July 7, 2025

 

Today we pour some out for Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the creator of the legendary detective Sherlock Holmes, who passed away on July 7, 1930 at the age of 71.  His death marked the end of a prolific career that not only gave us one of the most iconic literary characters but also contributed significantly to the detective fiction genre.  Doyle’s last words, spoken to his wife, were reportedly, “You are wonderful.”

There’s something unreasonably grand about the way Sir Arthur Conan Doyle shuffled off this mortal coil.  Those final words – “You are wonderful,” whispered to his wife – are hardly the stuff of mundane, fading-out inertia.  They leave you imagining some kind of Victorian fireworks display framing his departure, ornate letters spelling out his bow in curling smoke.  It’s almost too perfect.  Too wrapped in velvet and dipped in sepia-toned drama to feel real.  But what could be more fitting for the man who, through some strange alchemy of character engineering and narrative bravado, birthed Sherlock Holmes, a figure so steadfast in the collective imagination he might as well be carved into Mount Rushmore next to the guy with the top hat?

As mentioned above, the man died on July 7, 1930, at the age of 71, presumably exhausted from a career spent revolutionizing detective while moonlighting as history’s most confounding paradox.  Here’s a guy who gave the world Sherlock Holmes – deductive reasoning incarnate – only to spend a solid chunk of his later years chasing ghosts, spouting spiritualist woo-woo, and attempting, with alarming sincerity, to convince the public that fairies were real.  Real fairies.  With wings and everything.  It’s the kind of creative dissonance that makes you wonder if genius simply always comes with a side order of lunacy.  A complex combo meal for the mind.

But Doyle’s death was like turning off a spotlight, leaving the stage dark while the velvet curtains swayed and creaked in some unseen draft.  No encore, no standing ovation.  Except, of course, that we’re still clapping.  We’re clapping every time someone reaches for The Hound of the Baskervilles on a crowded airport bookshelf or binge-watches the latest adaptation of a Holmes story that Doyle himself probably would’ve rolled his eyes at.  And for what it’s worth, the adaptations do keep coming.  Hundreds of them.  The character has been dissected, reset, gender-swapped, modernized, de-modernized, and even turned into a vaguely anthropomorphic mouse detective – none of which has diminished his relevance.  Even when Holmes appears as a snarky sociopath who plays the violin like he’s trying to strangle Mozart’s ghost, he remains weirdly eternal.

It’s a hell of a legacy for a guy who, by all accounts, got bored of the character halfway through writing him.  There’s an irony there, dear reader, is there not?  Doyle’s genius wasn’t in his ability to adore Holmes, but in his ability to construct him so well that the rest of us can’t stop adoring him for him.  It’s like building a ship you hate, only to realize it’s the sturdiest thing afloat, indestructible even when it’s battered around by the gales of pop culture.  Doyle himself tried to sink it – drowning Holmes in the icy chasm of Reichenbach Falls.  But good luck holding down something that millions of readers are collectively begging to resurrect.  Like Lazarus in a deerstalker hat, Holmes returned, and, to Doyle’s resigned irritation, never left.

But Doyle’s contributions didn’t stop there.  At a time when the detective story was still flailing about in its infancy like a drunk looking for their keys, he took it by the scruff of its neck and told it to shape up.  The genre had existed before Doyle – Poe’s Dupin waddled so Holmes could strike with brisk efficiency – but Doyle sharpened it down to a fine point.  He gave detective fiction its rigor, its bit, and, most importantly, its enduring sense of clever possibility.  He’s the reason we can believe – against all evidence to the contrary – that any puzzle, no matter how tangled, can be solved with enough brainpower and an alarming tolerance for pipe smoke.

And yet, Doyle somehow managed to life his life as if entirely unconcerned by what he was doing to the literary world.  He wrote feverishly, yes, but his focus was broader, more scattered, like a flashlight with a weak battery.  He dabbled in just about everything -writing historical novels, dabbling in politics, obsessing over paranormal nonsense.  It’s almost as though he didn’t quite realize he was in the middle of creating a cultural giant.  Or maybe, in true contrarian fashion, he simply didn’t give a shit.

Now here we are, nearly a century after his death, still tangled in the web of his imagination, still arguing about which Sherlock actor captured the “true” Holmes, still swearing that we’d totally outwit Moriarty if given the chance.  Doyle may have stepped away from the stage, but the play – thank God for it – goes on, loud and puzzling and impossible to put down.  His legacy is a testament to the peculiar power of storytelling – something that can outlast even the stories’ creator.  If that’s not a kind of immortality, then I don’t know what is.

N.P.: “The Lunatics Have Taken Over the Asylum – Signals MIX” – Collide

Word of the Day: sciurine

 

Sciurine (adjective) – Pertaining to, characteristic of, or resembling squirrels.  Think bushy tails, frenetic energy, and the kind of manic focus that only a rodent with a nut-based retirement plan can muster.

