Saturday, July 4, 2009

A Folk Lyric

“Tuff the Magic Palin”

©Pieces of Toast, 2009


Tuff, the magic Palin lived by Lake Lucille

And frolicked at taxpayers’ cost in a land called Wassil-lee,


Little Jackie Voter loved that rascal tuff,

And bought her clothes, procurement acts, and other fancy stuff. oh!


Tuff, the magic Palin lived by Lake Lucille

And frolicked at taxpayers’ cost in a land called Wassil-lee,


Todd and Tuff would travel in a plane with Fox News whores.

Sarah kept a lookout on the Russians right next door,

Noble kings and princes would bow whene’er they came,

State troopers turned their guns in when tuff roared out “You bet-cha”!


Tuff, the magic Palin lived by Lake Lucille

And frolicked at taxpayers’ cost in a land called Wassil-lee,


Avarice lives forever but not so Sarah’s term.

Ted Stevenses and John McCains make way for other worms.

Friday night it happened; reporters packed it in

And took off for the long weekend, so Sarah dropped the bomb.


Her head was bent in sorrow. Ebay closed her file,

The AIP called Toddy up, “hey bro, it’s been a while.”

Without her pro-life coalition, and Bristol’s shot-gun beau,

Tuff slunk off to sell rape kits from her pick-up in Juneau. oh!


Tuff, the magic Palin lived by Lake Lucille

And frolicked at taxpayers’ cost in a land called Wassil-lee,

Tuff, the magic Palin lived by Lake Lucille

And frolicked at taxpayers’ cost in a land called Wassil-lee.

A black hole filled with friction, bleeding


Dear Europe,

Here's a little 4th of July reminder that you shouldn't simply assume that the creepy old men trying to grope the young women on your picturesque, cobbled streets are American. We present here, what proud Canadian Nigel Beale calls a "short story," but aint nobody here fooled by what we're reading.

Confidential to NB: She's probably still in the shower, trying to scrub off your creepiness.

Inside Prague by Nigel Beale

A PR executive in his forties goes to Prague with his 18 year old daughter to finalize a real estate transaction. Whilst there he takes a "Kafka" walking tour of the old city. He shows up at the allotted time and, to his surprise, finds himself alone with a beautiful young guide. They start walking. He feels everything felt on a first date. She talks about Kafka’s early life, pointing to the house at Karpfensgasse and Maiselgasse where he is said to have been born, mentioning that his mother died when he was very young.

This the executive knows to be untrue. Julie Lowy died in 1934, ten years after her Franz’s death.

They walk through narrow side streets together and stop at a small church. No one is near. It is quiet. His watery legs float in air that is skin temperature, unsure of where they end and it begins. She stares into his eyes and starts talking about herself. Her studies at Charles University, her childhood in the surrounding countryside, the corruption of local police and her desire to leave the country.

She says she has her own apartment. He observes her lips.

Why is she sharing these personal stories?

After a time they move on. She points out various buildings, architectural features, a fish. Given her error, the man isn’t sure he can believe anything she says.

They return to the Old Town Square where the tour began, to stand facing each other, closer perhaps than propriety warranted. She gazes again into his eyes and asks if he has anymore questions. He knows what he wants to say. He doesn’t want her to leave, but only shakes his head. She turns and slowly walks away. He watches her shapely back, her lithe movement. There is a black hole filled with friction inside him. Bleeding, he makes his way back to the restaurant where his daughter awaits.

Sunday, May 10, 2009

The Onion on Blogging

Mainstream Media At It Again, Bloggers Report

NEW YORK—The mainstream media—a loose consortium of corporate news outlets known for using professionally trained journalists who adhere to an editorial process—have once again completely missed the boat in their reporting of national events, outraged sources within the blogosphere said Monday. "When will the MSM dinosaurs realize that they're TOTALLY irrelevant?" wrote 39-year-old part-time librarian James Last, commenting on coverage of Obama's first 100 days in a scathing post that appeared on his blog, The LAST Word. "If the idiots at MSNBC, The New York Times, and WaPo could lift their heads from the money trough for a minute, maybe they'd write a story that's not completely driven by the corporate agenda. I'm not holding my breath." Right-wing bloggers were reportedly equally upset, with many singling out MSNBC, The New York Times, and The Washington Post as "shills" for the liberal agenda. At press time, an estimated 8.4 million bloggers nationwide were watching CNN.

