oh the guilt

Probably my first King.

Remember having enjoyed it all those years ago.

A classic fairy tale.

Kurt apparently never wanted to see his journals to be published. Then again the man was a walking contradiction. Be that as it may, "Journals" offer an insight to Kurt's world.

( Besides, an asshole who shoots himself in the head, leaving behind a daughter and a wife, not to mention band members and other friends, has no moral rights to make any demands as far as I'm concerned. )

Still, it's assuring to know that like most lyricists/poets Kurt honed his lyrics too. In 99 cases out of 100, they all do. Many artists (especially when they are young) find it extremely hard if entirely impossible to "kill their darlings".

Kurt had a tendency to make numerous alternative versions of his songs - lyrics-wise. Why? Because he took his writing seriously.

I mean J-F-C, the man even made it his business to see one his favorite living authors (Burroughs) while on a tour, possible high as fuck, not because he had anything worthwhile to say to the man, but because he wanted to see him. Pay homage. Do what fans the world over do at the present of their gods: gawk at them and generally stupidify themselves to a level of pure and utter retardedness.

Burroughs later recalled that he mostly kept wondering what this guy was moaning about - that he seemed to have no reason to be mad/sad at all. I say: touché.

Another case: after having performed MTV's Unplugged in New York (while externally expressing uncomfortability, rejection and even hostility against performing at all), Kurt, after being congratulated for the show in the backstage, allegedly responded, smilingly: "Yeah, I was f*cking good - wasn't I?"

It's the stuff of the legends how "geniuses" seem to put little or no effort at all to perform their magick. Silly fans (which rarely even exclude other band members) and other "myth builders" always assume - incorrectly - that when they see a lyricist scribbling notes at the "last minute", it must mean s/he wrote it down there and then.

I'm never buying that explanation (other than in cases where the lyrics in question truly show no higher merit), and since I can't be proven wrong anyways, I'm calling bullshit here as well.

People like to quote Cobain as having said that music always comes first, and lyrics second. Just as they love refuting other people's interpretation of songs saying: "That's not what it means, Kurt said it was just about his pet turtle (see: "Sappy")!" After which they beg people to stop overanalyzing things because it's probably in every way imaginable filthy, insulting and just plain wrong. Then they ask you to leave Kcurdt's music alone and his spirit in peace so he can finally do whatever it is that they do with the angels in Heaven.

At least this is my experience how these tirades tend to go, YMMV.

I challenge you, dear reader, to find another successful - or even semi-successful - singer-songwriter who operates in pop/rock music genre who wouldn't in effect agree with this Cobain's "original" notion.

That's simply the nature of the whole game, my dear confused friend. If you had ever taken the time to try and write a pop/rock song that you could honestly expect someone else than just you to enjoy too, you'd know all this already. My educated guess is that most of the people who are taken for a ride are the same people who have no personal experiences of what it is to write a piece of pop/rock music (that is lyrics driven).

As a sidenote, one of the reasons why we tend to have more and more electronic music is probably because people a) can no longer be bothered to actually learn to play an instrument (if you can't simply spin it, scratch it or push buttons), and because they b) no longer even see the point of writing lyrics at all because they don't even bother to pretend like they had something to say - let alone something that's worth saying.

Sure, there are artists who categorically refuse to touch their original lyrics, but in 99 cases out of 100, we don't know about them. They exist, just not on the airwaves.

Anybody who writes half-decent lyrics/poems, knows it's more of a on-going process than a case of sitting down and putting pen on paper.

Of course it can be done. It's just a rare oddity that it would actually bear much fruit.

In case you have trouble reading between the lines, I'll be more blunt: Cobain was a great lyricist. He was witty, funny, poignant, endearing and cryptic - often in the same song.

Yes, I miss Kurt's energy, charisma and knack for writing catchy songs. I fail to see who could replace the man in the contemporary pop/rock music scene. Jarvis Cocker was incredible in "Different Class" (1995), Thom Yorke in "OK Computer" (1997) and Beck in "Mutations" (1998), but pray, tell me what has come since?

Nada, as far as I'm aware.

The fact that Friedman even considered basic income (or in this case negative income tax) a worthwhile experiment (which bureaucracy of course messed up royally), proves that
a) Friedman wasn't the evil, heartless boogey man hippies always want to portray him as, and that
b) the so-called free market economy just wasn't/isn't working (in an imperfect world).

Friedman was probably more liberal than most hippies are intolerant. Basically he just wanted to make things work better (as they all do).