From the Latin sciurus, meaning “squirrel,” which itself traces back to the Greek skiuoros (skia = shadow, oura = tail) because apparently ancient Greeks thought squirrels were just little guys who lived in the shade of their own tails.  Cute, right?  Also mildly existential.

I’m bummed out today, dear reader.  Bummed Out!  ::sigh::  Where should I start?
Whenever I kill something, I typically prefer for it to have been on purpose.  You know, with dark intention and malice aforethought.  ”Twas not always thus: in my late teens I used to kill just…er, never mind that for now.  That is probably best left for the book.  Suffice it to say, over the decades, I have developed a better appreciation for life and the right for non-Jayson things to exist than I used to have.  As a result, I am very careful to protect most critters in my world, so long as we are able to coexist.  Mostly meaning that as long as they stay out of my house, we’re good.  Faithful followers here have heard me talk with great affection about Bath Salts the squirrel, who, along with her adorable family, have a nest under the eaves of the Safe House.  There are multiple and surprisingly large lizards living in, on, and about my central AC unit.  I watch them climb up the walls, chasing the direct sunlight throughout the day.  I am down with the critters.  Which is why, dear reader, I’m so bummed today.

Earlier this morning, I was driving skillfully, even expertly through downtown Fecal Creek, obeying the posted speed limit and all relevant traffic laws, when an evidently suicidally depressed yet hyperactive and manic squirrel ran into the street in front of my car, which was going exactly 33mph, down an otherwise untrafficked road.  Had the squirrel simply maintained his speed and direction across the street, everything would have been fine…not even a near miss.  But no.  This sciurine shithead stops exactly in the middle of my lane, front legs rather splayed as if ready for action, and stares at the grill of my car.  I hit the brakes, natch, and, if this thing had a brain any larger than a crouton, would have allowed ample time for it to pick a direction and haul ass, totally unmolested.  Which, it seemed, to do, for a second.  It decided to reverse course, and head back to the side of the street from whence it came.  I instantly turned the wheel slightly, to the opposite side of the road Mr. Squirrel is heading.  But then, a split second later, it does a 180, and runs back in its original direction.  So, again, with the compassion of St. Francis, I turn the wheel slightly in the other direction, planning on missing the squirrel entirely.  But just as it’s about to disappear under the front of my car, it changes directions again, appearing to very intentionally dive under the car.  Despite my braking, what happened next was an apparently unavoidable double-thud as I drive over this goddamn thing.  It was horrible, and I felt like a nazi the rest of the afternoon.  I was guilty of involuntary squirrelocide. 

But then, somehow, things got even worse.  I went to get the mail, and on my second step out the door, I stepped on a baby frog, flattening it damply and instantly.  In and of itself, this accidental act was no big deal…there are literally thousands of these little fuckers jumping around the yard, and usually, despite the frogs having significantly smaller brains than the squirrels, they jump quickly out of your way when you walk down the sidewalk.  So what the hell was wrong with this one?  We’ll never know.  But that was the second unintentional critter kill of the day.  I still had writing to do, so I couldn’t let myself get too depressed about any of it.  In the end, I remembered that I am nothing more than an enforcement agent of Darwinism, taking out the trash. 

Still…I really would prefer my killings be on purpose. 

N.P.: “Captain Love” – The Winery Dogs

July 5, 2025

 

Dig, if you will, this picture, dear reader: a young George Bernard Shaw, not yet the bearded curmudgeon of literary lore, but a wiry, 23-year-old pencil-pusher slogging away at the Edison Telephone Company in London.  Imagine him there, surrounded by the tooth-grinding monotony of wires, switches, and the soul-leeching buzz of early telephone service.  A job, I assume, about as thrilling as counting bricks in a foggy Victorian alleyway.  On July 5, 1880, something snapped – or clicked, or fizzled out – in his brain.  Whatever precarious sense of duty had tethered him to the earnest farce of gainful employment finally gave way.  He quit.  Walked out.  Cashed out his chips at the table of conformity to chase something far riskier than money or approval – writing.

This is not the kind of decision that lands gently (trust me).  It’s not slipping out the backdoor when no one’s looking.  No, no.  It’s a fuck-you saunter through the front, telling the world’s expectations to go pound sand.  And by “world’s expectations,” I mean anyone who’s spent a sweaty afternoon rehearsing their speech about how “art is a hobby, but a job brings security.”  Shaw, at least in this moment, would’ve laughed –  a messy and slightly manic laugh, I’m guessing – because security was the first thing to go when he took that flying leap into the abyss.

And what came next?  Oh, not instant glory, dear reader – don’t kid yourself.  This isn’t the bootstrap myth.  Shaw spend years clawing through failure with the desperate glee of a man who’d rather starve on his own terms than dine under someone else’s thumb.  He wrote terrible novels, the kind of unreadable fare that gathers layers of dust and rejection letters in equal measure.  But the man was relentless, armed with a mind like a scalpel and a tongue like a firecracker.  He crawled through the trenches of anonymity and despair, fueled by a cocktail of frustration, defiance, and, one assumes, a staggering amount of tea.