Sunday, May 3, 2009

How to Write a Blogpost, by Edgar Allan Poe


I PRESUME everybody has heard of me. My name is the Signora Psyche Zenobia. This I know to be a fact. Nobody but my enemies ever calls me Suky Snobbs. I have been assured that Suky is but a vulgar corruption of Psyche, which is good Greek, and means "the soul" (that's me, I'm all soul) and sometimes "a butterfly," which latter meaning undoubtedly alludes to my appearance in my new crimson satin dress, with the sky-blue Arabian mantelet, and the trimmings of green agraffas, and the seven flounces of orange-colored auriculas. As for Snobbs--any person who should look at me would be instantly aware that my name wasn't Snobbs. Miss Tabitha Turnip propagated that report through sheer envy. Tabitha Turnip indeed! Oh the little wretch! But what can we expect from a turnip? Wonder if she remembers the old adage about "blood out of a turnip," &c.? [Mem. put her in mind of it the first opportunity.] [Mem. again--pull her nose.] Where was I? Ah! I have been assured that Snobbs is a mere corruption of Zenobia, and that Zenobia was a queen--(So am I. Dr. Moneypenny always calls me the Queen of the Hearts)--and that Zenobia, as well as Psyche, is good Greek, and that my father was "a Greek," and that consequently I have a right to our patronymic, which is Zenobia and not by any means Snobbs. Nobody but Tabitha Turnip calls me Suky Snobbs. I am the Signora Psyche Zenobia.

As I said before, everybody has heard of me. I am that very Signora Psyche Zenobia, so justly celebrated as corresponding secretary to the "Philadelphia, Regular, Exchange, Tea, Total, Young, Belles, Lettres, Universal, Experimental, Bibliographical, Association, To, Civilize, Humanity." Dr. Moneypenny made the title for us, and says he chose it because it sounded big like an empty rum-puncheon. (A vulgar man that sometimes--but he's deep.) We all sign the initials of the society after our names, in the fashion of the R. S. A., Royal Society of Arts--the S. D. U. K., Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, &c, &c. Dr. Moneypenny says that S. stands for stale, and that D. U. K. spells duck, (but it don't,) that S. D. U. K. stands for Stale Duck and not for Lord Brougham's society--but then Dr. Moneypenny is such a queer man that I am never sure when he is telling me the truth. At any rate we always add to our names the initials P. R. E. T. T. Y. B. L. U. E. B. A. T. C. H.--that is to say, Philadelphia, Regular, Exchange, Tea, Total, Young, Belles, Lettres, Universal, Experimental, Bibliographical, Association, To, Civilize, Humanity--one letter for each word, which is a decided improvement upon Lord Brougham. Dr. Moneypenny will have it that our initials give our true character--but for my life I can't see what he means.

Notwithstanding the good offices of the Doctor, and the strenuous exertions of the association to get itself into notice, it met with no very great success until I joined it. The truth is, the members indulged in too flippant a tone of discussion. The papers read every Saturday evening were characterized less by depth than buffoonery. They were all whipped syllabub. There was no investigation of first causes, first principles. There was no investigation of any thing at all. There was no attention paid to that great point, the "fitness of things." In short there was no fine writing like this. It was all low--very! No profundity, no reading, no metaphysics--nothing which the learned call spirituality, and which the unlearned choose to stigmatize as cant. [Dr. M. says I ought to spell "cant" with a capital K--but I know better.]

