Late Night with Jimmy Fallon

So, Jimmy's been on for a few days. He's got some big shoes to fill, and he's starting from scratch. He's in a tough spot, that's no joke, so how do we think that he's doing?

I was very impressed that they hooked The Roots to be his house band. That's very impressive. I've watched every show up to this point, and they make some really good music. It's very different from other house bands on late-night TV. I think they're helping out with Jimmy's show tremendously.

I guess that everyone's first time doing a job is difficult. It's hard to get up there the first time and actually nail it. What teacher is incredible on the very first day? What performer nails an act on their first try? I don't want to be too harsh on him for this point, but he does have a few things he needs to work on.

I think that since I've been watching Conan for the past few years, I'm used to someone who is trained, hilarious, and familiar with late-night television. He has his own quirks and mannerisms that I'm used to; he knows how to revive a dull joke; he knows how to make us laugh; he knows how to deliver jokes; he knows how to interview a guest without making it awkward. He has just become an incredible personality on television. I absolutely love his work and cannot wait for his transition to the Tonight Show in the summer.

Watching Jimmy's first show was a little uncomfortable for me. I think I was watching it in a different way than I'd watch any other talk show. The criticism ear was pricked up. I think I have the initial criticism because I was hesitant that he was Conan's replacement. I don't know why, but I thought it was an odd choice. I know it's a safe choice because he had such success with SNL on NBC and many people know who he is. I just had some small issues with his career to begin with, and I wasn't sure if these qualities would really help him out on a talk show. He never learned to control his laughter in sketches. Come on man, it's your job. He selected some really bad movies to do after he left SNL prematurely (Taxi for one). He's so young. I don't know if he's ready.



I think that with practice, he'll get better. I think something is there, but he'll need some time to get there and fit in. I never watched Conan from the beginning, and I bet he made some errors that I would criticize. I just wonder if the gig here will work out.

At least Jimmy's Late Night is being smart with transitioning him onto the show with little experience. They're incorporating the audience more than other talk shows I've watched. They're having Jimmy share the spotlight as opposed to being a full-blown host. They're putting on guests that he is friends with and could have easy conversation with. It's relieving the stress some, but it does still seem to be there.

His monologue was very awkward during the first show. It even seemed like he was emulating Conan's style with talking back to the audience. I think he's trying to find himself, but it's hard to follow someone and not take on their characteristics and mannerisms. He still needs to get a hang of the pauses in jokes, the audience's reactions (or lack thereof), and how to transition jokes. He'll get it.

The interview with DeNiro was a little strange. Jimmy seemed to be dominating the entire interview, doing all the talking. And, when DeNiro did speak, Jimmy would cut him off. I was feeling quite bad for him. The interviews seem very forced, like he's trying to control them by talking. But, the best interviews have the interviewee talking the least. Hard lesson to learn.

I see that the show has potential. The bits between the monologue and the interviews are so-so. They'll improve with time. The audience games I find to be a little strange. They're not very funny. Maybe they're using audience involvement to generate a big fanbase to draw in more people to watch.

I also wonder how long these incredible guests will show up. First week thing or the whole run of the show thing?

So what do you think of Late Night with Jimmy Fallon?

The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test

The cover of this book drew me to it. Within a week of seeing it on the shelf of a Borders, I had to purchase it. Within a month, I have now read it. It was definitely an interesting book to look into reading.

The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test by Tom Wolfe is a nonfictional account that follows Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters in the 1960s as they experiment with different types of drugs. Wolfe follows them on their zany experiences and records what he sees. He traveled with them for some time, interviewed them, and gathered research from diaries, interviews, and movie footage (40 hours were taken to be exact).

It came out right after all these events occurred, so it was really fresh at its publication. It is quite a different piece of journaling (similar to the off-the-wall, different techniques of Hunter S. Thompson). They take journalism to a whole new level with these pieces. They ignore the rules and tell a wild story.

The book was a bit challenging to read (very similar to A Clockwork Orange). Wolfe has a very different style that makes it hard to understand chronology, or what is going on in general. He writes in a very free, loose style (breaking off into poetry at many points), mainly to capture the mindset of a Merry Prankster whose mind is going in a million directions because of the drugs consumed. He really does capture their mindset in his writing style. Oftentimes he will rant about something strange and then abruptly end it; sometimes he will break off into poetry or have his prose strangely cut off with words and phrases. It really is a unique piece of journaling.



Wolfe never partakes (for the most part) with the Pranksters. He mainly gets down what is happening. He does have an experience at one of the Acid Tests, and he gets it down very clearly as to how it is to experience taking the drug. The book is a wild ride if you're really into it.

The book chronicles the Merry Pranksters as they set off on various journeys. The book takes place after Kesey writes his novel One Flew Over the Cukoo's Nest. He rents out a big van that the Pranksters decorate in crazy Day-Glo and they travel around to rough up the establishment and give out drugs to willing participants. They earn quite a reputation, and Kesey is often sought after by the police even though they couldn't do much at the time since acid wasn't illegal yet.

Later, the book explores the Merry Pranksters living on a ranch with Kesey in California. There, they take drugs and welcome those who come to live or party with them. Famously, they put a stake in their yard that welcomes the Hells Angels. Soon enough, they show up and party for three days. Wild time. Another time they invite the Beatles. Unfortunately, they do not show up. They attend a concert of theirs, and afterwards, their ranch is overflowing with people who showed up to party, for days.

Kesey has a lot of well-known people come to party with him. Besides members of the Hells Angels, he has Allen Ginsberg join him frequently. He also has Owsley (the real guru and maker of acid at the time) come and join him many times. It's very cool to see who was around at that time.

Eventually, Kesey hosts Acid Tests. The Pranksters rent out large facilities and invite unknowing guests to hang out and watch movies. They serve giant tubs of Kool Aid (hence the book's title), and people just get strung out on acid. It becomes a crazy experience that lapses many, many hours, and oftentimes the police come to break things up. The Grateful Dead came and jammed at these acid tests, making them the creators of acid rock. Sometimes they would play for ten minutes, sometimes they would play for hours. I couldn't imagine a free Dead concert under that circumstance.



Unfortunately, Kesey was starting to build a reputation that was making a lot of people angry (especially the police). He was making drugs cool and was creating a counter-culture that frightened many people. So, they end up going after him for whatever they can. Kesey ends up having two charges against him, both for possession of marijuana, and he eventually flees to Mexico in the bus with the Pranksters. Another charge hits him (resisting arrest) and some trials follow.