Fast forward forty-five years – and yes, it took decades of swinging and missing – when Shaw won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1925.  A whole-ass Nobel for the guy who once penned plays that couldn’t even get past the front desk of production companies.  By then, he’d carved his niche as a sharp-tongued satirist who weaponized wit to skewer society’s sacred cows.  Politics, classism, the absurd rules of social theater – it was fodder for his ceaseless critique.  Pygmalion, one of his best-known works (and the reluctant donor of DNA to the musical My Fair Lady), went on to crystallize his legacy, a shrewd commentary dressed up as comedy.

But there’s the thing.  Shaw’s story isn’t the kind of sanitized parable that inspirational keynotes trot out to peddle grit and perseverance.  His was a messy, stubborn, gloriously unhinged trajectory – because quitting your job to “become a writer” is only romantic on the far side of success (again, trust me).  When you’re actually in it, it’s doubt, debt, and existential dread served cold.  Yet Shaw felt that burn, waded through the wreckage, and stuck it to the grind.  Shaw’s life is the dare most are all too gutless to take.  Quit the job.  Starve a little.  Craft something that snarls at the world’s dumb rules.  And maybe, just maybe, forty-five years later, they’ll hand you a medal for proving them all wrong.  But hey, even if you don’t?  At least you’ll have some good stories to tell.

N.P.: “Knocking Me Out” – WellBad

July 4, 2025

Two hundred and forty-nine years ago, a scrappy band of colonial misfits decided they’d had absolutely enough of powdered wigs and imperial bootlicking.  July 4, 1776 was more than just a date on their calendar…it was a detonation.  The Declaration of Independence, that feral, ink-stained manifesto of rebellion, was adopted, and the world hasn’t been the same since.

I always taught The Declaration in my composition classes, introducing it as the most punk-rock document every written in the English language, and I managed to break through to even the most jaded, cynical minds in the class.  This wasn’t, after all, some polite memo to King George III.  This wasn’t some bitchy, ineffective hashtag campaign.  Fuck no.  This was a cannonball of words fired across the Atlantic.  Jefferson and his crew composed a symphony of defiance, a literary Fuck You to tyranny.  “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” – those words roar with rebellion against royal oppression.  They’re the kind of words that make you want to grab a musket, ignite a rocket, and scream “Not today, you pathetic, pusillanimous, powdered ponce.”  It was the first and only No Kings Protest, with the first patriots declaring war on an actual king, not some half-assed gathering of effete old ladies in strip-parking lots whining pointlessly to each other because they are afraid of actual American exceptionalism and dominance.

And here we are, centuries later, still riding the shockwaves of that declaration.  The United States of America – flawed, messy, loud, and unapologetically free.  Sure, we’ve stumbled.  We just spent four nightmarish years being sucker-punched by corruption, dragged through the mud by cowards, and gaslit by those who’d rather see us kneel than stand.  Fuck those anti-American cretins.  Most of us haven’t forgotten: our national anthem literally has explosions in it.  Rockets.  Bombs.  The whole damn thing is a pyrotechnic ode to resilience.  The country isn’t perfect, and it never will be.  But perfection was never the point.  The point was the Fight – the relentless, unyielding pursuit of something better.  That’s what July 4th is about.  It’s not just a day for hot dogs and sparklers (though, let’s be honest, those are non-negotiable).  It’s a day to remember that freedom isn’t free, and it sure as hell isn’t quiet.  It’s loud, messy, and sometimes downright chaotic.  But it’s ours.

So, fire up the grill.  Crack a beer, open the Jack.  Set off a firework or twenty.  And remember: this day isn’t just about celebrating what we’ve done – it’s about gearing up for what’s next.  Because the pursuit of happiness?  That’s a full-contact blood sport.

Happy Independence Day, America.  Stay wild.  Stay free.  And never stop roaring.


Now onto some patriotic D.P.S. business.  Fifty years to the day after the Declaration of Independence was adopted, July 4, 1826, America bore witness to what could only be described as history’s most ironic curtain call.  Thomas Jefferson and John Adams – framed in the annals of American lore as two intellectual giants of the Revolution – both passed away within hours of each other. Sure, life and death are full of coincidences, but c’mon…this?  The two men who helped craft the document that declared freedom to a British monarch both bowing out in its golden jubilee?  That’s a plot twist even Hollywood wouldn’t dare.

It’s difficult not to see their dual exits as some sort of cosmic mic-drop.  After all, they were perhaps the two most consequential of the founding fathers.  Adams, the pugnacious, fiery advocate, weaponized words like a Revolutionary Rambo, his essays and speeches rallying colonists with unapologetic vigor.  And then there was Jefferson, whose pen seemed to channel the muses themselves.  His prose in the Declaration – the lofty, idealistic call for unalienable rights – set hearts ablaze while encapsulating the philosophical heartbeat of the Revolution.  Together, they were the Lennon and McCartney of liberty (minus the questionable haircuts).

