Books: April 2008 Archives
I went into a second-hand bookshop on the way home from uni yesterday. (Pickerings Books, 30 Buccleuch Street (just on the corner with Buccleuch Place). It's closing down, unfortunately.) I usually look for books on Philosophy, Religion, and Language, although I'm open to all really. Sometimes you can get real gems.
Of course, everyone's definition of a gem differs. While my interest in language are mainly theoretical and phonological, I do have a penchant for language descriptions and obscure languages, and the idea of descriptive fieldwork seems very romantic and adventurous to me. (You'd be like Indiana Jones, but a linguist instead of an archaeologist!) So I stumble upon David Watters' A Grammar of Kham, a language spoken by roughly 45,000 people in western Nepal. How much? £5! You can't say no for that price. Especially when it's in such a good condition - hardback, no notable scuffs, paper practically as-new. I get home, and find out that Cambridge University Press, the publishers, expect £96 for the book, and that amazon.co.uk are charging £91.20.
Slightly less impressive, but still a good saving, I got Geoffrey Kimball's Koasati Dictionary (also known as Coushatta, a language spoken by around 400 people in Louisiana) for £4, when amazon.co.uk want £64, and the publishers $85.
Do I need these books? No. Do I want them? Yes. Will I use them, and find them useful? Probably. As I was explaining to my flatmate yesterday, I'm not buying them for any pragmatic value. I doubt I'll be stuck in western Nepal any time soon, or be asked to translate some Koasati myths. I got them because I find this stuff interesting. And because they were bargains!
Kimball, Geoffrey D. Koasati Dictionary. Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1994.
Watters, David E. A Grammar of Kham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
I don't like Garfield. It's a boring comic with no depth, no emotion, and most of the time it isn't even funny. However, I fell in love with Garfield after seeing some edits with all of Garfield's speech removed.
Since Garfield is a cat, he never technically speaks, he only thinks (with a thought bubble, à la Snoopy). Removing this from the strips make the comic's interactions appear as they would to a disconnected observer. Garfield becomes a real cat, rather than a smart-assed anthropomorphic feline. In the words of MvCRage, "It adds yet another depressing layer to the pathetic existence that is Jon" (Garfield's owner).
That's not all, however. About a month ago the blog garfield minus garfield started making the rounds. This version removes Garfield entirely. In the words of the site itself,
Who would have guessed that when you remove Garfield from the Garfield comic strips, the result is an even better comic about schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and the empty desperation of modern life? Friends, meet Jon Arbuckle. Let's laugh and learn with him on a journey deep into the tortured mind of an isolated young everyman as he fights a losing battle against loneliness in a quiet American suburb.
Along the same lines, and much older, is the Garfield randomiser, which doesn't modify the panels themselves, but rather the ordering of panels themselves. Think of it as a Garfield collage. There were some copyright issues with it, so google it to find some links and information. One of the best comics ever created (in my opinion) with the randomiser is the death of garfield.
This modification of existing art (or whatever you want to call comics) reminds me a lot of Marmaduke Explained and Dysfunctional Family Circus, and even those artists a few years ago who bought classic paintings and modified them with paint all over the shop, I can't remember their names. It's the visual equivalent of a remix, almost. And I really like the transposition of Garfield (the character) from a smug lasagna-loving cultural icon, into an ordinary housecat, and then into... nothing at all.
[Edit: Looks like The Comic Strip Doctor has written something about this, and mentions all the stuff I mentioned, and more! It's a great read, especially with the Garfield analysis towards the end.]