The end of the book chronicles the Pranksters fleeing to Mexico where they try to stage Kesey's death to get him out of the public eye (which obviously fails). Then the trials quickly follow, and then Wolfe gives us some input on what happens to the Pranksters after the gig is up, after Kesey is sentences to 90 days and jail and working on a farm.

Kesey agreed to the police that he was going to announce to young adults that they shouldn't take drugs anymore. He hosted an Acid Test Graduation, where he rented out a warehouse and invited everyone from before. It was an intense last hurrah. He stated that individuals needed to try to have acidic experiences without actually getting high. This pissed some people off, but was it a prank all in the end...?

Even though I found it challenging to read, the plot was really interesting. It's insane to me that people could have lived this way. Just crazy. I don't understand the funding, or how this even could have happened. I know the times were different, but I just can't see this kind of thing happening today. It blows my mind. I couldn't have imagined being around at this time. How scary and exciting.

If there's anyone out there who understood the text better than I could, I would appreciate more synopsis and details if I've missed anything. Or maybe I had some misconceptions. I'm pretty sure about what I have down here. Other stuff I am omitting is probably because I am weary on the details. I would appreciate feedback on the plot of this book.

So, what did you think of The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test?

Facebook Rant

Now, it too me a long time to get into Facebook, but I finally did. I wanted to keep in contact with some of my friends that I don't get to talk to that often, and it pays off.

I didn't want to get swarmed into the obsession that I've seen so many of my friends get sucked into. They use it to procrastinate or gossip, both things that I don't take too well with, so I wasn't that interested. It's the latest, newest version of stalking. Whatever happened to mystery?

But, whenever I read about Facebook in the newspaper, it's always adults who are bashing it. I bet they don't even have accounts. They badmouth how Facebook users are putting ALL of their information out there for criminals and future job prospects to gaze at. It's like we want these terrible things to happen to us: losing job opportunities, being stalked by quesitonable people... This is not the case.

First of all, you can block your personal site so only YOUR FRIENDS can see it. Recently I read an article about how potential jobs will search out your name in Google and Facebook (probably true), but when it comes to Facebook, they can't see your pictures, your information, your conversations unless they are friends with you (if you have on this setting). But, most people DO use this setting. Most of us don't want that much exposure; we just want to stalk our friends.

I just think the argument that I keep reading is lame, and I think it comes from a lack of understanding of the system.

Now, this new thing with the Koobface worm is a little different. Cyber hackers went into Facebook to steal information on people's identities. That's a bit different than other people just searching your name and looking up everything about you.

Check out an article on the worm here.

This is a whole new ballgame. Is it something we need to be worrying about (hackers getting into our Facebook pages to steal information)? Is this of a concern?

What do you think of Facebook?

Letter to My Daughter

Maya Angelou must be one of the best poets still alive today. She carries incredible wisdom that we need to listen to. She has known some phenomenal people, went through some intense times, endured a hard life, but she has gained so much knowledge. We need to take advantage of her brilliance before we cannot anymore.

Angelou just put out a fabulous book called Letter to My Daughter. This book is a series of essays giving life lessons she has learned to the daughter she never had (she had one male child). Her essays reveal true stories from her life that taught her great lessons that we all need to hear about.

The cover of the book is exactly as colorful as her lessons, stories, and narration is in the book. It is extremely enjoyable.

The following are chapters from the book, each an essay that gives us a life lesson (or lessons) she has learned with stories to accompany her advice and wisdom:

HOME: Angelou on what home is.

"I am convinced that most people do not grow up."

"We may act sophisticated and worldly, but I believe we feel safest when we go inside ourselves and find home, a place where we belong and maybe the only place we really do."

PHILANTHROPY: Angelou's love and work for helping mankind.

"The word philanthropy was taken from the two Greek words, philo--lover of; and anthro--mankind. So, philanthropists are lovers of humanity."

REVELATIONS: Angelou learns of her bodily changes, has a beautiful boy, and feels thankful that he is hers.

GIVING BIRTH: Self-explanatory. The way Angelou's mother handled the pregnancy helped her gain confidence and pride in herself since she did not get angry or upset.

ACCIDENT, COINCIDENT, OR ANSWERED PRAYER: Angelou dates a man who ends up being a little off in the head. He kidnaps her and almost kills her until she is saved.

TO TELL THE TRUTH: Answering "How are you?" If you do it truthfully, people might stop asking. But shouldn't we be truthful?

"I believe in that we learn to give and receive social lies."

VULGARITY: Vulgarity is not an attractive quality.

VIOLENCE: Violence is over power and control. Angelou discusses rape (being a victim herself) and the violence associated with that.

MOTHER'S LONG VIEW: Angelou's first taste of independence in her youth.

"Imagine, I might really become somebody. Someday."

"Independence is a heady draft, and if you drink it in your youth it can have the same effect on the brain as young wine. It does not matter that its taste is not appealing, it is addictive and with each drink the consumer wants more."

MOROCCO: Follow the rules that you have been taught, as never to offend anyone around you. Angelou drank a cup of water (even though it had a nasty bug in it) because it would have been rude to take it out at her dinner party.

PORGY AND BESS: Angelou feels so depressed, and then a good friend offers her advice that she isn't crazy: she's actually pretty lucky.

"First write down that I said write down and think of the millions of people all over the world who cannot hear a choir, or a symphony, or their own babies crying. Write down, I can hear--Thank God. Then write down that you can see this yellow pad, and think of the millions of people around the world who cannot see a waterfall, or flowers blooming, or their lover's face. Write I can see--Thank God. Then write down that you can read. Think of the millions of people around the world who cannot read the news of the day, or a letter from home, a stop sign on a busy street, or..."



BOB & DECCA: "A friend may be waiting behind a stranger's face."

CELIA CRUZ: Angelou's influence to performance and being a fan.

"All great artists draw from the same resource: the human heart, which tells us that we are more alike than unalike."

FANNIE LOU HAMER: Belonging to the country, especially as an African American.

SENEGAL: "In an unfamiliar culture, it is wise to offer no innovations, no suggestions, or lessons."

"The epitome of sophistication is utter simplicity."

THE ETERNAL SILVER SCREEN: Don't forget where you came from.

IN SELF-DEFENSE: When others attack us.

MRS. CORETTA SCOTT KING: On deceased friends of hers, like King, Martin Luther King, Jr. and James Baldwin.

CONDOLENCES: A short passage to those who are grieving.

IN THE VALLEY OF HUMILITY: Visiting Wake Forest University.

NATIONAL SPIRIT: "For the past four decades our national spirit and natural joy have ebbed. Our national expectations have dimninished." Our hope for the future is shortening too.