But here’s the kicker that makes their partnership even richer – they could not have been more different.  Adams was blunt and quick to argue, a man who saw no point in sugarcoating his points.  Jefferson, on the other hand, was measured, deliberate, and notoriously reserved.  While they clashed and feuded (I’m looking at you, Election of 1800, with your spicy, scorched-earth smear campaigns), they eventually reconciled late in life, exchanging letters that mapped out their shared reflections and rivalries.  It was the bromance nobody saw coming.

Then came July 4, 1826 – like a cosmic endnote to their lives and legacies.  Adams, in his final moments, reportedly murmured, “Jefferson survives.”  Except Jefferson didn’t.  He had passed away just hours earlier at Monticello.  Was this last thought a poetic tribute, or a sly dig at their lifelong rivalry?  We’ll never know, but it’s wonderfully on-brand for the man.

Despite their flaws, their legacy endures.  The Declaration of Independence remains not just a historical document but a bold, aspirational blueprint for justice and freedom.  And on that fateful summer day in 1826, it was as if the universe pressed pause to give these architects of the American experiment their due – brilliant, flawed, and forever revolutionary.


On July 4, 1845, Henry David Thoreau packed his philosophical musings, an unreasonably high tolerance for mosquitos, and (presumably) a decent stash of snacks, and moved to a cabin near Walden Pond.  It wasn’t exactly rugged wilderness – his buddy Ralph Waldo Emerson owned the land – but Thoreau wasn’t aiming for “off-the-grid mountain man.”  This was an experiment, a declaration of independence from knick-knack-filled parlors, neighborly dramas, and what he called the “quiet desperation” of 19th-century life.

The result?  The iconically unhinged “Walden,” part memoir, part manifesto, and entirely a literary smackdown of materialism and societal conformity.  More than just rejecting cluttered closets – he was throwing shade at the very foundations of comfort culture.  Why do humans labor endlessly for stuff they don’t even need?  Why not build a tiny shack (in Emerson’s metaphorical backyard, if you’re lucky enough) and live deliberately?  Walden asks the questions you might ponder while doom-scrolling Amazon listings at 3am.

Self-reliance is the drumbeat of the book, and Thoreau hammered on it with unrelenting confidence.  He chopped wood, grew beans, and arguably did more for the public image of solitude than centuries of hermits combined.  But don’t be fooled by the pastoral vibes – it wasn’t all feel-good “main-character energy” at Walden Pond.  A crucial part of Thoreau’s philosophy was resisting the machine, metaphorically and literally.  His critiques of conformity were a rally cry of individualism and rebellion, two concepts in sore need of renewed attention these days.

And here’s the kicker in that direction – “Walden” doesn’t sit neatly in its 19th-century time capsule.  Over two centuries later, it still shouts from the bookshelves at anyone trying to KonMari their lives or ditch “The Man.”  Thoreau’s treatise on minimalism, nature, and resisting societal nonsense resonates with present day freedom fighters at war with cancel culture, speech codes and pronoun abuse, moronic mask-mandates, government-mandated untested vaccines, and the rest of such anti-American bullshit.  Sure, not everyone’s sprinting to build cabins in the woods, but his message of intentional living?  That’s hitting home, whether you’re in a trendy city loft or your studio backdrop happens to be a perfectly manicured farm on Instagram.

Thoreau declared a personal revolution that July 4th – a one-man independence celebration complete with philosophical fireworks.  His legacy endures not because he nailed the tiny-house aesthetic, but because he challenged his readers to define their lives in a way that was Revolutionary with a capital “R.”


Lastly (though certainly not leastly), on July 4, 1855, Walt Whitman took the literary equivalent of a sledgehammer to the buttoned-up cultural norms of his time and published Leaves of Grass.  It was a full-throated yawp – a deeply democratic, unapologetically sensual celebration of the self, the body, and the soul.

Imagine being a Victorian prude (this won’t be hard for some of you) confronted with this book.  Whitman’s verses were an unaccompanied walk straight into the underbelly of humanity’s desires and contradictions – raw, radical, and drenched in the sweat of a working man’s labor.  He painted a world where the farmer, the legal immigrant, and the mechanic weren’t just background characters but leading actors in the grand theater of democracy.  And his free verse?  It swaggered.  No formal structure, no rigid rhyme schemes – just the rhythm of Whitman’s heart beating unapologetically across the page.

Leaves of Grass didn’t just talk the talk of American independence; it strutted its way into the room, dropped the mic, and winked at the audience.  Whitman’s themes of individuality and unity were inseparable.  He blurred lines between bodies, classes, and even the sacred and profane – arguing that everything and everyone holds divine potential.  It was a throat-punch to the suffocating buttoned-up culture of the era.