Can't blame the man for trying. Whether by adopting "his" policy got people killed some place for one reason or the other is for historians to evaluate. And please don't ask me to shift the blame to one man and one man alone...

I tend to think that Friedman was just a tad too full and certain of himself (as they all are). I tend to think true pragmatics are more a kin to folks like Buckminster Fuller, for example. I don't see how any thinking wo/man would disagree with his visions of better future.

It is my personal belief that we can co-operate, we can co-exist peacefully and that we can reach an agreement on what is ultimately the best thing for us all to try and accomplish.

The jury is still out as to the "true" nature of human (selfishness vs. altruistic). How could one be anything less than selfish when one has not met his/her basic needs and wants? And how could any society or personal relationship strive - or indeed work at all - without any altruism?

The trouble with true liberals is that they are and always will be in the minority. We live in an imperfect world because we humans tend to be imperfect.

Unless we let robots take over, I fail to see how this situation could ever change.

The trouble with wannabe liberals is that they always introduce exceptions in their theories. First it's the army, then it's the roads and other infrastructure, and then it's something other, and then still other... ad infinitum. There can be no such concept as semi-freedom. It's an oxymoron.

There's a chance we might be able to make free market truly, honestly work in some part of the world, for some time at least. But it's never going to happen in our traditional national states with their monopoly on everything and anything simply because they possess a monopoly on violence.

Thus far "free market" promises us the all-access key when in reality it means: you are on your own and you are only free to compete with one another til the day you die - good luck!

"Socialism" doesn't even pretend to offer unlimited freedom - on the contrary: it readily admits that unlimited personal freedoms will have to take the side road for the sake of greater good for all.

You can't both eat the cake and save it for later. But you can make sure that everyone gets a piece of it.

Free market economy and communism both work - in theory. If only someone could show me where either one of them is in full operation in actuality not in make-believe...

All we've had thus far in human history are economies that are being regulated, more or less, for better or for worse. We're still trying to make it truly work and I fear we might still be trying when the Sun finally fades out.

I say lets let robots do what they do best so we can all concentrate on not killing our neighbors.

I have a soft spot for cats - and babies as well I suppose - so it was extra spooky. If you don't have time for the book just see the film instead.

I have no incentive to read or watch horror anymore. I get nightmares and restless nights from the daily drudgery as it is.

That's the real horror, man.

A big hunk of this book is about meticulously describing the properties of the "Sea". I wouldn't be the first to call that literature and besides there's a better medium for that sort of storytelling: the big screen.

I saw Soderbergh's attempt at the novel and wasn't impressed. Not sure if it was entirely the film's fault, either. Frankly put, the original story just is less than stellar (pun intended).

Like the name implies: this is a story of a band. To get inside the man, read Heavier Than Heaven : A Biography of Kurt Cobain.

I recently read both of these books back-to-back because these are the two books out of three that are most commonly described as "accurate" (the third one being Come As You Are). Since Azerrad's book was not available in my local libraries at the moment, and having already seen the documentary "Kurt Cobain: About a Son" which featured Azerrad's audio interviews that were used as a material for the book, I figured I'm not missing out on much one way or the other.

I pretty much just wanted to know for once and for all why this funny, lovable guy ended up blowing his brain out for no good reason, and if we could not possible learn some lesson here.

I'm just going to write about Cross' book too, since they are both intertwined in my mind as one book anyways (with the exception that Cross' book was actually well written).

Since I was pretty much alive when Nirvana was only the biggest thing around in the popular culture, I already had the basics covered concerning the band. Even when my memories had grown vague about what Kurt had actually scribbled in his journals, I remembered that this guy was no accident. He was smart in his own way and anything but a guy who didn't know what he was trying to accomplish. Kurt wanted to become a rock star and he figured he had the drive and the talents to do so.

Frankly, I don't understand why people want to hear so desperately about the bands rather than about the people behind those bands who make the actual music happen. I believe there has never been a successful band where its members' creative input (=significance) has been equal. In arts specifically democratic participation has never amounted to much if anything at all. All great bands are great because there's someone who says: "No, I need you to play it like this, that is just shit." Kurt was Nirvana's despot and without him it would not have existed at all. I'm happy that Dave Grohl still manages to get his kick out of touring with his AOR-band, but I'm even happier to see Krist Novoselic do something actually respectable.

Writing Nirvana off as merely a fluke and a trend and Cobain as nothing but a druggie, is the easiest thing for people to say and to feel like a better wo/man.

