Today's review: the state of early education in Texas. No really. I know I don't usually post about such things in the "real world," but I'm a rule breaker if nothing else. Well, that's not true either... but moving on!
So, early education in Texas: what's my stake in this? I'm not a parent, a teacher, a pre-K student, an administrator, or a lobbyist. Hell, I've been known to say I don't even like kids (which is changing, I'll admit). However, I did get a good education (that started with pre-K) myself. A really good one (thanks mom and dad...). Good enough to be able to recognize that 1) The way our country works, good schooling gives you a massive leg up for doing well in life. Not a guarantee, but an advantage. 2) Kind of on the other side of that, education, poverty, and crime are so inextricably interconnected that to make changes in one area will affect the others. Not that a good education makes you a rich or a law abiding person. But there's an unmistakable relationship between those three things. 3) Looking at 1 and 2 together, we (as Americans, Texans, member of the human race, whatever) should be focusing way WAY more attention on improving our education system. Because as it stands, it kind of sucks.
If you want to get into specifics, private education is actually doing OK, I'd say. Public schools in wealthy areas are probably also doing pretty well. But with poorer districts, the situation may be a little more... wavering. Some things have been done to address this, like voucher programs (sigh...), but actually changing the system so that ALL public schooling is quality- that's what needs to happen. Access to a good education for everyone.
But how to pull off such a massive overhaul? For a start, go to the start of the education system itself. What can be done to improve pre-K? What can be done to make sure that that glorious, everyone's-invited access is achieved?
The 81st session of the TX legislature is going on right now, and there are several bills that address these things, the front runners being HB 130 and its counterpart SB 21. If enacted, these bills would do a couple of totally sweet things: expand access to quality preK for districts that want it by way of government funding AND increased community involvement. Also, they would improve the quality of existing pre-K by, for example, lowering student to teacher ratios, increasing training hours for educators and administrators. For way way WAY more detail on these pieces of legislation and the early education movement in Texas in general, check this out (and also have a glance around bloggersunite.org, which is, and I don't use this phrase lightly, a wicked cool website.)
I've read some bloggery where other Texans out there have responded to this bill, and a major point of contention is as follows: more government support of pre-K means more government involvement, less parental responsibility, and wasted tax payer dollars on glorified day care. Some people have informed, intelligent reservations that come from this point of view; others are, I'm sorry, idiots. To the former (I'm not going to argue with someone who still slings around the "commie" as an insult), I offer this study. It confirms the ongoing benefit of HIGH QUALITY pre-k, and it shows a positive cost-benefit analysis of investing in high quality pre-k: an equivalent of $3.50 returned for every $1 spent. And that's a conservative estimate! Point is, even from a libertarian point of view, investing in early education will actually result in LESS government as well-educated and prepared children grow up and exert less pressure on government programs and resources. We should be able to see the big picture in a state that claims 'everything's bigger here', right?
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
Chabon and on and on: a review of Gentlemen of the Road
I read Michael Chabon's totally awesome mega-novel The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Klay a couple years ago, and since then, I'd been meaning to pick up some more of his work. As usual, it was only several months ago that I bought one of his more recent novels, Gentlemen of the Road (2007), and as usual, it took a few more months before I settled into reading it. And AS USUAL, it took no time at all to blow through. What's totally out of the ordinary about today, though, is that I'm getting to the review mere HOURS after finishing the book. Like 12, I'm not even kidding.
Gentlemen is, before all else, an adventure story. It follows two long-time traveling companions (gentlemen of the road, you might call them) in tenth century AD Europe as they tumble in and out of situations of varying degrees of stickiness, from getting caught in a gambling swindle at a road-side inn to ushering revolution into Khazaria, the area of Europe and the Middle East now roughly corresponding to Turkey. In keeping with certain adventure story tropes, the companions are opposites in many respects, but they complement each other and come together at crucial junctures. Amram is an Abyssinian; dark and built like a tank; unexpectedly tender-hearted; fearsome with his ax (which is pretty awesomely named Defiler of All Mothers); handy on the shatranj board. Zelikman is a Frank; skinny and blond (I imagined a resemblence to Tom Petty); brooding and solitary; nimble with a sword; handy as a surgeon. Both are impressively multi-lingual; sarcastic and quick with a come back; of a tragic past; absolutely, if at times begrudgingly, committed to the other; of questionable or at the very least, unpredictable morals, but ultimately good; Jewish. As they scheme and improvise their way across South-Eastern Europe, they encounter and unwittingly join up with the Arabic Hanukkah and the Khazarian Filaq, also- despite another range of binary oppositions- Jewish and suffering from the loss of loved ones. The main adventure in the novel becomes the rag-tag group's effort to establish Filaq in his rightful place as the ruler of Khazaria, taken over by the usurper Beljan.