And let’s not overlook the audacity of publishing it on Independence Day.  Whitman practically gift-wrapped this literary rebellion and tied it up with a star-spangled bow, shouting, “This is America!”  It was the ultimate power move, a nod to a nation still grappling with its ideals and contradictions, and a promise of what it could become.

Critics were…not thrilled (no shit, right?).  But over time, Leaves of Grass grew into a towering monument of American literature, shaping modern poetry and influencing everyone from Langston Hughes to Allen Ginsberg.  Whitman infused his work with democracy’s messy, joyful, radical spirit.  Today, we can look back and marvel at Whitman’s chutzpah.  He wrote poetry that didn’t tiptoe around convention but stomped all over it with muddy boots.  And in doing so, he gave us verses still capable of making hearts skip beats and reminding us – regardless of how messy, complex, or chaotic life gets – that we contain multitudes.

N.P.: “American Badass” – Kid Rock

July 3, 2025

 

Gather ’round, dear readers and existential thrill-seekers, because today we light the candles on a metaphorical cake that will never be eaten, in honor of a man who gave us nightmares we didn’t know we needed.  On July 3, 1883, Franz Kafka was born – screaming, presumably – into a world that he would later pick apart with surgical precision and reassemble into some of the most mind-meltingly bizarre narratives human civilization has had the gall to produce.  Kafka was a wiry stream of dread and genius poured into a human-shaped container.  He was the literary badass who saw modern life for what it really is – bureaucratic purgatory with a side of existential horror.

Yes, Franz Kafka, the grim architect of worlds where people turn into cockroaches and face endless surreal trials without any clear crime or resolution.  He’s the guy who somehow managed to make even paperwork feel like a metaphysical death spiral.  In “The Metamorphosis,” a dude wakes up as a repulsive insect and everyone he loves despises him – tell me that scene doesn’t feel eerily like the Monday morning commute in emotional metaphor form.  Or take The Trial…a paranoid fever dream where the protagonist gets dragged through the legal ringer without so much as a checklist for survival.  Kafka captured exactly what it feels like to exist inside a system designed to crush you for unclear reasons – on this, the man was, to borrow a modern term, criminally underrated in his time.

But we’re not here to wallow in existential despair (or are we, dear reader?).  No, today we’re popping existentialist champagne – whatever that might look like – and celebrating the incredible influence Kafka has had on literature, philosophy, and probably your last five anxiety spirals.  His writing did something so rare and so raw that most of us puny humans spend entire lifetimes running away from it.  He took the gnawing absurdity of life, the suffocating anxiety of being, and the shallow, ridiculous theater of societal norms and slathered it onto the page with the precision who works for Nightmares, Inc.

This kind of writing lasts for a reason.  Maybe it’s because Kafka was one of us.  He was a guy trapped in the meat grinder of reality (though, in his case, it was working a suffocating insurance job in the shadow of his overbearing father).  Everything was set up to squash him like Gregor Samsa under a boot heal.  But instead, he wrote.  He wrote like there was no tomorrow, because he knew there probably wasn’t, and he filled every paragraph with the nervous, raw quality of someone staring directly into the abyss just long enough for the abyss to nervously shift its gaze elsewhere.

And while the world was busy sleeping on him or dismissing his work as the deranged ramblings of a man who probably just needed a stiff drink and a vacation, Kafka was redefining what fiction could be.  He was one of very few in his time who didn’t tell stories to entertain you in the Saturday matinee sense – he dragged you into a psychological whirlpool and dared you to find your way back.  His influence on modern literature is seared into the DNA of anyone who’s ever tried to capture this mess we call existence into words.  Guys like Borges, Camus, and Pynchon…the whole brood of postmodern and existential heavy-hitters owe him a stack of royalties and an apology note scrawled in shaky handwriting.

Did Kafka mean to be this towering figure of angst-riddled brilliance?  Hardly.  The man didn’t even want most of his stuff published.  He told his buddy Max Brod to burn the manuscripts after his death.  Thank God Max ignored the instructions like a responsible literary saboteur.  Because what’s life without Kafka?  Cleaner, maybe.  Simpler, definitely.  But infinitely less true.

And so, as we raise a glass – probably of something unreasonably dark and bitter, because what else would Kafka himself toast with? – we thank him for putting the absurdity of life into a terrifyingly honest mirror.  Happy Birthday, Uncle Franz.  You taught us all that the world is laughing at us, sure…but sometimes, it’s okay to laugh back.

Now go read The Metamorphosis again.  It’s a party.

N.P.: “Going to the Party” – The Allergies, Lyrics Born

July 2, 2025

 

Today, dear reader, we pour some out for Ernest Hemingway.  For a name that thunders with such literary gravitas, it’s paradoxical how much of him has been sliced, boiled, and reduced into a series of cliches fed to college freshmen in Intro to Lit.  Hemmingway, the masculine deity of the English sentence, I’m told, lived as though his life were a dare he accepted solely to spite death.  And how did it end?  Death, of course.  Death, in all its clinical indifference, finally called his bluff.  On July 2, 1961, Hemingway shoved two rounds of buckshot into himself in Ketchum, Idaho.  Cue the symphony of gasps, tributes, and reductive eulogies, all neatly packaged for obligatory reverence.  Yet the man, much like the sentences he crafted, wasn’t so easily punctuated.