RECLAIMING SOUTHERN ROOTS: Reclaim your roots. Don't forget them.

SURVIVING: A poem on surviving.

SALUTE TO OLDER LOVERS: A poem: It's never to late to find true love.

COMMENCEMENT ADDRESS: Graduation poem.

POETRY: On African American poetry.

MT. ZION: A short religious essay.

KEEP THE FAITH: No matter what happens, always keep your faith.

The book is short and easy to read. I definitely recommend picking up this book, or any of her other books. She is a blessing and a joy. Read Maya Angelou.

Read an excerpt from the book ("To Tell the Truth") on Oprah's website by going to this website.

You can also watch her talk about the book in a video where she discusses losing her virginity, getting pregnant young, the definition of home. Watch video of her interview with MSNBC here.

What do you think of Letter to My Daughter?

Shrinking Albums

I've recently been getting into records. I'm trying to experience a different way of listening to and appreicating music beyond our downloadable MP3s. It's classic and it's a very cool experience.

I was surprised to see that artists today still put out records (obviously not as many as they put out CDs or digital albums), but they do sell vinyl albums. Rolling Stone even had a section in their end-of-the-year magazine that reported the top vinyl albums of the year (Coldplay's Viva La Vida and Death and All His Friends topped the chart). When I went to the record store, I was shocked to see a Weezer album on the shelf. It does happen.

Records aren't obsolete, but they're dwindling down, especially when they are so large and clunky. What I do miss is the amount of artwork and creativity put into the decorating of the album. I could spend so much time looking through my new record collection, the decorations, lyrics, and other writings on the album (inside and outside), but CDs labels really aren't as intense as these. They come with their little booklets, but these are often just pictures of the band members, nothing too creative that they've inserted there as art.

And really, who is reading those anymore when so many people are downloading the albums instead of purchasing them? And who even recognizes album covers anymore? We can recognize songs, but not artwork and labels.

This whole idea got me thinking too: We seem to be shrinking when it comes to music. First we had records. Then we had tapes. Then we had CDs. Now we have MP3s. How much smaller can you go? I know we will soon advance, but how much smaller can you get?

And don't we lose some of the value of owning the tangible item when we buy digital albums? I like to have my collection, to look through my CDs manually and to browse through them. I like to see the band's decorations on the album and to have a piece of them. These digital albums are just like air; they're on my hard-drive, and I feel like they can be lost easier than in my collection. I don't know if I like where it's going.

Can physical, tangible music items be completely replaced?

I hope not. It's just like the newspaper argument: Newspapers will be replaced by online newspapers. Well, I still think people like to hold the newspaper, to have it with them on the train (despite the fact that people could just read it on their iPhones). I think that even if we continue to progress towards this paperless world, there still is some value in the hard copy. I don't know if we can ever rid ourselves of that, and if we do, it will surely be a later generation that will lose the sentimental value that we place on it today, or that we did in the past.

Some cars are even starting to put in hard-drives into the cars where you have memory and can have music loaded and stored inside the car. Many new cars even come with plugs and hookups for iPods and MP3 players. CDs and tapes are now not needed in cars. Why bother with the excess space?

Intense.

Where are we headed with music? How can things go from here, especially with where the music business is and where it's heading? Can we ever be free of the tangible music album?

Bands to See in the 90s

I'm reading a book that takes place in the 90s, and I was very jealous when I heard that the narrator and his son got to attend a Nirvana concert at their height in the late nineties. I would have LOVED to see Kurt Cobain perform, but I was too young to be listening to that kind of music.

But it made me think... and I love to think in the hypothetical world.

If you could go back to the 90s and see bands perform live, which ones would you choose?

Think of a good top ten. I'm considering bands who would be killer to see at their height in the 90s, especially after a release of an increidble, classic album (such as Pearl Jam's Ten). Bands that are still together, bands that have separated, bands that have members who are deceased: consider them all.

Here is my top ten:

1. Nirvana
2. Pearl Jam
3. Soundgarden
4. Alice in Chains
5. Rage Against the Machine
6. Sublime
7. Radiohead
8. Red Hot Chili Peppers
9. Dave Matthews Band
10. Stone Temple Pilots

Honorable mentions:

Smashing Pumpkins
Rusted Root
Blind Melon
Bush
REM
Phish
Elliott Smith
Oasis
Spin Doctors
Natalie Merchant/10,000 Maniacs
The Cranberries
Third Eye Blind
U2
The Pixies
Weezer
No Doubt
Janes Addiction
Hootie and the Blowfish
Filter
Counting Crows

Who would be on your top ten list?

Waiting and Finding

I came across a pretty cool poem in the latest issue of the New Yorker by Jack Gilbert. It's innocent and youthful and explorative. Check it out.

Waiting and Finding

by Jack Gilbert

While he was in kindergarten, everybody wanted to play
the tomtoms when it came time for that. You had to
run in order to get there first, and he would not.
So he always had a triangle. He does not remember
how they played the tomtoms, but he sees clearly
their Chinese look. Red with dragons front and back
and gold studs around that held the drumhead tight.
If you had a triangle, you didn't really make music.
You mostly waited while the tambourines and tomtoms
went on a long time. Until there was a signal for all
traingle people to hit them the right way. Usually once.
Then it was tomtoms and waiting some more. But what
he remembers is the sound of the triangle. A perfect,
shimmering sound that has lasted all his long life.
Fading out and coming again after a while. Getting lost
and the waiting for it to come again. Waiting meaning
without things. Meaning love sometimes dying out,
sometimes being taken away. Meaning that he often lives
silent in the middle of the world's music. Waiting
for the best to come again. Beginning to hear the silence
as he waits. Beginning to like the silence maybe too much.

This poem goes through a lot. It starts with a boy in kindergarten who doesn't follow the same path as his peers. He likes different things and has different interests, the focus of those interests being musical. It's interesting to analyze that differnce through music, the distinctly different sound of an insignificant instrument (yet which is so crucial to a song at times).

It goes through this boy playing the triangle in the class's song, but he didn't really have to make music, he just bangs the shit out of the instrument, and that does something for him. It seems theraputic.

Waiting, to play his instrument, means to him without things, love dying out, being taken away, being silent amidst the music, waiting for the best to come. It seems like most of the excitement and thrill comes from the waiting, and then when the waiting is over and the time comes, then is where he begins "finding," referencing the name of the poem. His playing seems to help him find things about himself, but he must be patient in the waiting to get there.

Maybe I'm reading too deep into it, or maybe I'm missing a lot.

What do you think of "Waiting and Finding?"

