Taking Back Thursday

Like a lot of wannabe intellectuals, I’ve tried reading Ulysses by James Joyce. And like a lot of those wannabe intellectuals - particularly where the accent is on the 'wannabe' - I didn’t get very far. It’s not hard to read, it’s just that there is a lot of it, and it feels like being in a room where someone is telling jokes, and you’re the only one who isn’t getting them.

I know some people today still find it enjoyable and funny, so it can be understood. It was just going over my head. So I searched the web to try get what I was missing. I wanted to at least know if it was worth continuing, or hopefully find a Rosetta Stone for deciphering the humour in it. I found notes on the first chapter, and it went on endlessly about Catholic references. That surprised me — not that it was Catholic; I know many can laugh at themselves — but rather that it was so specific. Ulysses has more than a cult following; I’ve seen it top lists of the greatest books ever written. Surely its entire audience is more than just the Venn Diagram overlap of “Highly-Observant Catholics,” and, “Looking for Catholicism Humour.” That doesn't seem like enough people to propel a book to classic status.

So I’ve continued searching for ideas on how to enjoy the book. Most say it’s not about those religious references or about the parallels to the Odyssey, but about the manipulation of language and the celebration of common people surviving their daily struggles. There are many readers who will attest to how personally enjoyable they found the book, but there’s no real consensus on how to get something out of it: Some say it’s best as part of a class, some say you should just sit back and enjoy it without worrying about symbolism, some say you need a companion book to appreciate it. But the things people do agree about it are that it’s not really necessary to read the whole thing in order, and the first three chapters are kind of a drag. So I may yet try again.

In other old book news, I recently came across an odd title of a book: The Man Who Was Thursday by G. K. Chesterton. Given that it was written in 1908 — and thus even older than Ulysses — the title stood out as kind of avant garde. Also, I’m a fan of the “Thursday Next” books by Jasper Fforde, so perhaps I have a weird fascination with Thursday-related literature. I also noticed that, by coincidence, it had just passed into the public domain last year, so I downloaded it and gave early twentieth-century literature another chance.

To my surprise, I really enjoyed it. It’s the comic story of police efforts to infiltrate an anarchist organization. It has various flavours of satire, farce and surrealism, and delivers humour that feels relevant. It goes a bit off the rails at the end, as it tries to be more profound than it really should be. But I liked the rest enough to forgive it.

What made me think back to my aborted attempt at Ulysses is that it seems the difference is all in the subject matter of political and sociological philosophy. That’s more in my area of interest and background knowledge. So in contrast to Ulysses, I felt like I was in on the joke. It also has a lasting relevance: While the book’s big organization of nefarious rebels are termed, “anarchists,” really, you can insert your favourite ideology of revolutionaries who are too intellectual for their own good. And arguably, the book's age makes it more palatable: we’re insulated from the hot-button issues of the day, so it’s easier to view the concepts in the abstract. And, weird fact I discovered: Apparently there are references to The Man Who Was Thursday in the video game, Deus Ex. I must have missed those. But that weird juxtaposition helps prove the continued relevance.

(Yes, I just argued for the relevance of a 116-year-old book by mentioning its place in a 24-year-old video game. Yeah, that's the world we live in.)

Conversely, I can definitely imagine someone reading The Man Who Was Thursday and reacting the way I did to Ulysses. In the opening chapters, as the characters whip proclamations on the nature of art and human society back and forth, I can see many readers zoning out. But the point is, you may have to search to find something relevant to you, but you may yet find it in an unexpected place. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to hunt down a copy of Frederick Pohl’s Turn Left at Thursday.

Vexing Vexillology

I recently mentioned Canadian media mogul Moses Znaimer, and by coincidence, I recently came across a mention of a Polish man with the similar name Alfred Znamierowski. He was known as a great vexillological artist. That is, a great flag designer. That was of interest to me, because, like many nerdy people, I've always found flags fun. 

But I also have to ask, how does a person become known as a great flag designer? Okay, let's start with, how does a person become a flag designer? I mean, it's not like that's a big industry with a lot of work to do. You can't get a job at Flag Inc.

For instance, Canada's flag was designed by George Stanley, a historian. Note that he was a historian who once designed a flag, which doesn't make him a flag designer, because he designed that one flag, and that was pretty much all there was to do in that area. 

I can understand how you become, say, an architect, because there are always countless new buildings that need designing. But flags? Even if you count the flags of regions, cities, and organizations — that most people never see — that's still not a lot of work.

And it's not like flag design is that complex a concept. Just look at some of the flags in the world and you can see that not much effort gets put into them. (I'm looking your way, Netherlands.) Even the aforementioned Mr. Stanley just slapped a maple leaf on the Royal Military College flag. You can't really be better at that than anyone else. Or at least, you can't be so much better that you end up getting all the big flag contracts from around the world. Oh yes, we must get Znamierowski to design our flag, we couldn't possibly trust some guy off the street to slap three brightly-colored stripes together.

This brings back bad memories of when I was in university and looking for a career. I found that job search books had weird ideas of what occupations existed. I think the weirdest was a book that listed "programming language designer" as a job. Again, interesting thing to do, but really it's something a handful of people do once in their lives and that's it. Calling it a potential career is like recommending you pursue a career designing new sports. And yet, Mr. Znamierowski somehow did that.

So: 

• Job type that lots of geeks would love 
• Requires skills that a lot of people have
• Very few openings in the world 
• Somehow, one guy gets most of the plum assignments. 

It's just like how JJ Abrams got to run the Star Trek and Star Wars movie franchises at the same time. 

Anyway, the point is, this is a great tragedy of our time: there are many fun and interesting things to do in this world, yet those jobs aren't well distributed, and they so often just go to the last guy who did a similar job, even if he was mediocre at it. The rest of us are stuck doing it in our imaginations only.

Anyway, here’s my proposed new Ontario flag