When I joined the society it was my endeavor to introduce a better style of thinking and writing, and all the world knows how well I have succeeded. We get up as good papers now in the P. R. E. T. T. Y. B. L. U. E. B. A. T. C. H. as any to be found even in The Critical Flame. I say, The Critical Flame., because I have been assured that the finest writing, upon every subject, is to be discovered in the pages of that justly celebrated Magazine. We now take it for our model upon all themes, and are getting into rapid notice accordingly. And, after all, it's not so very difficult a matter to compose an article of the genuine The Critical Flame stamp, if one only goes properly about it. Of course I don't speak of the political articles. Everybody knows how they are managed, since Dr. Moneypenny explained it. Mr. The Critical Flame has a pair of tailor's-shears, and three apprentices who stand by him for orders. One hands him the "Times," another the "Examiner" and a third a "Culley's New Compendium of Slang-Whang." Mr. B. merely cuts out and intersperses. It is soon done--nothing but "Examiner," "Slang-Whang," and "Times"--then "Times," "Slang-Whang," and "Examiner"--and then "Times," "Examiner," and "Slang-Whang."

But the chief merit of the Magazine lies in its miscellaneous articles; and the best of these come under the head of what Dr. Moneypenny calls the bizarreries (whatever that may mean) and what everybody else calls the intensities. This is a species of writing which I have long known how to appreciate, although it is only since my late visit to Mr. The Critical Flame (deputed by the society) that I have been made aware of the exact method of composition. This method is very simple, but not so much so as the politics. Upon my calling at Mr. TCF.'s, and making known to him the wishes of the society, he received me with great civility, took me into his study, and gave me a clear explanation of the whole process.

"My dear madam," said he, evidently struck with my majestic appearance, for I had on the crimson satin, with the green agraffas, and orange-colored auriclas. "My dear madam," said he, "sit down. The matter stands thus: In the first place your writer of intensities must have very black ink, and a very big pen, with a very blunt nib. And, mark me, Miss Psyche Zenobia!" he continued, after a pause, with the most expressive energy and solemnity of manner, "mark me!--that pen--must--never be mended! Herein, madam, lies the secret, the soul, of intensity. I assume upon myself to say, that no individual, of however great genius ever wrote with a good pen--understand me,--a good article. You may take, it for granted, that when manuscript can be read it is never worth reading. This is a leading principle in our faith, to which if you cannot readily assent, our conference is at an end."

He paused. But, of course, as I had no wish to put an end to the conference, I assented to a proposition so very obvious, and one, too, of whose truth I had all along been sufficiently aware. He seemed pleased, and went on with his instructions.

"Sensations are the great things after all. Should you ever be drowned or hung, be sure and make a note of your sensations--they will be worth to you ten guineas a sheet. If you wish to write forcibly, Miss Zenobia, pay minute attention to the sensations."

"That I certainly will, Mr. The Critical Flame," said I.

"Good!" he replied. "I see you are a pupil after my own heart. But I must put you au fait to the details necessary in composing what may be denominated a genuine The Critical Flame article of the sensation stamp--the kind which you will understand me to say I consider the best for all purposes.

"The first thing requisite is to get yourself into such a scrape as no one ever got into before. The oven, for instance,--that was a good hit. But if you have no oven or big bell, at hand, and if you cannot conveniently tumble out of a balloon, or be swallowed up in an earthquake, or get stuck fast in a chimney, you will have to be contented with simply imagining some similar misadventure. I should prefer, however, that you have the actual fact to bear you out. Nothing so well assists the fancy, as an experimental knowledge of the matter in hand. 'Truth is strange,' you know, 'stranger than fiction'--besides being more to the purpose."

Here I assured him I had an excellent pair of garters, and would go and hang myself forthwith.

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Elle a (chaud au cul), Fitzgerald

Booyakashah! Check it: Judith Fitzgerald, who blows hot gas at the Globe and Mail now and then, has developed a paranoid obsession with our own Derek Catermole. She sees him creeping up in disguise, but she's not falling for it. We take no responsibility for any of the comments posted in that notable forum, but we thank the anonymous commenter who unwittingly provoked her rage. Good show. Sorry we didn't notice this splendid flurry until now. In passing, we have nothing against Surrey, B.C., but the only member of the Toast editorial team who ever visits Surrey does so to buy recreational drugs.

x

And hey! It's happened again at another Fitzgerald shriek-up. Derek reports he has not been in Toronto since the 1997 Canadian stiff-white-person of the year contest. They seek him here, they seek him there, they think it's Derek everywhere they encounter a snide or challenging comment. It's so gratifying. We wonder whether Derek has his own Wikipedia page too.