But let's get one thing straight first: Americans have been enchanted by drugs ever since they were introduced to the masses in the 60's and 70's. Not surprisingly in the 80's and early 90's every cool kid did dope as well.

There's always certain amount of debauchery and egotistical behavior going on when we look into the lives of any rock band. Documenting who f*cked who and who did what crazy stuff while intoxicated is besides the point, and frankly, boring. I'm no rock star but I've done my share of boozing - maybe more than the next guy, maybe less. Point is, today it's pretty hard to "impress" anyone. You don't have to be an illiterate, arrogant rock star to do drugs, to sport a million tattoos and body piercings, to flunk out of school, and to generally piss away your life. Any wanker can do that. And these hazy crazy reminiscences always sound crazier than they really were.

No one is denying that Kurt didn't do heroin. That is a fact. Yes, Kurt might even have used more drugs already in his youth than his peers, but it's all relative. First off, people react to drugs individually. Secondly, the more you use, the higher tolerance you will develop. And thirdly, before "Nevermind" was starting to churn money, Kurt had always been more or less broke. It would not have been even financially possible to maintain a habit before the success. And fourth, Kurt lied about having had used heroin in the 80's. And fifth, a former junkie (and Kurt's drug buddy) who's seen many succumb to heroin says in effect that Kurt was an early stage heroin addict who was still in denial and who would most likely have come out it just fine in due course, had people only left him be.

Some insist that Kurt really preferred getting f*cked up rather than staying sober. A lot of folks not only share this sentiment but actually live by it, too. Instead of heroin, they just stick with alcohol and subscription pills. It feels much, much less evil and much less dirty, dangerous or even harmful than shooting up. They might be right, but they are still treating the disease (whatever it may be) the same way - in principal.

Would it be surprising to hear that Kurt too was shocked when he learned for the first time that his friend had tried heroin? Like any decent friend, Kurt scolded him. He thought it was stupid and dangerous thing to be doing. But I bet before Kurt had taken his first puff of marijuana, he had deemed also pot stupid and dangerous. This is how the logic goes.

No, heroin isn't pot, and pot isn't a cigarette. Heroin is a pain killer that works much faster and more reliably than, say, drinking alcohol. Kurt himself explained that he started to use heroin because it was the only thing that was making his chronic stomach pains go away. One can always say that this is how addicts tend to legitimize their use. I can imagine that to be true in many - even in most - cases.

Then again, I have never had to endure the sort of pain in my stomach that Kurt described he had to endure pretty much every time he wanted to eat something. Maybe you have? And Kurt was pretty infamous for not eating much. But I'm sure he was just making this all up. I am not at all suggesting that modern medical science wouldn't have ultimately figured out what was causing his pains. It's just that Kurt had already found a cure he figured he could manage to live with. Without a doubt it came as a godsent bonus that heroin pretty much also made him forget all the other things he found troubling his worried mind.

And Kurt was a worried guy alright.

He was always worried about (losing) money because he had never had any (pre-Nevermind). He had also somehow convinced himself that Courtney was cheating on him, yet he couldn't even handle the very notion of a divorce nor being the one to subjugate his own daughter to those feelings of abandonment that he was very familiar with in his own childhood and youth. In a way Kurt had always been somewhat lost, somewhat love sick puppy everyone except his anonymous junkie friends seemed to want a piece of.

Like most successful artists, he too was suffering from those oh-so-existential questions that deal with arbitrary notions of "authenticity", "staying true", "being loyal", "being real", and so on. He knew his fans would ultimately buy anything he chose to present them with. He would publicly rant about evil labels, corporations and whatnot, while outside the public eye he wanted his music to be promoted at every possible chance.

You see, at some point all artists start hating their previous work, sabotaging their own shows. They start isolating from the public, start running away from fans, friends and family and from other band members as well. They want to take a break, break up the band, branch out and become a painter/writer/director/whatnot and generally wanting more credit (=money) and exposure (though not too much and preferably not anything neg). They might say stuff like how they welcome the remaining members to participate more - yet in actuality work hard at making that damn near impossible. They are always left wanting. For something that even they themselves can't put a finger on.

We'll all seen this pattern a thousand times.

"Nevermind" is still one of the greatest rock albums around, but critics like to pan it because it's "too polished and lacking depth and dynamics" when they really want to say it's "too commercial". They like to remind us that "In Utero" is "much more mature work - more experimental, openly candid, and raw". This is just another way of saying it's full of self-pity, nonsense and half-assed songs that were probably recorded like crap on purpose.