Just looking at the cast characters, one might guess that a lot of themes and issues for analysis may emerge from this novel, primarily, Jewishness. Some reviewers have criticized Chabon for NOT developing this aspect of the book, but I would argue that Gentlemen contains other thematic Easter eggs (if I may use such a gentile term) which invite further thought. For example, the relationships the characters have with animals- particularly horses and elephants- plays a major part in foregrounding the historical setting, moving the plot, and fleshing out characters. While I only scanned a google search-ful of reviews, the absence of a mention of animals in other critics' write-ups of this novel surprised me. A second element that really caught my attention concerned language and communication: the over coming of language barriers, communicating with animals through language or body signals, life in a multi-lingual world, 'reading' non-verbal texts like the earth and people, writing on objects, it goes on. Chabon heavily incorporates the details of the communicative process into Gentlemen, not only by way of the plot, but also in comparisons (of which there are a glorious many) and figurative language. Maybe it's because I've been reading up on metafiction lately, and I'm seeing connections that weren't intentional, but I think the theme of communication and in particular, language, runs as a huge, if subtle, undercurrent of this novel.
And speaking of language, the literary quality of Gentlemen is pretty fantastic. The way Chabon paces his narrative with his sentences surprised me with its efficacy. Usually, I'm against overly wordy sentences that harbor meticulously detailed descriptions or roving comparisons, or that bring the reader all over time or space before getting to the point and might require a couple of readings to keep track of all the clauses, but I actually enjoyed them here. Maybe it's just where I am in my own experience as a reader; maybe this would be a good time to try and get into Faulkner, I don't know. In any case, Chabon's sentences, similes, and descriptions here are as meandering, whimsical, at times violent, but generally good-hearted, and enjoyable as his protagonists and their story. I will admit, I did some underlining.
In a nutshell, here's what Gentlemen isn't: Kavalier and Klay, life-altering, heavy. Here's what it is: an adventure tale, a fun read, literary, swash-buckling.
Gentlemen is, before all else, an adventure story. It follows two long-time traveling companions (gentlemen of the road, you might call them) in tenth century AD Europe as they tumble in and out of situations of varying degrees of stickiness, from getting caught in a gambling swindle at a road-side inn to ushering revolution into Khazaria, the area of Europe and the Middle East now roughly corresponding to Turkey. In keeping with certain adventure story tropes, the companions are opposites in many respects, but they complement each other and come together at crucial junctures. Amram is an Abyssinian; dark and built like a tank; unexpectedly tender-hearted; fearsome with his ax (which is pretty awesomely named Defiler of All Mothers); handy on the shatranj board. Zelikman is a Frank; skinny and blond (I imagined a resemblence to Tom Petty); brooding and solitary; nimble with a sword; handy as a surgeon. Both are impressively multi-lingual; sarcastic and quick with a come back; of a tragic past; absolutely, if at times begrudgingly, committed to the other; of questionable or at the very least, unpredictable morals, but ultimately good; Jewish. As they scheme and improvise their way across South-Eastern Europe, they encounter and unwittingly join up with the Arabic Hanukkah and the Khazarian Filaq, also- despite another range of binary oppositions- Jewish and suffering from the loss of loved ones. The main adventure in the novel becomes the rag-tag group's effort to establish Filaq in his rightful place as the ruler of Khazaria, taken over by the usurper Beljan.