When You Are Engulfed in Flames

I just finished David Sedaris' sixth book, When You Are Engulfed in Flames, a book of true essays from his life. His books are very bizarre and comical, yet they appeal to a lot of people. Sedaris is a very popular writer of our generation, and this book will show it.

You never really know where Sedaris is going whenever he starts one of his essays. This is one area that I would criticize in terms of his writing. They don't always follow a trajectory that has a solid storyline. He can start with one story, and then it branches off into something completely new and different. Then you end on a completely different note, all of these random stories somehow connecting into one essay. I do enjoy some/most of the stories, but sometimes their connections are very far off and distracting.

I read this book through an audio tape where Sedaris actually reads his book aloud. I've read a lot of his books this way, and it's really cool to hear the author actually experiencing his own book. He really gets into the characters and acts them out, which is pretty amusing, and he puts a lot of emotion into reading it. Some of the tracks were recorded from a live reading he did which was really cool to hear the audience's reaction to his writing. It is very funny when read aloud.

Here are the chapters included in the book (read on tape) and a little bit about what they're about:

"Keeping Up" - Sedaris tries to keep up with Hugh, his boyfriend, who walks too fast. They live in Europe and he always gets lost in his tracks.

"The Understudy" - Sedaris tells of a bad white trash babysitter he had when his parents went out of town on vacation and the terror of being under her rule.

"This Old House" - Sedaris' experiences when he moves into a boarding house.

"Buddy, Can You Spare a Tie?" - Sedaris talks about various "accessories."

"Road Trips" - On Sedaris' homosexuality, specifically a hitch-hiking experience when he was given the opportunity for his first experience with a truck driver.

"What I Learned" - The prestige about going to Princeton and how that effected him after he left and couldn't get a job.

"That's Amore" - An essay on an obnoxious neighbor named Helen who bugged them like crazy in Europe.

"The Monster Mash" - Sedaris becomes fascinated with dead bodies.

"In the Waiting Room" - Sedaris talks of his language barriers in Europe and the consequences with that, specifically when he misinterprets taking his clothes off in a waiting room instead of putting on the robe.

"Solution to Saturday's Puzzle" - Sedaris has a tet-a-tet with a woman sitting next to him on a plane. He thinks she is trashy, and it escalates when his throat lozenge falls onto her lap.



"Adult Figures Charging Toward a Concrete Toadstool" - Sedaris recollects his parents bad taste in art and how his appreciation and interest grew.

"Memento Mori" - Sedaris buys a human skeleton for Hugh and it starts to talk to him, foreboding death.

"Town and Country" - Sedaris listens to a trashy conversation when a couples swears every other word, and then he hops into a cab where the cabdriver in New York talks about his sex life. Then he goes to his sister's and looks at an animal sex book. He realizes that they're all trashy and obsessed with sex.

"Aerial" - Sedaris uses album covers to scare away birds when they rap at his windows in France.

"The Man in the Hut" - Sedaris befriends a neighbor in France who was sent to jail for molesting his wife's grandchildren. He debates whether he should be his friend or not, especially when the man wants to become very close to him.

"Of Mice and Men" - About icebreaker conversations. How to start conversations with people. Sedaris uses newspaper articles, really weird stories, and his stories backfire on him when they cause controversy and people do not believe they are real.

"April in Paris" - Sedaris's recollections of a spider and how he took care of the spider almost as a pet.

"Crybaby" - Sedaris sits next to a grieving man in an airplane and thinks that he's overdoing it a little bit. He also talks about how we experience death and how that somehow makes us special.

"Old Faithful" - Hugh lances a boil off of Sedaris's backside.

"The Smoking Section" - Sedaris documents all of his experiences with smoking, leading upt o him quitting in Japan.

The final essay is really the meat of the book. This is where the title occurs. The title was found in a hotel in Japan when Sedaris opened up a book and the title of one of the chapters was "When You Are Engulfed in Flames." He cleverly titled his book this, and surprisingly enough, many themes from the book are mirrored from this title. I thought that the story with the flying burning mouse was about the title, but nope, it comes later.

"The Smoking Section" is a really interesting piece on smoking. It occurs in three parts, and it really documents how he gets over smoking, what he misses, how people withdraw, how ex-smokers think about smoking and once they've quit, etc. It would be a really great pairing with an Augusten Burroughs essay on quitting smoking as well. They're very similar. They both compare cigarettes to the people that smoke them (what does it say about them). They both try different methods to quit and are both very funny about discussing it.

The cover is also a great choice too. It shows the skeleton he bought Hugh (which reflects the theme of death ever-present in the book) and it is smoking, which leads to death (and also alludes to the theme of smoking which appears at the end). Clever cover.

If you enjoy the bizarre writings of David Sedaris, then you will enjoy this book, When You Are Engulged in Flames. If you like to read humor, then this book is for you, especially if you really enjoy memoir and nonfiction.

So, what did you think of When You Are Engulfed in Flames?

Eustace Tilley Contest

Every year, The New Yorker hosts a contest for artists to depict Eustace Tilley, the magazine's mascot. Contestants send in pictures and images of the mascot, and The New Yorker selects finalists.

If you go to this website at The New Yorker's website, you can browse this year's finalists in the Eustace Tilley contest. They are very unique, creative, and inventive. And they're all different too.

If you were going to depict The New Yorker in a mascot, what would it be? How would you represent the magazine in 2009? Would it be different than a different year?

Let's see what some new ones from this year and other depictions look like:

2009 finalists















And last year's entries...



So what do you think of the entries? Which are your favorites or favorite?

Crank

I just read a fascinating book: Crank by Ellen Hopkins. This book is truly unique because it tells a story through poetry. Every page is a poem that is basically a narrative of a teenage girl who slips through the cracks and into a deep drug addiction.

This book looks very thick and big, but it only took me a couple of hours to read it. Since it's written all in poetry, it's quick to get through. Her style is very cool--her messages are so strong with the way she lays out her words on the pages. It's a truly unique idea that I've never seen before.

Basically, Crank is based on the author's real experiences of her daughter's drug addiction to methamphetamines. The author's note at the beginning of the book attest to this. The characters are adaptations of real people they knew (or the daughter knew) and real experiences of the family. This must be a way for the family (especially the mother) to vent and heal.

The protagonist, sixteen year-old Kristina, goes to visit her father (her parents are divorced), and on this summer trip, she gets her first taste of sexuality and drugs. She has a lack of supervision because her father is going down the same path. She learns how to make out with a neighbor named Adam who also introduces her to drugs: mostly pot and meth. She even does meth with her dad. She comes back home as a completely different kid. Her parents note a change, but they don't do anything about it.