I wouldn't say it's a bad record. I'm just pissed of when I know what the man was capable of and particularly because that album ended up being his last one. I'm pleased to hear that Grohl pretty much copied Chad Channing's original drum playing on "Nevermind". He was the new guy, and was simply told to do so. I don't personally pay much attention to drums because I can't drum worth shit, but when those more experienced assert that Grohl is a hard hitting machine, I kinda see what they mean.

When I overheard Foo Fighters playing live in almost our backyard about a year ago, I didn't really feel much, if anything. And this is coming from someone who - after hearing Grohl sing Marigold while Nirvana was still around - though that, my god, he's doing it better than Kurt. Now all these years ago, I tend to think that Grohl's 1995 debut is likely the best r'n'r he can muster, and that as a performer and a songwriter, he managed to become the man whom Kurt never wanted to end up as: indifferent and bland.

By now it's part of the official Nirvana canon that Chad Channing was fired because he couldn't play well enough. That's pretty funny coming from a guy who - let's face it - was a sloppy and at best intermediate guitarist himself. I think that sacking had much more obvious reasons: Channing was too pleasant, too nice of a guy who didn't share Kurt's positively negative look on life either. He probably didn't even take (making) music that seriously. Krist and Kurt on the other hand were like an old couple who really needed to make it happen: they had absolutely nothing they could fall back on.


***

You will no doubt hate the way True tells the story. He desperately wants to be viewed in the annals of rock history as the fifth Beatle - or rather the fourth member of Nirvana. "I introduced Courtney to Kurt.", "Who was I to tell Kurt what to do?", and so on. True is still under the impression that he played a bigger part in the story of Nirvana, let alone in the life of Kurt Cobain, than most people realize (and give him credit for).

Yes, you befriended the band, its frontman, Courtney Love, and many other folks who happened to hang around the band and Cobain, particularly. A paid dog who kinda hopes to not be seen as a paid dog but as a True (sic), fellow and suffering, artist. If you want to be a rock journalist who gets to write more than just about how the gigs went, sorta kinda has to make the effort to try and befriend with the band. Particularly when it comes to up-and-coming and famous people it always works wonders if and when you suck up to these people and party with them (at command or willingly). Or be their nanny, the father figure, the funny foreigner, the useful idiot. Or whatever the hell it is that these people want you to be for them, if only for a little while.

Kurt might have been a pretty selfish s.o.b., but he was a self-made man also. Everett True a.k.a. Jerry Thackray was a music journo who was hoping a little bit of rock stardust might eventually latch onto his clothing too. If it's true that The Laughing Apple's (not that anyone's heard of this particular band either) lead singer Alan McGee (not that anyone would know who he is and why it would even matter) said of Thackray that he "was the most un-enigmatic, boring, kindest, shyest person you could ever meet - and it just appealed to my sense of humour to make him compère", I can't help but wonder if another frontman saw and did exactly the same...

Either it went like this, or else Kurtney must have had him killed...

Great bio IMHO.

Read my review of Nirvana: The Biography and Journals.

Remember enjoying it.

But I must say that I hate authors making references to past stories they've written inside another story.

It's cute for a 15-year-old, but in King's case just smells like a marketing ploy.

"Ok, so you didn't really like this story that much? Oh you hated it? Oh, I'm so sad to hear that. But listen, I have these other stories that are pretty good. No, I said better. Yes, you must have heard me wrong. You really, really should read them. Because they are awesome! Yeah, I've actually written something like 600 books or there abouts, and guess what - they are all different! Yes they are! Well, they are too. How do you know if you've never read them? Oh yeah, well that was kinda bad, that was just horrible. The doctor said I was in a pretty bad condition back then. But I'm fine now. Then I was drinking like a sponge. Well, what are you into then? Yeah? Does that kinda stuff sell, too? Yeah, I figured it doesn't. That's why I'm writing what I'm writing, you see. Oh, I don't just write horror. Well.. have you read Shawshank's? You have. And the other three? Ok. Well, then, let me see. There's one where I write about writing. What else, ummm... yeeeah, listen, I gotta run soon, so... Well, I have some work to do, I'm sure you understand. Yeaaah I dunno, you should still read my stuff, man - that's all I can say. Okay? Ok, bye!"

This is the problem with King. He's written so much that it's impossible to even recollect whether you actually read some of his stories or not.

Either King has stopped exercising self-criticism after he got his first book out, or he just stopped caring either way.