To get into the meat of Hemingway’s life – this messy, blood-soaked symphony of adventure, genius, and catastrophe – you first have to understand the gravitational force he exerted not just on American literature, but on our entire mythology of what it means to live wildly and write well.  You can’t talk about courage in prose without tipping your hat to the guy who turned language into a knife.  Hemingway wrote as if words had weight – every sentence carved lean, shorn of excess, held up by something primal.  The Old Man and the Sea was a proving ground of grit.  A Farewell to Arms was love set against the erosion of humanity.  He forced readers into the ring with life’s hard knocks, and somehow, we loved him for it.  But there’s an odd hypocrisy in the Hemingway myth.  For all his talk of stoic restraint and quiet courage, his life was a chaos of loud, brazen excess.  This was a guy who chased bulls in Spain, downed daiquiris on the daily in Cuba, and hunted big game as if extinction lists didn’t exist.  Hemingway didn’t just live…he swaggered.  He tore through the trenches of World War I, bled out Hemoglobin’s worth of whiskey, and somehow still had the energy to swear loudly at the inadequacies of hotel service.  It was as if he lived on the belief that to stare death in the face was not enough – you had to step closer until you felt it’s breath.

And yet, the end loomed.  Because genius burns fast, and gods of excess always leave behind a smoldering wreckage.  By the late 1950s, Hemingway’s life turned into its own tragic third act.  Wracked by injuries from plane crashes, riddled with lingering effects of old wounds, and plagued by the ghosts of too many memories – his resilience began to crack.  Depression crept in, and paranoia turned the world into a series of looming shadows.  There’s a particularly cruel irony in knowing how a man who prided himself on the clarity of language underwent electroshock therapy – treatment that dulled not only his memories, but his creative fire.  He who gave the world such piercing prose began to lose his edge, stumbling toward a haze of confusion and pain.

And so when that July morning arrived, it didn’t exactly whisper.  Hemingway closed the book on his own narrative in the way he had always seemed destined to – not quietly, not cutely, but violently definitive.

The lesson I’ve taken from his work, mostly, is something like this: courage is not the absence of fear but the grit to stand firm within its shadow.

He was not a saint.  He was flawed, and sometimes brutal.  But that’s also the point.  Hemingway didn’t live or write to be worshiped.  He did it because he couldn’t do otherwise, and from that compulsiveness sprang something rare, magnetic, and alive.
I think Hemingway would laugh at all the efforts to tidy the loose ends of his story and life.  Because he, of all people, knew there was no clean narrative.  Just the raw beauty of life lived, fought for, and sometimes lost.

N.P.: “Sunroof Diesel Blues” – MY BABY

Word of the Day: chiropteran

 

Chiropteran (kai-ROP-ter-an):  Any member of the order Chiroptera, the winged mammals more scandalously known as bats.  These critters range from the adorably snack-sized fruit bats to the nightmare-fuel megabats that might make off with your steak if you’re picnicking too close to the equator.

Derived from the Greek works cheir (hand) and pteron (wing), chiropteran describes the bat’s uniquely unsettling wing structure, which, upon closer inspection, can evoke the terrifying realization that you’re essentially staring at a flying skeleton hand.  Congratulations, dear reader, you know have one more trivia fact to ruin cocktail parties with.

The thing about Sheila – the one thing, the starting point, the narrative axis around which all her small-town notoriety would eventually orbit – was that she had, since moving to Fecal Creek, been the sort of upstanding neighbor who inexplicably prompted suspicion.  Not for anything actionable, of course.  Her lawn was mowed (by HOA standards, which is to say: with the frequency and fervor of a contract killer erasing forensic traces), her recycling bin was a Platonic ideal of sustainable virtue, and her invitations to potlucks were legendary in the way only a three-bean salad that doubles as an existential dare could be. 

So when she started walking her neurotic  schnauzer, Milton, at exactly 2:04 a.m. every night – yes, every night, like clockwork, like something out of a pharmaceutical ad for insomnia with a side effect of paranoia – the Fecal Creek gossip-mongers began to stir.  At first, there was mere whispering about the “strange glimmer” of her porch light and how her eyes “caught the moon weirdly, in a way you don’t see much outside Victorian novels.” 

Words like “oddball” and “eccentric” gave way to phrases like “creature of the night.”  Then came the Nextdoor thread.  There were accusations (unsubstantiated, frequently typo-ridden), hashtags (#Batwoman or, bafflingly, #BananaMan), even a poem posted by someone calling themselves “Concerned4Christ.”  It all crescendoed one evening when, as Sheila ambled around the block in sweatpants, rain boots, and a T-shirt that read “I Am Not a Morning Person,” a black blur (local wildlife?  suburban nightmare?) swooped beneath the buttery glow of a streetlamp and right into the whirring blades of suspicion.