One element I truly enjoyed about the book is that the character battles between two identities: Kristina and Bree. Kristina is the innocent version of herself, the person she used to be before she started drugs. Bree is the addict part of herself that bends the rules, gets attention, says hurtful things, and walks on the wild side. It's a very smart connection to make about drug addicts. They really do have this other persona, and when you see them acting in this crazy way, it's hard to believe that it's the same person you know and love who's committing all of these foul acts. This duality was very cool to explore in the book.

(Spoiler coming...)

When Kristina/Bree returns home, she gets herself mixed up with guys and drugs again right as school begins. Her parents can't do anything to control her. She sneaks out. She snorts meth. She smokes meth. She shoots meth. She parties with an older guy named Brandon and he eventually rapes her when they're high. She eventually becomes pregnant with his baby. (This did happen with the author's family as well, and they're taking care of him as a family despite the damages).

Kristina/Bree does meet a decent guy who does drugs with her. He sticks by her even after she is pregnant from the rape. He works to try to pay off many of the bills of her baby.

The ending doesn't really have much closure, more of a result than an understanding or complete turn around. But I don't think that addiction always has that happy ending. It must be hard to turn it all around, especially when you throw a baby into the mix. I didn't think it was a bad ending; it was just abrupt.

(Spoiler ended)

I enjoyed looking at the parts where the protagonist was speaking about her mother. That must have been intense to write about what you think your daughter felt about you. The way that her daughter perceives her. It seemed like the author was openly honest and blunt about her flaws and did assign partial blame for the whole situation on herself. The whole book basically looked like they took steps back to analyze the whole problem and learn/grow from it. It is apparent in the construction of the book.

I also really enjoy the way they call crank "the monster." It almost has its own persona that lulls her and lures over her to drive her to this madness, like she has no control. Good use of symbolism.

This book also deserves a second read with a closer reading. The construction of poetry can definitely be further analyzed. The way that she structured each poem holds importance. There is a lot of depth to this book even though it can be read in a matter of hours. For those who enjoy poetry, go at this book for a while...

This book would be great for a YA audience; I could see some teenagers who would eat up this book. But, it has very mature themes and situations, which I would precaution some teenagers to get into this. It does teach the negative ways of drugs and sex, but it depends if you want certain teenagers to hear that message. Depends on ages and maturity levels. Still, for those who can handle it, it does send great messages to forewarn about the dangers of this very scary and very dangerous drug.

Apparently Hopkins has other books: Glass , Burned, Impulse, Identical, and Tricks. The books all look pretty similar, but they're all written in verse, just like Crank. They're all fictional accounts about some pretty serious topics: sexual abuse, prostitution, etc. Check out her website for more info here.

So, what do you think of Crank?

Step Brothers

Being a Will Ferrell fan, it's hard for me to dislike his work. I recently watched a new movie of his, Step Brothers, starring his good friend John C. Reilly, and for the most part, I enjoyed it. I thought it was very funny.

I was surprised to see that 55% of people who viewed it did not like the movie. I know it was a little bizarre, but it definitely had its funny points. The writing was hilarious. Sometimes the jokes were a little gross or out there, but I think that overall it was hilarious.

A lot of Will Ferrell movies have been borderline lately. I think Will Ferrell is in a tough position because he has done so many incredible movies, so it's hard to live up to the hype of his humor. And, he likes to play the same kinds of roles and play on his physical humor. He's done a lot of sports movies (Kicking and Screaming, Talladega Nights, Semi-Pro, Blades of Glory). He also uses his physical humor in a lot of his other movies (Anchorman, Austin Powers, Superstar, Wedding Crashers, Old School, Zoolander, and now Step Brothers).

He's very talented; he just has a lot to live up to. That said, I thought that Step Brothers wasn't bad at all. He co-wrote the screenplay with his friend Adam McKay who directed the movie. They must work on his comedy website, because the two of them produced The Landlord, an online video that was extremely popular and hilarious. If you haven't seen it, you should watch it.



What I love about Will Ferrell movies is that you are always in for some guest appearances (as with Ben Stiller and Adam Sandler movies). They're so connected with Hollywood that they can get just about anyone to show up in their films. In Step Brothers, you see a couple cameos from Seth Rogen and Horatio Sanz, and others starring in the film do a great job.

I thought the premise of the movie was a funny idea: Two 40-year-old men who are enabled by their single parents, never get jobs, and still live in their homes as bums, basically teenagers in spirit and mind. It's so funny and so accurate how much these two portray two young adolescents who become friends quickly and have sleepovers. It's hilarious. In terms of messages, I liked that they enforced to stay true to yourself and to always keep that spirit alive--don't lose too much of yourself in that grown-up world. Have some responsibility and don't depend on others too much, but still be yourself.

Anyway, I think it's worth watching. I guess I'm in the minority for liking it, but I'm a loyal Ferrell fan. Even if his movies are mediocre, he still puts on an amazing performance. Even if he's trying to be serious, he makes me laugh. Very few people have that quality. That is why I believe he is a gem. He has a lot up against him, but he can't lose that quality of being hilarious.

And watching Will Ferrell try to sing and entertain is just incredible. Even when he sings a slow song dramatically, at the end of the film, it will just win you over. Very funny.

So what did you think of Step Brothers?

The Hunger Games

A friend recommended The Hunger Games to me by Suzanne Collins. It's a YA sci-fi book that is a series (I found out at the end of the book). This book would definitely appeal to males, especially young males.

This is the premise of the book: This book takes place in the future in a post-apocolyptic world where a dictatorship has risen. The government, called the Capitol, divides the country into 12 divisions. In order to maintain order and to stop a rebellion in the future, the Capitol issues the Hunger Games every year. Adolescents ages 12-18 are all put into a drawing for their division. One male and one female are drawn. These two individuals represent their division and will HAVE to go play the Hunger Games.

In the Hunger Games, contestants are put into an arena where they are forced to kill one another. Only one winner will remain and will be able to live. The Hunger Games are televised for all to watch. Contestants can get sponsors, but the Capitol really makes it into a television show. When it gets too dull, they can alter weather in the arena or can add animals or other elements to make them interesting. In the arena, the Capitol leaves weapons and some food. Otherwise, contestants must live off the land and fight to the death.

It's good to note that most of the country is in extreme poverty, especially from the point of view of Katniss, the protagonist female who is drawn to play in the Hunger Games. They can hardly eat day to day. They live in district 12 where they specialize in coal mining. (Each district has its own specialty from crops to fishing). Katniss lives with her mother and sister and must find food for them. Her father has already died. Katniss hunts in the woods with her older friend Gale, a young male who requests to live in the woods with her to survive, but they can't because they must help their families survive.

