself lacking in the scientific department but makes up a big portion of what we do. Studying this stuff alone requires that we take into account those inadequacies. Hell, I thought that’s what post-structuralism was about. Rather than making broad unsupportable claims we account for the multiplicity of possible readings. In short, we declare the inability or our theories to account for life the universe and everything.
Besides, I don’t see the problem. There’s bad criticism out there and there’s criticism that’s doing the same sorts of things that Gottschall is talking about. Not limited to a number of projects I’ve seen happening at our very own U of O.
Wait. I just wasted fifteen minutes on this. There’s the problem.