That blur – wingspan like patent-leather gloves, little body jerking erratically like a cursed wind-up toy – was, of course, a thoroughly mundane chiropteran, though you’d never know it from what happened next.  Lila Eisenberg, the Creek’s undisputed Czarina of Gossip, shrieked so magnificently that birds in three time zones checked their watches. 

Rumor that Sheila was either harboring – if not actively mothering – nocturnal “familiars” was officially launched, and nothing would ever be the same.  The sheer choreography of horror on the neighbors’ faces whenever she waved good morning (which was never actually morning) from her mailbox was a thing to behold.  When Halloween rolled around, Milton wore a hot-dog costume, Sheila carried a thermos labeled “Definitely Just Coffee,” and not a single kid braved her sidewalk for candy. 

Sheila, knowing exactly what was up and deriving a savage delight from the spectacle, started adding plastic bats to her lawn décor.  All treats, no tricks, yet somehow she became legend – the guardian of Fecal Creek’s midnight, the matron saint of insomnia, and the reason the three-bean salad as, from then on, always left untouched. 

N.P.: “King Volcano” – Bauhaus

June 29, 2025

 

On June 29, 1613, the hallowed ground of Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre in London transformed into a chaotic pyre during a rowdy performance of Henry VIII.  Picture this: a cannon, misfired in all its reckless glory, spitting fire like some drunken god’s tantrum, igniting the thatched roof in a blaze that roared with apocalyptic fervor.  No one was killed – miraculous, given the mayhem – but the event was a seismic liver-kick to the literary and theatrical cosmos, as the Globe stood as a pulsing hub for the bard’s immortal plays.  The flames licked away history itself, a dramatic loss that left the world gasping.

But here’s the kicker: this wasn’t the end.  From the ashes, like some phoenix with a quill, the Globe rose again, rebuilt in 1614, it’s spirit unbroken.

The original rebuilt Globe Theatre remained in use until it was closed in 1642.  This closure was due to the English Civil War and the Puritan government’s ban on theatrical performances, which lasted until the Restoration in 1660.  The building itself was eventually demolished in 1644 to make way for housing.  This modern replica, known as Shakespeare’s Globe, was constructed between 1993 and 1997, when it opened to the public.  This replica was built about 230 meters (that’s 750 feet to us Americans) from the original location, based on historical evidence, to revive the experience of Elizabethan theater, honoring Shakespeare’s legacy and to serve as a cultural and educational hub for performances and studies of his works.

I visited the replica in 2001.  It was impressive, but I wasn’t aware it was a recently constructed replica until mid-visit.  Thinking it was the original structure rebuilt in 1614, I was impressed to the point of being shocked at how well maintained the thing was.  So upon finding out it was a four-year-old replica, I couldn’t help but be disappointed.  But that was my own fault, and I’ve since come to appreciate this replica as a damn fine thing for England and its culture.

N.P.: “Found Atlas” – AWOLNATION

Review: Psycho Gothic Lolita

Psycho Gothic Lolita

Reviewed by Jayson Gallaway on 28 June 2025 .

4 out of 5

 

If Quentin Tarantino, Tim Burton, and an unhinged Harajuku street fashion designer dropped acid and decided to make a movie, the result would still somehow fall short of the anarchic glory that is Psycho Gothic Lolita.  This film is a hyperactive sugar rush of vengeance, lace, and completely unhinged nihilism wrapped in a frilly Victorian coffin and set on fire for dramatic effect.

Here’s the gist (though the word “gist” feels insultingly reductive here): A soft-spoken yet psychotically calibrated angel of death – I mean, “heroine” if you’re feeling generous – is traversing a digital-psychedelic version of Japan to exact revenge on a parade of increasingly ridiculous villains.  Think Power Rangers villains, but if they all aspired to a career in shock rock and couture assassinations.  Her name is Yuki, and she’s wielding an umbrella that functions as both a shield against UV rays, a sword, and a goddamn machine gun.  (And honestly, that multitasking alone deserves a standing ovation.)  Each murder is both grotesque and somehow transcendently camp, punctuated with sprays of blood that honestly have the physics of a busted fire hydrant but ten times the attitude.

The dialogue?  Oh shit, the dialogue.  It’s like someone handed a screenwriter a thesaurus, a bottle of absinthe, and exactly zero notes about restraint.  It’s the kind of overcooked monologuing that feels oddly Shakespearean in its over-the-topness, except instead of “to be or not to be,” we get villains snarling about betrayal and divine justice while covered in glitter and eyeliner.  Every conversation feels like it was dragged through the mud of melodrama, and then someone whispered, “Now make it campier.”

