It's been a few weeks since my last
entry. I resumed my work in Boston, I got my computer fixed, and I
noticed how I don't really need it anymore for the most part of my
week, but when I do and it's not there I really miss it. Not having
my laptop with me meant not being able to write properly a blog
entry. It meant not being able to backup the photos I took over the
holidays, or upload them to the inter-webs. I kept up to date with
the weather, checked my email, and browsed my face-book-news-wall
thanks to my phone, but I haven't had the chance to do anything
important. Now I have windows 8 (it kind of sucks [although it is
quite pretty]), I was able to backup all my files, and have switched
to open office. As I wait a few minutes for my most precious
electronic belonging to download back into my laptop (my music
library), I sip some tea, and write a bit.
One can not really write if one doesn't
read. I remember having read a book by Steven King when I was a kid,
it was called While I Write. In it he writes quick-tips and rules of
thumb he normally follows (I still remember quite a few), and one of
them is that he tries to read at least ten times more than what he
writes. This seemed quite a lot to me back in the day, but lately
I've come to realize it's not that much really: If a writer gets one
novel done per year, and he reads about a book a month, he'll be
already reading twelve times more than what he writes... Does this
mean that Steven King doesn't read enough? It may appear that way.
In his defense, I also remember another
rule of thumb (I don't remember anymore where I heard/read it but
it's been stuck in my mind for a lot of time so the source must have
been credible) that says: one can not read about what one does not
know (I think I already talked a bit about this previously). So it's
important to have something to say when one writes, and it's easier
to write about life and stuff when one spends a good amount of time
at living it... and stuff. So I guess we'll give Mr. King the benefit
of the doubt and assume he spends a lot of time hunting ghosts and
fighting demons.
In the department of reading I've been
quite active. I finished Love in the Times of Cholera. I also
finished the Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest, and the Great Gatsby.
I really enjoyed the three of them:
Garcia Marquez's book was
astonishingly simple in form. In essence, I didn't get the whole
Magical Realism thing except for a few bits of fantasy (there's an
immortal parrot) here and there. The whole story is actually quite
similar to that of my grandpa and my grandma, or to stories they
used to tell me when I was little, about their friends, about
oddities that happened in their little town when they were young.
Stieg Larsson's book was just as
good as the previous two in Froken Salander's trilogy. Though the
story is quite predictable (logical maybe?) at certain parts, it is
quite witty. The story develops at several depths in quite an
intense way. It is a story about society and the authorities, but
also one about gender inequalities, about the foundation of
democracy, about journalism, and it is also a spy novel.
Fitzgerald's most famous work was
a fun break from big novels with many plots. It's amazing how a tiny
story can achieve such greatness. I guess it's all about being
American: Americans are concise. On that note, last weekend I saw at
the Library (the one on 5th Avenue and 42nd
Street) an exhibition on NY lunches, and a cool phrase was being
displayed: the American is born fast, grows fast, makes up his mind
fast, eats fast, gets rich fast, and dies fast.
In keeping up with Latin America, the
next book on my list is be Cabaret Místico, by Alejandro Jodorowsky.
I can't wait to start reading.