Sunday, April 26, 2009

More Rhetoric of Litblogging

Here's "R.T." ("a university instructor of literature, drama, and English composition. In my rather limited 'spare time' when I am not preparing for classes and grading student essays, I write book reviews for various online and print publications.") on "Resisting Literary Theory"*:

As I am an iconoclast and pariah within academia in that I tend to remain openly skeptical about a good deal of literary theory, the linked article found in me a receptive audience.

I had a professor when I was in graduate school who warned me and others that becoming students of literary theory at the graduate level would forever ruin our abilities to read purely for pleasure. His cautionary statement did not sink in at the time. Later it did.

So, I confess: I will continue to resist literary theory, though I grudgingly admit its provocative usefulness now and then, and I long for my more naive days when I was blithely innocent of Jameson, Eagleton, Lacan, Barthes, Derrida, Foucault, Kristeva and the rest of the 20th century's despoilers of simple reading pleasures.
For those of you still not familiar with the rhetorics of litblogging, we'd be delighted to translate some of R.T.'s observations into regular English:

1."As I am an iconoclast and pariah within academia": I had some ambitions when I took my graduate degree, but I didn't turn out to be a star; I couldn't get a job at the sort of ivied institution I felt I deserved; and nobody wants to publish the criticism I have tried to write (except obscure websites and the local newspaper). Plus, people just don't really like me.

2."I tend to remain openly skeptical about a good deal of literary theory": I don't understand literary theory — it's just too hard for me. It makes me feel inadequate.

3."becoming students of literary theory at the graduate level would forever ruin our abilities to read purely for pleasure": I've never had enough of my own personality or imagination to make my own choices or determine what I really think, so I blame external factors that have spoiled things for me and cost me the opportunity to really be the star I ought to be.

4."I will continue to resist literary theory, though I grudgingly admit its provocative usefulness now and then": I'll be an iconoclast until someone actually challenges me to defend my objections to theory, at which point I'll make a histrionic display of "grudgingly" conceding its value because I don't actually understand what's at stake well enough to convincingly argue for or against anything much.

5."I long for my more naive days when I was blithely innocent of Jameson, ... and the rest of the 20th century's despoilers of simple reading pleasures": I want my life back! I wish I had known I wouldn't be up to the challenges of scholarly criticism before I wound up in this dead-end, third-rate, backwater school that I hate and that makes me hate myself and forces me to live out an imaginative life where I'm not just a laborer in the fields of futility.

But be of good cheer, R.T., your institution is not backwater or third-rate. State education is a worthy undertaking in itself (unlike blogging). You may not be fulfilling the ambitions of your younger days, but you're not wasting your life. You just need to learn how to enjoy those simple pleasures instead of lusting after what you imagine to be the more rarified pleasures, and you need to try and give up resenting the people and circumstances that you blame for putting you in the situation you occupy: you did it to yourself. It was a choice you chose and you should try to reconcile yourself to it.

*R.T. has now removed the posts to which we at Toast appended our wisdom. Fortunately "Resisting Literary Theory" will remain a valued part of our stable of kooky blogcreations, along with this note, contributed by R.T., which s/he (let's face it, he) subsequently removed, but found its way to our mailbox:

To say it as respectfully and concisely as possible, I would say this: (1) The biographical speculation is wrong, and (2) your tone comes across as mean-spirited.

With respect to the second point, I would further ask this: Why? What is it about my blog posting that annoys you so much that you would so viciously attack me personally?

And, with respect to my questions above, do you not think that an apology is in order?

To which we concisely respond: (1) No it's not, and (2) To a pariah, doesn't everyone else seem mean spirited?

With respect to the second point (but not a whole lot of respect), your blog posting is itself a vicious personal attack, and you know that perfectly well, to which we have responded in kind.

And, sorry.

