What album will you bring on your Robinson Crusoe adventure?
Greil Marcus let American rock writers choose their album and justify their choice in Stranded.
I can continue reading this type of literature forever or create a blog or podcast about it. Or maybe there is one, but I don’t know about it, and I am too lazy to check it out.
The book presents a beautiful image of the ’60s and ’70s, and, of course, the rock scene at the time when vinyl was still mainstream. Some of the bands have become pretty obscure. The Ronettes, ok, I still remember them, and many kids may have heard one of their songs once. But Little John Willie, Hugh Smith, … WTF, as they would say. I can’t even recall having heard of them. And I was into music, in my time (reading ferociously on the topic: Oor, Rolling Stone, NME, what had you).
3 Surprising Albums from ‘Stranded’ You Need to Know:
New York Dolls – The New York Dolls
Captain Beafheart – Trout Mask Replica
Van Morrison – Astral Weeks.
PS
The first one to leave a note: I will send the book for free (item condition: read). PS: sent.
Which album would you take to a desert island? Share your choice in the comments!
Changing the ticket to the flight from Johannesburg to Amsterdam was horribly expensive: 6000 euros (single economy ticket).
I went for it. If all’s well, the customer will pay.
The ride to JFK was very stressful. We underestimated the travel time during rush hour. So I rushed out of the car into the check-in, only to find out the flight to Johannesburg was cancelled. A large row of misinformed people was waiting.
A small, boyish girl eventually informed me. Then I discovered that the travel agency had made an error, changing my original return flight to Amsterdam to go through Joburg. I was not booked on the original flight, so I could not get a ticket for the alternative flight via Atlanta they offered.
In the very noisy departure hall, I called my travel agency. They could do nothing else but arrange a stay at the Marriott close to JFK while making arrangements for me.
In the Yellow Cab, we passed through a movie scene: a bunch of people gathered around a fire in an oil drum.
I contacted the agency in the hotel room. They arranged an alternative flight for the next day.
I checked out at about twelve and went back to the airport in the Yellow Cab. At JFK, the driver gave me a blank receipt. He grinned: ‘Now you expense a million dollars,’ put my suitcase on the pavement and jumped back in the car.
Version 1.0.0
At the Delta desk, the price for the new ticket had gone up from the 2900 euros the agency promised to 4200 euros. I did get a very helpful lady from Delta and a ticket in return. That totaled up the total flying cost for this trip at 6000 euros.
The flight was less difficult than expected, but I also slept less than expected. On the other hand, I watched three movies: Bewitched (crap), Batman Begins and Caché. Caché with the most beautiful woman on earth: Juliette Binoche. I finished The God of Small Things too. Wonderful, though in my mind, I associate it with the dreamy state of half-consciousness I was in while reading the book.
I checked in at the unavoidable Sandton Sun and Towers hotel. Villamoura, the hotel’s restaurant, is an absolute must. Their calamari is exquisite. I collapsed after that.
I wanted to go there immediately. Fantastic, these all American images on that site. I imagine sitting on the porch of one of these houses, in a rocking chair. All according to the cliches. Cowboys shouting in the saloon next door.
Horses loosely attached to the fench rail.
Sporadically cars drive by, suspending large clouds of dust.
At least four reasons to stop at Seligman on your Route 66 road trip:
Vroeg wakker. De wind is gaan liggen. De krekels hebben de overhand gekregen. De muggen zien hun kans schoon, en hebben het voorzien op A. Ik sla er een plat. Een grote rode plek op het laken. Hij is traag geworden van al dat bloed.
Gisteren de oude Fiesta ingeruild na een lekke band. We waren die auto helemaal zat. Onveilig, vies, onbetrouwbaar. Het verhuurbedrijf is om de hoek hier. Ik denk dat ze bijna failliet zijn. Oude auto’s, geklooi met overpompen van benzine.
De behaarde Griek zit in een hemd achter een bureau dat is volgestapeld met papieren. Hij zeurt over benzine. Ik over dat ze ons een lege tank, vlakke banden en een brakke rem op pad hebben gestuurd.