Katniss becomes involved in this love triangle with Peeta, the male drawn from district 12 to join her in the Hunger Games. He is in love with her, and during the Hunger Games, the Capitol plays on it. Anyway, Katniss doesn't know who to care for. She is torn between Peeta and their struggle through the Games and Gale, her friend from home. It's a weird triangle.

The Hunger Games is really action-packed. There is always something going on, and for those who love action, this is full of it. It's adventurous, but you need to have an open mind to read this book. If you like survival and science fiction plots, you'll enjoy this. It's a little out there, the whole concept, but if you buy into it, it can sweep you up. It only took me a couple days to read it.

I was a bit angry with the ending. It was building up to some closure, and then it ended right when you wanted to find out about the ending. Then it kindly announced END OF BOOK ONE, signaling to the next book soon to come.

Of course. I was livid. I didn't know it was a series. She wants to connect you to the next book to buy it and get hooked. I can see how people WOULD get hooked, but I'm not THAT drawn into this series. It's no Twilight, let's put it that way.

The next book, Catching Fire, is due out in September 2009 and the third and final book in the trilogy is supposed to be out in 2010. How much farther can this go? Where will she take it?

It seems evil that the Capitol would go back on its promises to keep them together (SPOILER SO DON'T READ BEYOND IF YOU HAVEN'T READ IT YET). I know they were setting that up at the end of the book, but what else could they possibly do to them? The Games are over. How can they go back on their word now that they're home?

I can see that Collins is trying to show the corrupt government situation. It would make sense for them to be tyrannical and evil, going back on their word and being unjust, but it seems a little out there, a little too much. But I guess that's fiction and the imagination. You can do whatever you want. I'm just surprised this is a trilogy. I could see it being one single book (which I thought it was). Maybe a trilogy will be too much? I guess we'll see in September.

Check out Stephen King's review of the book here. I agree with him on two things: I'm not sure if readers will stick around for the series, and Katniss is definitely a lame name.

So what did you think of The Hunger Games?

Man + Machine

Rolling Stone just put out an article in their latest issue on a man named Ray Kurzweil called "When Man and Machine Merge." Kurzweil is a technological prophet. He has some radical futuristic ideas that I needed to expose here because I'm trying to wrap my head around it.

First, here is what he is credited for doing: He taught machines to classify and learn data. He created the first program where computers began to read text (scanning). He also created the first program to translate text into speech. Kurzweil also created a synthesizer that revolutionized the music industry, working specifically with Stevie Wonder. He has also worked with figuring out artificial intelligence but has been in and out of the White House, eventually receiving the highest honor, the National Medal of Technology.

Now, he's making some outlandish predictions that are causing a little bit of a stir.

Here is what he believes is going to happen:

"In our lifetime, Kurzweil believes, machines will not only surpass humans in intelligence--they will irrevocably alter what it means to be human. Cell-size photos will zap disease from our bloodstream. Superintelligent nanotechnology, operating on a molecular scale, will scrub pollution from our atmosphere. Our minds, our skills, our memories, our very consciousness will be backed up on computers--allowing us, in essence, to live forever, all our data saved by supersmart machines."

In others words, "By 2045, computers will surpass us in intelligence, the universe itself will become conscious, and humans will live forever."

Hm.

Kurzweil's father has also been dead for a few years now. He is scientifically preserving his body because he believes he can bring him back to life with his technology. He supplies himself with pills to make him as young as possible. He wants to live long enough to see these changes, and he wants to live long enough so he can sustain his life forever. He really does believe that he can live forever, and he is working his hardest to do so.

This all does seem a bit radical. That's why I'm posting on it. I want to see how other people react to this sort of thing.

I think his accomplishments give him some credit. This opinion isn't just coming from some Joe down the street. I think that's why it makes me raise an eyebrow. I wonder how true some of this stuff MIGHT be, not all the way. Sometimes predictions can even be fabrics of the truth to come, but who knows? I just don't see how machines could really be more capable of thought, something so special and significant of the human mind. The human mind is a work of God. (And I'm not all that religious). How could something manmade trump a natural wonder of the world, human beings?

It's just a bizarre idea I'm throwing out there. The idea that we might become obsolete is kind of weird too. That's just strange.

Anyway, the article was pretty interesting if you want to read it. I didn't put down everything here, just the major points. Do with it what you will.

So what do you think of Kurzweil's predicitions?

The Lonely Island

Digital shorts are sweeping the nation. Andy Samberg and his group of friends, Akiva Schaffer and Jorma Taccone (aka the Dudes) are starting a new fad on Saturday Night Live. Samberg is the cast member that performs these skits, gaining most public recognition, and the three of them write them.

The three of them met in junior high school in California, parted ways for college, and reunited afterwards. They formed the Lonely Island, made some videos that impressed folks at SNL, and all landed writing gigs. They have transformed SNL with their digital shorts. It's such a creative idea, and what they come up with is brilliant. Sometimes, the digital shorts are quite lacking, but lately they have been gold.

Could you imagine such a sweet gig? Working on SNL with your two best friends and making hilarious videos with major superstars who come every week? It's just insane to think about. And they're all so young! They've got a sick gig over there in New York.



The Lonely Island just put out a CD called Incredibad, another name they sometimes go by. The CD features songs from their digital shorts on SNL:

1. Who Said We're Wack?
2. Santana, DVX
3. Jizz in My Pants
4. I'm on a Boat
5. Sax Man
6. Lazy Sunday
7. Normal Guy
8. Boombox
9. Shrooms
10. Like a Boss
11. We Like Sportz
12. Dreamgirl
13. Ras Trent
14. Dick in a Box
15. The Old Saloon
16. Punch You in the Jeans
17. Space Olympics
18. Natalie's Rap
19. Incredibad



It also features a DVD with many of those songs on it along with a few others ("Just 2 Guyz" and "Bing Bong Brothers.")

Many of those songs were digital shorts first, many with some great cameo appearances such as Natalie Portman, Justin Timberlake, T Payne, Jack Black, Chris Parnell, and Norah Jones. They're absolutely hilarious, but it might be funnier if you watch them first as digital shorts.

Watch their digital shorts at this website.

I would recommend watching Extreme Challenge, the Laser Cats episodes, the Japanese Office, Jizz in My Pants, Body Fuzion, Peyote, Pep Talk, or Doppelganger. Most of them are amazing; some of them can be a little outrageous or strange.

Or, watch some of their videos and check out the latest with The Lonely Island at their new website here.