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

If Nigel Beale Took Freshman Composition



Saturday, September 20, 2008

Aristotle: Didn't Know What the Fuck He Was Talking About

Howdy, you crabs and jackasses. We've been on hiatus because, well, we find it harder and harder to give a shit, and we know you feel the same way. We briefly woke from our cryogenic slumber this morning to a warning from the ship's computer that an old nemesis had teleported into the cargo hold from behind the Freakyfreakfreakfreak nebula. When our security droids reached the scene, we found nothing but a note beginning, "I could not resist -- chemically toxic and radioactive Uranium used in US, UK, and Israel weapons and is quite irate that I object in public fashion" and went from there. It was from a nutter called rhotel1, whose persistence we applaud, but to whom we directed the following reply:

Golly rhotel1, it's been a while. How have you been out there in the drooling-in-your-boxers crazyverse? We have to ask whether you treat your acquaintances in this way, which is to say, do you go over to their houses, walk into their living rooms, and urinate on their carpets, even after they ask you not to? And after they have clearly indicated that they do not wish to be your acquaintances? In fact they never wanted to be your acquaintances at any time? We feel very sorry that you did not understand our previous response, and we'd so hoped you did: fuck off. You are a nutbread spaceball fruitbat and we hate you. Believe me, we know what it's like to have people tell us to get a life — it happens all the time — so we're pretty sure we speak with authority when we suggest that you might be the saddest case we've ever seen. Cathy Garger, if you're reading this, you too, though rhotel1 wins on account of, I don't know, we just hate him a little tiny bit more. Any questions? OK then, to reiterate: fuck off.

Regards
Toast

So we switched off the security protocols and got ready to return to our hyper-sleep modules, but we just couldn't resist checking the long-range scanners, and what did we find? Our friends in the literary-idiotsphere have staged for themselves a little debate about whether Aristotle knew anything about tragedy (tee hee!):

It started with Nigel, of course. A brief excerpt from his post:

It’s true of course that actions define us, but to state that plot is more important than character I think is a mistake. A chicken and egg situation. One must care about what happens to a character if the play, or novel, is to succeed.... To say that a tragedy can exist without characters is pretty iffy.

Good point, Nige. Why didn't Aristotle think of novels when he wrote his Poetics? Silly old fool. Frank Wilson drops by and, "Speaking as someone who spent two years studying scholastic philosophy," he speculates:

He’s also wrong, I think, about the nature of tragedy, which he sees as the destruction of a great man brought about by his character flaws. Perhaps by the time Aristotle wrote, the plays were not being done as trilogies as was originally the case.

Good thinking, Frank. Must've dozed off in the class where they actually talked about Aristotle, yes?

The best and brightest then carried their discussion over to Books Inc. We'll leave you to try and parse Judith Fitzgerald's scholarly pepper spray — it's beyond us. And Nigel contributes another fine example from a nineteenth-century novel. But the last word has to be this, from Nigel's place again, a mighty wit named Arthur Durkee:

I never was able to wrap my head around Aristotle’s ideas in any way that made sense to me. Finally, I understood why, when it was pointed out to me that Aristotle was a reader, not a writer. He was analyzing the creative process very much from the audience’s viewpoint, and not from the creator’s. With that in mind, I can track his thinking better. And also understand why, as a maverick creative type myself, I am tempted more often than not to blow a raspberry in the great philosopher’s direction.

Hurrah for the maverick! We certainly hope that's cleared things up for you, Mr. Aristotle. Next up: why Karl Marx didn't get Marxism.

Now we're going back to our cryo-cubicles to sleep until our spacecraft reaches the planet of perfect lit-crit joy and wonder that the litbloggers have been promising us for so long. The scanners are still not picking up much out there other than a lot of asteroids and black holes. So we're not going to wait up. Don't bother us, please, you crazy crackers.

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Can it be? No! Yes! Yes it is!

The most totally fucking awesomest thing ever: A 5 meter wide, 4.5 meter high image of a toaster, made from 2,500 pieces of toast!

























It's from the first Buenos Aires International Art Biennial 2000-2001. Really beautiful, moving work. This must be how Nigel Beale feels when he looks in the mirror every morning. Oh joy!

E-Card from Vancouver 2010