Now, I'm all for self-therapy, I just fail to see why it has to mean that everything must get published? This world is full of redundant books that are essentially all about escapism.

King is a storyteller, for sure. But is he a writer who has anything worthwhile to say? I fear he's mostly just indifferent.

Honestly can't remember a thing. Maybe I didn't even read it? Maybe this is all just a dream?

Hello?


HELLO!??

Good bits of info on varied topics.

However, the author seems to be hell bent on proving that American Indians treated the nature in effect no better than "white man".

Recent evidence on the contrary seems to point that "injuns" were remarkably well informed and well equipped when it came to matters of land use, irrigation and so on.

I've understood that it's pretty common sight for tourists to see in the modern day Indian reservations littering and other unecological practices in abundance.

Maybe so.

Then again I for one can certainly understand the myriad of reasons why it might have come to this. The rampant alcoholism, general unemployment and apathy do stem from White American history.

In fact I might not care much more myself if I had been through what American Indians have been through. Hell, I'd probably be lucky to have any self-respect left at all.

Still, I have little doubt that the American Indians would be the original hippies.

But I fail to see how driving bisons off the cliffs for food and what not would not have been in reality sustainable - even when or if it would have been seemingly in excess?

That practise was age-old and yet bisons could be continued to be counted by the millions when the pale face arrived. Seems to me American Indians managed to make absolutely no dent in the overall bison population whatsoever.

And there's just no comparison what the white man ultimately managed to do to the bisons.

But I'd really like to know just how the author would propose to make a one ton bison on a rampage to stop in time before its unavoidable pummel to death?

It's not exactly the same experience as ordering a half a pound of meat from your local butcher - is it?

You are just going have to deal with everything that is heading your way… sometimes that probably meant leaving corpses out to rot.

It is a crude method but it is also pretty simple and rather safe method that doesn't require a lot of manpower nor tools to be efficient either. I'd call that pretty inventive if not downright ingenious use of resources.

Not that any measure of bones left behind would prove that American Indians wasted their game. It could merely signify that they just didn't have a whole lot of use for bones. There are only so many combs and trinkets you want to carry around being a nomad and all…

But lets suppose there was waste of meat and pelts. Should they have set up a camp there and announce their presence to all the other tribes in the neighborhood to drop in for a gargantuan late night supper?

Maybe they did. Maybe they put on grand orgies. But I really f*cking doubt it.

Yea but no but...

It was a nice try, and while I could probably agree on many levels with the author, I still call Klein a hippie.

I have always thought it to be wholly unreasonable to demand and to sincerely expect anyone and everyone to offer their own plan as to how things should be done as opposed to how we do things now. This is preposterous. Anyone who can come up with valid arguments why things currently are amiss and why they should be remedied, must be allowed to voice their opinion despite not necessarily being able to personally formulate (then and there, or even at all) an alternative, better, way of doing things.

It's cool if you can, but it shouldn't be a qualification for even being allowed to enter the debate. There isn't a single person on this planet who could come up with a perfect plan because there are no perfect plans! Almost no one will admit that capitalism is without glitches, but many will assert with gusto that capitalism just requires a little bit of tweaking and some tender loving care.

This is absolute nonsense.

Of course we could always have better democracy. People could easily be given more and better options to vote for changes, for example. We could have "local governments" with localized budgets within different parts of cities to enable those people living there to make concrete decisions and plans that will affect their everyday lives directly. We could do loads to improve democracy, trust me.

We could also find ways to actually sustain businesses and private individuals to operate in a free market reality - not just in free market make-believe. This would most likely mean that players who began to dominate markets need to be split in one way or the other to enable other and especially up-and-coming individuals and companies to compete against them in much more fairer conditions. Unlike now, no one could really rest on their laurels and/or just buy off competition. Everyone wanting to play the game would have to be innovating and reinventing themselves constantly. Not now and then, or once in a blue moon, but every single day.


Stuff that I personally can't accept is:

a) corporations aiming to change schools' curriculums and subtly trying to greenwash their own history and business practices - in a word their public image.

b) corporations cornering smaller competitors by dumping prices until local/regional competition is snuffed for good.

c) corporations gaining even bigger share of the markets simply because they can buy other competitors out if they can afford it. This is the exact opposite of what Adam Smith called free market economy. This is rule of the few and finally rule of one.