They really are absolutely hilarious. This trio has a lot of talent, and they need to be watched. They came out with their first full length movie, Hot Rod, a few years ago. That movie was pretty funny, and I know that that movie will be their start to make more movies in the future. For a first movie, they did incredible.

Even though they have flopped in the past, two failed attempts at television pilots for their own shows both with MTV and Fox (called Awesometown), they are still on top and successful. Definitely keep an eye on these guys; they aren't going anywhere and they are in the spotlight for the comedic eye.

So, what do you think of The Lonely Island?

Pineapple Express

Finally, I saw the Pineapple Express. I wanted to see it over the summer, but I never had time to go see a movie. Anyway, it was pretty much everything I was expecting which isn't a bad thing to say.

Seth Rogen really is becoming a movie giant now, similar to a young Adam Sandler but with more early success. He has the ability to write successful movies and star in them, which is pretty impressive. His humor is obviously appealing to a mass audience (almost a cult audience following) but is reaching a very wide audience. He doesn't even look like he would be a movie star, but low and behold, here he is, succeeding.

Superbad really launched Rogen, but I think that Pineapple Express holds him up top to solidify his talent. He did it once, great. He did it twice, there is talent. He can do it a few more times.

He wrote this movie with Evan Goldberg, the character Evan from Superbad. The duo really are talented in writing screenplays.

What is pretty interesting is that Rogen was intiially intended to play the stoner character, Saul. When Franco came in to do the reading, Judd Apatow (the director) suggested that Franco read for Saul, and it really clicked. Then Rogen cast himself as Dale Denton which seemed to be a good fit. It's weird to think about it being the other way around, but I think either way would have worked.

Rolling Stone Magazine had an article on the movie when it was first hot, a few months ago. Rogen discussed how he came up with the movie. He wanted to combine action, comedy, and stoner movies in one. He did a pretty good job at that. The original idea came from 1993's True Romance, inspired by Brad Pitt's stoner character named Floyd. I've never seen it, but the guys say that they wondered what the movie would be like starring this guy. Well, it was a pretty successful idea.

I think it's funny that Rogen got Huey Lewis and the News to make the song for the movie, "Pineapple Express." I couldn't believe it was them when I heard it. Good for them.



The acting was pretty well done; the special effects were mediocre and a little intense/fake; the probability of any of this ever happening: never. When I was watching it, I wanted them to make so many other decisions, but then it wouldn't be a good movie if they did.

The cross joint also was an interesting idea to throw in there. In that Rolling Stone interview, apparently that is something that Rogen has tried. I don't even understand how that would be possible. Very tricky.

It really was laugh-out-loud funny though. These guys have such a funny and unique sense of humor that you can't help but laugh (especially when they're high in the woods). They really do capture the essence of being high. I'm just surprised they are so open about it. It does grant them a larger fan base, but it also does something to your reputation. I guess they don't mind so much. It's helping their success, at least at this point. I wonder how much longer they can do that and get away with it. It'd be weirder if they were like fifty and doing the same thing... Anyway.

I was really impressed with Franco's acting, especially since he's never smoked pot before. He studied by watching how people behave, so he's pretty right-on for that. After this movie, he's taking a break to study literature or some other intense major at a prestigious college. I commend that, but it must be hard to do something like that, especially when you just finished playing Saul on this movie and now you attend a college. I feel like people would be crawling all over you and would only want to talk about your acting career. Good for him though.

Maybe I missed it, but did they ever mention what happened to Rogen's girlfriend? They kind of just left that one hanging. Also, I commend the wardrobe jobs. They really were well done and captured the characters well. I like how these two writers capture what happens in a series of 1-2 days. Very unique and cool technique.

Does anyone know what Rogen is currently working on?

So, what did you think of Pineapple Express?

Donation Rant

I don't really know how to go about this rant, but I've got to start somewhere. I just had a strange encounter the other day and I want to comment on it.

Outside of Borders, where I was shopping avidly for books, a lady set up a station where people could make donations for children who are lost or who have been kidnapped. She asked every person as they went by (asking me as I entered), but I never carry cash on me so I can't normally donate unless the counter person asks me if I want to add it to my bill. In most cases, I will. It's only a dollar.

Anyway, as I left the store, she was kind of heckling me. She forced eye contact and conversation in a way that if you turned and walked away, it would be socially rude and immoral. I was with a friend, so we just kept walking, but this angered the lady. She must get this all the time. As we were walking away, I think she wanted us to feel the sting of rejecting her, so she yelled "Every 37 seconds, a child is lost!!!" Almost as if I was part of the problem now. Maybe take away another second because of my lack of donation.

Now, why even yell that at someone? I obviously wasn't going to contribute because I literally had nothing to give her, but does she think that yelling that will do either one of two things: I will turn around in embarassment and shame and give her money out of pity and sympathy; or two, I will now walk around my day and feel horrible because I didn't even empty my pockets for the cause.

I just thought it was tacky. I couldn't stop laughing, but a strange laugh, wondering why someone would yell something like that at someone (especially for a good cause). Aren't those kinds of people trying to help situations, not make them awkward or uncomfortable?

And even after she yelled that at me, as we were still walking to our cars, after a long pause she uttered, "Have a great day!"

Have a great day? She was just trying to solicit us using statistics. The whole thing is just bizarre.

And look, I know their job is hard. No one wants to give away spare cash, for any cause. People only really feel guilty when they know someone who has been inflicted bu whatever disease or tragedy. If you don't give money, it means you don't care. But is that true? It's hard to give away money in this economy, especially, when jobs are being lost left and right. This is a hard time for someone to sit on the street and ask for spare change.

This situation even reminds me of the Salvation Army santas that stand around stores on the holidays. When people hear that bell ringing, they go RUNNING. They avoid eye contact, shove their hands in their pockets, put their eyes down, and head straight for the car. And those people are the nicest. They open doors for you, they stand in the cold for HOURS, and they tolerate greedy people (like me the other day) who run away and don't want to acknowledge your presence. Those people truly have the kindest hearts.

So, I see the good cause, but is there a time when it crosses the line? People will donate, but do you need to give them the guilt trip? Do you need to get in their face? Some people will donate just for you to leave them alone, but is that worth it in the end?

What do you think of the solicitious nature of the donating booth crowd?

Kittens Inspired by Kittens

I'm not normally a person who sits around and looks for weird or funny videos on the internet, but this one fell into my lap last night. It's pretty hilarious.

It's called Kittens Inspired by Kittens and you can watch it here.

Hilarious.

Basically, they have a little girl narrating for a book filled with kittens. She basically narrates what she thinks the kittens would say, and that's pretty funny all in itself.