Just looking at the cast characters, one might guess that a lot of themes and issues for analysis may emerge from this novel, primarily, Jewishness. Some reviewers have criticized Chabon for NOT developing this aspect of the book, but I would argue that Gentlemen contains other thematic Easter eggs (if I may use such a gentile term) which invite further thought. For example, the relationships the characters have with animals- particularly horses and elephants- plays a major part in foregrounding the historical setting, moving the plot, and fleshing out characters. While I only scanned a google search-ful of reviews, the absence of a mention of animals in other critics' write-ups of this novel surprised me. A second element that really caught my attention concerned language and communication: the over coming of language barriers, communicating with animals through language or body signals, life in a multi-lingual world, 'reading' non-verbal texts like the earth and people, writing on objects, it goes on. Chabon heavily incorporates the details of the communicative process into Gentlemen, not only by way of the plot, but also in comparisons (of which there are a glorious many) and figurative language. Maybe it's because I've been reading up on metafiction lately, and I'm seeing connections that weren't intentional, but I think the theme of communication and in particular, language, runs as a huge, if subtle, undercurrent of this novel.
And speaking of language, the literary quality of Gentlemen is pretty fantastic. The way Chabon paces his narrative with his sentences surprised me with its efficacy. Usually, I'm against overly wordy sentences that harbor meticulously detailed descriptions or roving comparisons, or that bring the reader all over time or space before getting to the point and might require a couple of readings to keep track of all the clauses, but I actually enjoyed them here. Maybe it's just where I am in my own experience as a reader; maybe this would be a good time to try and get into Faulkner, I don't know. In any case, Chabon's sentences, similes, and descriptions here are as meandering, whimsical, at times violent, but generally good-hearted, and enjoyable as his protagonists and their story. I will admit, I did some underlining.
In a nutshell, here's what Gentlemen isn't: Kavalier and Klay, life-altering, heavy. Here's what it is: an adventure tale, a fun read, literary, swash-buckling.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Bend it like Bendis: a review of "Total Sellout"
So I've inadvertently taken a break from posting. As seems to be the case with any good habit, it's a lot harder to keep up than a bad habit [she paused, listening to the rain drone against her window and watching the smoke from her cigarette curl into nothing against the tinged gray of her laptop screen], like smoking or narrating one's everyday life in the style of melodramatic detective noir.
Speaking of which, last night, I finished (finally) Brian Michael Bendis' Total Sell Out. Now I knew as soon as I picked up this collection of etc. work from a sale rack (what was it doing there?!) in Olympia that I was going to love it. How could I not? I've been a fan of the guy since his Daredevil run, and if you haven't read Alias yet, o my god, go pick it up. Right now! Bendis' ear (and eye) for dialogue is consistently good and often hilarious, and his use of the comics medium to tell a story fills the formalist's heart with glee.
But enough preamble, let's get down the book itself, shall we? Total Sell Out is a mish mash of "a lot of autobiographical pieces, a lot of smaller crime fiction pieces, and a lot of schticky nonsense." Bendis himself assumes a cartoon form and guides us through the whole thing, always with a quip and fantastically expressive slash eyebrows. The first section includes a smattering of these autobiographical stories. He uses a variety of styles, from cartoon and caricature to the photorealistic snapshot look that the Bendis fan will recognize immediately from his crime comics. He follows with another similarly multi-styled section of OTHER people's stories. Most of these little bits of daily life and observation got a chortle out of me, if not a prolonged guffaw, although one or two were gut-wrenchingly sad. Next up, "Schtick" includes a handful of Bendis' favorite editorial cartoons, along the same lines of the previous sections in their range of visual styles and conversational or observational humor. "The Collaborations and other stuff" rounds out the narratives, featuring short pieces authored by the likes of Warren Ellis. Bendis punctuates his collection with several pages that fall under the category "portfolio" and a few essays that served as introductions to various graphic novels and trades. I.e. lots of goodies for the patient reader.
If I haven't already made it abundantly clear, Total Sell Out is good for a laugh, a couple actually, but that's not the only reason it's a worth while read. For comics aficionados, Bendis tells some amazing stories from his life in the industry, featuring escapades with David Mack (drool) and a blood feud with late Poison Elves creator Drew Hayes. He gives a bit of an 'in' to his creative process (or the obstacles to it) with the rather magnificent wordless strip "Borderlands." For comics theoreticians (not mutually exclusively from the above mentioned fan boys and girls), his experiments with the comics form offer a truly inspiring glimpse at what the medium can do for a narrative. And they give the uninitiated a peak into Bendis' oeuvre in general. I'm just going to go ahead and say that again. Ooooeuvre.