And if and when corporations reach a status where they can effectively sensor what people can and can not buy, should be called totalitarianism because that's what it is when you can't buy a book or some other product from anywhere else simply because those few corporations still left will refuse to take them up for sell.

d) allowing corporations to grow so big and powerful that they can effectively land in places where they are not taxed, where they can disregard local laws and regulations at will, where they can effectively treat their labor force and the environment any way they want.

Even if some poor, underprivileged, schmuck wouldn't mind how the company does business, I abso-f*cking-lutely do, and I'm not the only one! If you pollute the environment (or treat your employees like dirt), you clean up the mess, pay hefty fines, and take some time off from doing business for the time being because you clearly are not a responsible and trustworthy player and the society as a whole can and will not tolerate such behavior. Simple and fair, and not complex or mean at all.

If this what we have today is free market economy, we might as well reintroduce chains and just revert to calling workforce as slaves again. I mean why not? We already love to call unemployed people - I'm sorry, "job seekers" - as cancer, vermins, and so on. I don't know about you but to me it echos 1930's Germany.

I think it's pretty vile view on life if and when (read [b:In Defense of Global Capitalism|222574|In Defense of Global Capitalism|Johan Norberg|http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1348353328s/222574.jpg|215553]) people in effect say that it's still miles better to be working in a sweatshop somewhere and get paid at least something than having to resort to selling one's own ass to anyone keen on buying or just starving to death.

This line of thinking not only legitimizes wretchedness and indecency. It guarantees that nothing will ever change for the better.

Now, I may think that hippies are moronic bunch of people, but folks who try to reason the above scenario disgust me to no end. Especially coming from a guy who got all the chances in the world provided by the society in a socialist paradise called Sweden. I wonder if he would have had the same tolerance for pain, strength of character and general will power to take it up his small boy's ass from some anonymous older, charming Swedish gentlemen, had he been born in the slums of India, Brazil or Vietnam and be asked to help his family and relatives by all means necessary - and there either not being any sweatshops around or all just refusing to let him work?

I'm sure he would have.

Maybe my first introduction to Mr. Gibson's world some 10-15 years ago.

I remember rather enjoying it. Thanks to early 1990's Cyberpunk 2020 (and possibly seeing Bladerunner) the themes were familiar. "Cyberpunk" vision is both fascinating and revolting look on the future. Getting mentally prepared for it will most likely make the transition easier on you. Well... at least you've been warned.

If you don't feel like you are better off now than at some previous point in your life, don't worry, man, statistically you're doing fine. Just fine.

Let's all just chant that, shall we? "Statistically we're all doing fine".

No, wait. Try this: "Statistically we're all doing better."

And then you could try repeating: "I'm just a big baby and a whiny person in general. Look how happy other people are. There's just something wrong with me personally."

I feel better already - how about you?

Some more chanting, eh?

That's a good boy. That's a good boy. See? It works!

#1 You can't possible know how it feels to "not get by" when you know at all times that you can always - always - produce your credit card (full of credit of course) from your wallet and just call it a night and go back to your real life doing whatever it is that you want to do because you can.

#2 "Not getting by" means you've done too many bad decisions in your life for far too long. I'd hate to be that guy who always says: "I told you so!" but I'd have to agree with him. Provided that you live in first world countries - of course.

I know about that book too where one young American male proves that it is still possible to start from scratch in the US of A with a right attitude and with just a handful of dollars in your hand to be able to leave poverty behind you in less than a year (or even six months, whatever, it doesn't really matter either way).

While Ehrenreich certainly self-sabotaged her own way out of her self-imposed poverty, the walk away message is still clear: folks have to work ever harder if they want to get ahead in life and that even one minor slip-up could possible be all it takes to hurl you into the gutter.

What about the other fella then?

Well, let me see. Hmmm... young, healthy, educated, white, self-assertive and motivated (or rather determined to make a point) man can actually pull off a stunt like that? Whoa. Who would have guessed?

It all boils down to what we still consider as being reasonable and unreasonable. If you've never taken that plunge, you probably don't have a clue. For your sake I hope you stay on the saddle for I'm not sure you could ever honestly make that climb back on. But let's just keep on calling people who can't find work or keep it, lazy. That ought to do it.

It's been more than 10 years since I read the book, and my recollections of it have grown vague.

Some of the stories are clearly better than others.

I feel William Gibson's stories are pretty simplistic.

But if you are scared about the future and/or you'd want to get a feel for what it's going to be like, look no further.

The future maybe shiny on the outside but for many people it's going to be even bleaker, grittier and more dog-eat-dog world than what you can see today. If you get pushed to the sidelines, you'll end up staying there.