But, the video got me thinking: Is it unethical to put children in YouTube videos as the focus? I'm not that traditional of a person, but I think it's a little extreme to have your child as the center of a video that is posted for everyone to see on the internet. It may be exciting for the child, but that exposure is just weird. The child is doing what you're telling them to do to be funny. There just seems to be something off and odd about the whole thing.

However, it is a very creative and original idea, and I will give them credit for that. Very funny and worth watching.

So what do you think of the video Kittens Inspired by Kittens?

Burn After Reading

I heard so many mixed reviews about Burn After Reading, and I was wondering what the general consensus is on this film.

I watched this movie yesterday and expected something entirely different. The previews set the movie up to be a quirky comedy (in my opinion), making Brad Pitt dance around as an airhead gym fanatic and Jon Malkovich scream in a silly way that seemed over-the-top. Or maybe the previews gave away too little of what it really was going to be. Or maybe it's hard to convey this movie in a trailer.

The movie WAS kind of strange. It had all these different angles that eventually intersected (which I really liked), but it was kind of bizarre. So many different angles were opened and were left that way: Clooney's "toy" he made in his basement and that connection to his wife, the CD with information, Malkovich's memoir, Clooney's addiction to cheating, the Russians...

I do think the Coen brothers are clever, and they make good movies. I was just wondering what the purpose of this movie was. At the end, I was thinking to myself: Well, so what? What is the overall message here? What are we supposed to take from this movie?

I enjoyed how they portrayed plastic surgery. No one needs it, especially if you work at a gym. I like how they portrayed the voice messaging system where you have to respond to a computer to direct you to a phone line (say "agent"). I liked how they showed cheating and how it just can't ever end soundly. Online dating was also interesting to explore in this film.

One thing that the Coen brothers do very well is create characters. Each of the actors did a fantastic job of conveying their character, but they were created very well. The actors seemed to get a good sense of their characters, but it was through the writing that probably lead them to really encapsulate them.

It also also noteworthy to commend the actors in this film. All very well done. The beginning scene where Malkovich gets fired absolutely blew me away. He's a very flamboyent, eccentric guy, but he really impressed me with that scene. Pitt even played a character very different from his others, and a smaller role, and he did a fantastic job. Very impressive acting.

Why would the FBI (or whatever that government agency was that Juno's dad played the head cheif) cover up all of these murders? To save their asses? It just seemed out of character and not true. I know the whole plot spun out of control to something that would never really happen (which is really the beauty of film and getting lost in a fictional plot), but I didn't understand that angle. What were the trying to say about the FBI? That they're willing to break the law to save reputation?

And the purpose of the title? Someone help me out there.

So what are we supposed to make of this movie? What messages are there?

What did you think of Burn After Reading?

Lollapalooza Lineup 2009?

Since I really enjoyed myself at Bonnaroo last summer, I want to check out a new festival this year. I've been browsing around to see what artists are coming to what festivals, and somehow I came across Lollapalooza.

I found this artist lineup for Lollapalooza 2009, and I don't know if it's legit. It looks like it is, but everywhere I look, it says that it hasn't been announced yet. Normally, when the lineup is set in stone, it is posted on the festival's website. Lollapalooza's website only has up 2008's lineup, not this year's.

This is the website.

I'm posting what it looks like below as well:



Does anyone know if this is made up or real?

It seems too good to be true; those artists are incredible. If it was real, I'd definitely consider that as my top choice of festivals. Bonnaroo just didn't meet last year's expectations with a sick lineup.

So, does anyone know the real deal with Lollapalooza 2009?

Elliott Smith

So, I'm officially obsessed with Elliott Smith. I listen to him every single day. I don't know what it is about him, but his sound really fits who I am right now and how I'm feeling lately. And I'm not depressed.

Smith's sound is lighter, slower, and can be a bit mellow or depressing. Even though he was extremely depressed, his music has a soft, uplifting tone to it. It's not as dark as he really was, which is kind of interesting. Maybe his music made up for the feelings he didn't have inside. Something to think about.

For those of you who don't know Elliott Smith, he used to be in a band called Heatmiser, and then he went solo. He came out with six albums from 1994 until his death in 2004, the last album coming out after his death. Smith is known for drug and alcohol addiction. Smith is also known for being extremely depressed and mellow, eventually committing suicide by stabbing himself in the heart. Someone really wants to die if they kill themselves in that manner.

I just find his music fascinating. It's so different from other stuff out there. His voice is so unique and mesmerizing... It has this pitch to it that is kind of eerie and intriguing all at the same time. You can hear some of his pain when he sings, but his music sounds much more upbeat and happy than the lyrics. Even before I saw what he looked like, I was not picturing him to the look the way he did. He looks much more like a rock star for the sound he puts out. Not that it's a bad thing, but he just looks differently than his sound.



What I didn't know was that his real name is Steven; he changed it to Elliott because Steve sounded to jock-ish and Steven sounded too bookish. He is now forever known as Elliott. I also didn't know that he had supposed abuse from his stepfather as a child. This might have caused some of this inner turmoil Elliott faced later on in life, turning to drugs, alcohol, and music as a means of escaping and coping.

Details on Elliott's death: "Elliott Smith died on October 21, 2003 at age 34 from two stab wounds to the chest. According to girlfriend Jennifer Chiba, with whom he was living at the time, the two were arguing, and she locked herself in the bathroom to take a shower. Chiba heard him scream, and upon opening the door, saw Smith standing with a kitchen knife in his chest. She pulled the knife out, after which he collapsed and she called 911. Smith died in the hospital with the time of death listed as 1:36 p.m. While Smith's death was originally reported as a suicide, the official autopsy report released in December 2003 left open the question of possible homicide. A possible suicide note, written on a Post-it, read, "I'm so sorry—love, Elliott. God forgive me."

After Elliott's death, many fans mourned. They even made a memorial wall for him in Los Angeles that is absolutely gorgeous. It's modeled after the cover of one of his albums, Figure 8. Fans come there to leave him messages. You can see an awesome video of it here.

I highly recommend his music. If you are interested in getting into Elliott, try these two albums: Figure 8 and From a Basement on the Hill.

Try these songs: "Color Bars," "Wouldn't Mama Be Proud," "Coast to Coast," "Son of Sam," "Junk Bond Trader," "Can't Make a Sound," "Pretty (Ugly Before)," "Happiness," "A Fond Farewell," "Twilight," "A Passing Feeling," "Miss Misery" (from the Good Will Hunting Soundtrack), "Tomorrow, Tomorrow," "Waltz #2," "Amity," "Say Yes."

So, what do you think of Elliott Smith?