Thursday, January 13, 2011

New Year's Resolutions

A Preface: I just can't seem to get motivated to work myself up enough to put posts on this blog more regularly. Maybe I need to go back to my blogging self-nudge; but right now I think my heart is just not in it like it has been and could be. Maybe that will change. We shall see. In any case, I'll blog when I can rouse myself to do so. Right now, I'm moved enough to post a couple of my New Year's Resolutions. And they are ...

1. Write two books (one fiction and one non-fiction) by the end of the year.
2. Submit a couple of articles for publication in peer-reviewed academic journals.
3. Save my heated political commentary for my blog and reserve the use of Facebook for non-political stuff. (Although I had basically decided on this weeks ago, the recent tragedy in Tuscon has strengthened my resolve in this direction even more.)
4. Read the following books: (A) The Grapes of Wrath (Steinbeck); (B) The Federalist Papers (in their entirety); (C) I, The Supreme (Roa Bastos); (D) Absalom, Absalom (Faulkner); and (E) The Adolescent (Dostoevsky)
5. Finish what I'm calling the "Display Room" (for my B-2/3's pottery) in the "Basement."

I had a wonderful discussion today with a good friend about McMurtry's Lonesome Dove and I promise I will be writing up at least a brief review of the book sometime soon on the blog.

That's it for now.


eric said...

Wow, you didn't mess around with the New Year's Resolutions this year! I only had two: lose 20 lbs by my birhday in May, and read all of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. I've put a good dent in both of them.

Regarding the Federalist papers, I would highly recommend reading them along w/ the Anti-Federalist papers. So far it has been much more illustrating to me doing it that way, so much so that I sort of wonder why they are ever published apart from one another.

The Anti-Federalist papers are a little tricky, because there is no definitive cannonical collection, but the important thing is to get a good understanding of what particular issues the anti-federalists had with the proposed Constitution. In that regard, I highly recommend the collection of papers assembled by Morton Borden, as he tried to pick articles that sequentially and directly answered the arguments put forth in each of the Federalist Papers, so in reading them you can go back and forth between the two books and get an incredibly good sense of an ongoing debate (along with sarcasm, cynicism, hyperbole, and other things that will make you realize today's heated political rhetoric is just a continuation of this debate that has been going on for our entire national history... indeed, Anti-Federalist #9 could be reprinted almost verbatim on any conservative website and people who didn't know better would think it was a modern Tea Party screed about political elitism).

Just some thoughts. Look forward to reading your posts as you go through The Federalist Papers.

Huck said...

Thanks for the recommendation on the Anti-Federalist papers, particularly the collection edited by Borden. I'll use that. Perhaps we can resuscitate our Republicrat group just to talk about these Papers. What do you think?

Don_cos said...

Follow your personal priorities. Blog when you can. I'm confident that in your lst days you won't bemoan not having blogged enough.