Visually, here’s what you’re signed up for, dear reader: picture a crimson-lit music video slapped together with the set pieces of a gothic cathedral and a really macabre Disneyland ride on the fritz.  The camera doesn’t just move; it lunges, like an overcaffeinated predator that refuses to go to Time Out.  The fight choreography is ridiculous, absurd, and glorious.  It’s a dance of blades, blood, and completely impractical footwear, which somehow makes it all the more mesmerizing.  Yuki occasionally pauses mid-battle to strike a pose that screams, “I may have just gutted someone, but they fucking deserved it, and also look how good I look doing it.”  And, of course, she’s right.

And the villains!  Each one is a cartoonishly elaborate fever dream, plucked from the reject pile of reality and brimming with their own bespoke absurdities.  There’s a cyberpunk priest who makes Vlad the Impaler look like an amateur, and a woman whose entire fighting style seems to be “what if dominatrices also moonlighted as professional twirlers?”  It’s pure performance art wrapped in unchecked madness, and you are absolutely rooting for Yuki to destroy them, not because they’re “bad,” per se, but because you just want to see how she does it.

This is the kind of movie that doesn’t want you to like it; it wants you to worship it’s unapologetic chaos.  It sneers at subtlety, burns down the temple of realism, and manages to be simultaneously stupid and genius in its execution.  It’s the cinematic equivalent of a flaming top hot doing cartwheels through a cathedral – completely unnecessary, entirely excessive, and yet, inarguably spectacular.

You’ll laugh, you’ll cringe, you’ll wonder what the hell you’re looking at, and by the time the credits roll, you’ll feel like you just escaped a high-speed car crash involving a Hot Topic store and a knife factory.  And you’ll probably want to watch it again.  Psycho Gothic Lolita is a love letter to anyone who’s ever wanted their revenge served cold, with a side of black lipstick and enough irony to puncture an air mattress.  It’s trash.  It’s art.  It’s trash-art.  And it’s glorious.  Watch it.  You can thank me later.  Or curse me.  Honestly, either reaction is valid.

N.P.: “Cryptorchid”- Marilyn Manson

June 26, 2025

What’s crackin’, dear reader.  Yrs. truly is crazy busy with multifarious projects, looming deadlines, and a puppy that absolutely refuses to let me concentrate on anything other than her.  So let’s get to today’s business.

On this day in 1997, J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone was unleashed upon the UK by Bloomsbury, kicking off a cultural juggernaut that redefined modern storytelling.  Despite rejections from multiple publishers who thought the 90,000-word manuscript was too long for a children’s book, Bloomsbury’s Barry Cunningham took a chance after his eight-year-old daughter raved about it.  The book’s blend of wit, magic, and moral depth – pitting an orphaned underdog against cosmic evil – captured imaginations worldwide, selling over 120 million copies and spawning a franchise that’s still a benchmark for badass literary impact.  This book was a phenomenon, a literary bunker-buster that blew the walls out of traditional publishing and set the world ablaze with wizarding wonder.

The first time I heard about this book, I was sitting in my apartment in San Francisco one evening, reading some news, and I saw an item about a bunch of midwestern moms all up in arms because their kids were going ga-ga over a book that “promoted witchcraft.”  I didn’t think much of it, but about an hour later, I walked over the Green Apple Books on Clement Street and saw this massive display for Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone and did a double-take since this was the book I’d just read about.  Normally, I pay exactly zero attention to children’s books, but this time I stopped, cracked open one of the hardbacks, and read a few pages.  It was great!  What I instantly liked about it was that it was very obviously appropriate for and directed at children, but it wasn’t insultingly watered down, so I actually wanted to read the rest of the book.  And I obviously wasn’t alone.

So let’s talk about the staying power of this beast.  What started out as a single volume has morphed into a sprawling empire – films, theme parks, video games, and a fanbase that rivals most religions.  The prose, sharp and unapologetic, pulls you in, while the world-building – gritty yet enchanting – feels like a middle finger to the sanitized dreck that typically dominates kids’ shelves.  It’s a testament to the raw, unfiltered genius of a tale that dared to mix humor with heartbreak, proving that good writing can punch you in the liver and leave you begging for more.

But fast forward to the present, and the creator of this literary titan finds herself in the crosshairs of a cultural firing squad.  J.K. Rowling’s recent acknowledgment of biological reality – that men cannot become women – has sparked a dim-witted yet ferocious attempt to cancel her, a move as absurd as trying to banish Voldemort  with a strongly worded letter.  The backlash, fueled by a vocal minority wielding social media like wands of righteous fury, seeks to erase her legacy over a stance grounded in elementary science and common-ass sense.  Yet, this controversy only underscores the book’s original spirit: a refusal to bow to dogma.  Rowling’s defiance mirrors Harry’s own battles against oppressive forces, turning her into a lightning rod for free thought in an age where cowardly conformity is king.  The irony?  A story about standing up to tyranny is now being used to silence its creator.  The storm of stupidity is finally breaking, and her resoluteness will only burnish her legend further.  Regardless, one thing is clear: the magic of Harry Potter endures, cancellation attempts be damned.

N.P.: “Paint It Black” – Deadsy