Maria staat hier al voor zevenen beneden bij het hotel, klaar voor een dag werk.
De wind is nu gaan liggen -10 uur ’s avonds. De insecten komen uit hun holen.
Knossos viel wat tegen. Pestend rijden vanuit Plakias, maar wel een mooie route, tussen Plakias en Rethymnon. Van Rethymnon en Iraklion volgen we een saaiere autoweg langs de kust.
Knossos vereist veel energie. Energie om je voor te stellen hoe indrukwekkend groot dit paleis moet zijn geweest. Energie om je voort te bewegen op het snikhete terrein.
Er staat eens suppoost met een parasol en een fluitje. Als er iemand buiten de hekjes stapt, blaast ze op haar fluitje en gilt “Get Out!”.
We eten in een dorpje voorbij Bali. Een Russische familie zit aan de tafel naast ons. Een klein varken hangt in de winkel aan de overkant te besterven.
Het is nu echt warm. We zouden bidden om wind, als we gelovig waren als de Grieken.
In the 30th anniversary edition of ‘The Selfish Gene’ (2006), Richard Dawkins writes a vile but correct comment on Fred Hoyle’s misrepresentation of Darwinism in an endnote (pp. 277-278). He ends his note:
Publishers should correct the misapprehension that a scholar’s distinction in one field implies authority in another. And as long as that misapprehension exists, distinguished scholars should resist the temptation to abuse it.
This is a very accurate observation. But on the same page, in the note referenced in the main text (page 59 of the 30th Anniversary edition), Dawkins almost falls into the trap himself.
Richard Dawkins
The Stain on the White Robe: Dawkins’ Error
The note’s text to the main text is so incredibly incorrect that it is pretty funny, given that he does this on the same page as his scolding of Hoyle.
In the note, Dawkins wants to explain Daniel Dennett’s theory of consciousness. Although Dennett has tried to explain his ideas in several books, Dawkins wants to summarize Dennett’s work in this two-page note for unclear reasons.
Daniel Dennett
Incorrect Analogies from Computer Science
Dawkins takes two technical ideas from the world of computers to illustrate his ideas: the concept of a virtual machine and ’the distinction between serial and parallel processors’.
The Virtual Machine
Dawkins starts by explaining what a virtual machine is incorrectly. He mentions the Macintosh User Interface as an example of a virtual machine. The Mac is a great machine, but the Macintosh User Interface bears little resemblance to a virtual machine, and the connection with consciousness remains very unclear. Dawkins could have relied on the Wikipedia article for a correct description of virtual machines.
A virtual machine (VM) is a software-based “computer within your computer.” It lets you run a separate operating system (like Windows or Linux) in an isolated window, using your existing hardware. It’s like having a sandboxed PC inside your real one.
Serial and Parallel Processors
The story derails entirely when Dawkins turns to his description of ‘serial and parallel processors’. The piece is so incorrect that highlighting the individual errors here makes no sense. Since Dawkins fails to see the distinction between processors and processes. He starts wrong and worsens things in every sentence. And it’s not like this was rocket science at the time of writing. Parallel processing has been known and applied in computing since our ownEdsger Dijkstra and others invented concepts like the semaphore and the indivisible instruction.
More linkages to Dennett’s work and that of his friend Douglas Hofstadter on page 59, where Dawkins discusses self-awareness and rejects ideas of self-awareness because
Douglas R. Hofstadter
it involves an infinite regress if there is a model of the model, why not a model of the model of the model …?
So, can we conclude that Dawkins has fallen into the trap of asserting that a scholar’s distinction in one field implies authority in another?
As I said, almost. On page 280 Dawkins saves himself, on the edge, with this little remark:
‘The reader is advised to consult Dennett’s own account when it is published, rather than rely on my doubtless imperfect and impressionistic – maybe even embellished – one.’
How true.
I have never had such fun with academic footnotes.