And that wraps it up for this installment! Give this volume a go for some insight, entertainment, and if nothing else, to show our dear Mr. Bendis he is loved. Hair or no.
Speaking of which, last night, I finished (finally) Brian Michael Bendis' Total Sell Out. Now I knew as soon as I picked up this collection of etc. work from a sale rack (what was it doing there?!) in Olympia that I was going to love it. How could I not? I've been a fan of the guy since his Daredevil run, and if you haven't read Alias yet, o my god, go pick it up. Right now! Bendis' ear (and eye) for dialogue is consistently good and often hilarious, and his use of the comics medium to tell a story fills the formalist's heart with glee.
But enough preamble, let's get down the book itself, shall we? Total Sell Out is a mish mash of "a lot of autobiographical pieces, a lot of smaller crime fiction pieces, and a lot of schticky nonsense." Bendis himself assumes a cartoon form and guides us through the whole thing, always with a quip and fantastically expressive slash eyebrows. The first section includes a smattering of these autobiographical stories. He uses a variety of styles, from cartoon and caricature to the photorealistic snapshot look that the Bendis fan will recognize immediately from his crime comics. He follows with another similarly multi-styled section of OTHER people's stories. Most of these little bits of daily life and observation got a chortle out of me, if not a prolonged guffaw, although one or two were gut-wrenchingly sad. Next up, "Schtick" includes a handful of Bendis' favorite editorial cartoons, along the same lines of the previous sections in their range of visual styles and conversational or observational humor. "The Collaborations and other stuff" rounds out the narratives, featuring short pieces authored by the likes of Warren Ellis. Bendis punctuates his collection with several pages that fall under the category "portfolio" and a few essays that served as introductions to various graphic novels and trades. I.e. lots of goodies for the patient reader.
If I haven't already made it abundantly clear, Total Sell Out is good for a laugh, a couple actually, but that's not the only reason it's a worth while read. For comics aficionados, Bendis tells some amazing stories from his life in the industry, featuring escapades with David Mack (drool) and a blood feud with late Poison Elves creator Drew Hayes. He gives a bit of an 'in' to his creative process (or the obstacles to it) with the rather magnificent wordless strip "Borderlands." For comics theoreticians (not mutually exclusively from the above mentioned fan boys and girls), his experiments with the comics form offer a truly inspiring glimpse at what the medium can do for a narrative. And they give the uninitiated a peak into Bendis' oeuvre in general. I'm just going to go ahead and say that again. Ooooeuvre.
And that wraps it up for this installment! Give this volume a go for some insight, entertainment, and if nothing else, to show our dear Mr. Bendis he is loved. Hair or no.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Scott Pilgrim versus my inability to say anything bad about Scott Pilgrim
Just a shorty short today, my adoring public.
The highly anticipated fifth volume of Bryan Lee O'Malley's unclassifiable and awesome Scott Pilgrim series- Scott Pilgrim vs. the Universe- came out a week or so ago. I bought it on a whimsical and unplanned trip to the comic store even before I had started my re-reading the previous four volumes master plan. I wasn't worried though, because each book in the series is so enjoyable it takes roughly pi seconds to blow through. I was able to muster the patience to make it through those four, which was no small feat. Not only was I clawing to get some new Scott Pilgrim action, the cover of Scott Pilgrim vs. the Universe is shiny. Gold and shiny!
To re-cap, the premise of the series is fairly simple: boy meets girl, boy loves girl, boy has to fight and defeat girl's seven evil exes before they can officially be together. Then there's the glorious cast of side characters, many of whom you probably know/ are. Subspace highways, dastardly robots, unexplainable glowing heads, and musical battles to the death round out the series' refusal to be placed into a genre. Even a heavily hyphenated one. Ok, MAYBE a heavily hyphenated one. AND, O'Malley's incorporation of pop culture into his story is legendary; from band t-shirts to character stats to the manga-reminiscent visual style, you can't escape contemporary nerd culture here. And it's awesome.
So anyway, what can I say about the latest ish? O'Malley is still up on his game, and the fifth installment of Scott's tangles with love, life, and rocking gets two eight-bit thumbs way up. Scott and Ramona's relationship takes a rather serious turn and there's a bit of people coming-and-going, which adds to the slightly somber-er tone of the story. Still, there's plenty of silliness and snidely sarcasm to go around, and Kim Pine (my favorite!) gets lots of screen time... panel time? While I wouldn't say it's my favorite, I did have to fend off a wave of forlorn nausea when I reached the last page.
Random fact: for the Scott Pilgrim movie (please god, let them pull this off without ruining it), evil ex Roxie will be played by Mae Whitman, the very Mae Whitman who lends her voice to Katara on Avatar: the Last Airbender. There are not enough exclamation points in all of existance to express the blowness of my mind upon learning this.
The highly anticipated fifth volume of Bryan Lee O'Malley's unclassifiable and awesome Scott Pilgrim series- Scott Pilgrim vs. the Universe- came out a week or so ago. I bought it on a whimsical and unplanned trip to the comic store even before I had started my re-reading the previous four volumes master plan. I wasn't worried though, because each book in the series is so enjoyable it takes roughly pi seconds to blow through. I was able to muster the patience to make it through those four, which was no small feat. Not only was I clawing to get some new Scott Pilgrim action, the cover of Scott Pilgrim vs. the Universe is shiny. Gold and shiny!
To re-cap, the premise of the series is fairly simple: boy meets girl, boy loves girl, boy has to fight and defeat girl's seven evil exes before they can officially be together. Then there's the glorious cast of side characters, many of whom you probably know/ are. Subspace highways, dastardly robots, unexplainable glowing heads, and musical battles to the death round out the series' refusal to be placed into a genre. Even a heavily hyphenated one. Ok, MAYBE a heavily hyphenated one. AND, O'Malley's incorporation of pop culture into his story is legendary; from band t-shirts to character stats to the manga-reminiscent visual style, you can't escape contemporary nerd culture here. And it's awesome.
So anyway, what can I say about the latest ish? O'Malley is still up on his game, and the fifth installment of Scott's tangles with love, life, and rocking gets two eight-bit thumbs way up. Scott and Ramona's relationship takes a rather serious turn and there's a bit of people coming-and-going, which adds to the slightly somber-er tone of the story. Still, there's plenty of silliness and snidely sarcasm to go around, and Kim Pine (my favorite!) gets lots of screen time... panel time? While I wouldn't say it's my favorite, I did have to fend off a wave of forlorn nausea when I reached the last page.
Random fact: for the Scott Pilgrim movie (please god, let them pull this off without ruining it), evil ex Roxie will be played by Mae Whitman, the very Mae Whitman who lends her voice to Katara on Avatar: the Last Airbender. There are not enough exclamation points in all of existance to express the blowness of my mind upon learning this.
Friday, January 30, 2009
A double take for Gene Yang's American Born Chinese
When Gene Yang's American Born Chinese came out in 2006, critics and readers received pretty it favorably; since then, I've seen it on many a 'must read' list of graphic novels, contemporary biography, graphic novel biography, and so on with the composite subgenres/ media. When I found myself wandering my local comic shop after pay day, I finally picked up a copy. On the back cover, Derek Kirk Kim, a friend and colleague of the author, was quoted "As an Asian American, American Born Chinese is the book I've been waiting for all my life." Now I'm not Asian, but with a statement like that, I felt quite secure that I had picked a winner.
I read the book a couple nights ago and it breaks down about like this: Yang tells three stories, alternating between them with each new chapter. In the first, he relays a folk tale of a monkey king who strives to be human, and he includes lots of other archetypal myth/ legend type themes and figures. And kung fu (whoooa.) In the second, the reader follows an Asian-American boy, Jin (a.k.a. probably the author), through his adventures and mishaps in third and fourth grade with his best friend Wei-Chen. The third story recalls a TV sitcom (laugh track and all) in which an all-American high-schooler, Danny, is visited and inadvertently terrorized by his inexplicably Chinese cousin, Chin-Kee, himself a grab bag of Asian stereotypes.
When I finished the book, I can't lie, I was a little disappointed. Not that it wasn't a diverting read, I did blow through the whole thing in one sitting. And there were parts that made me laugh, others that made me cringe with that wonderful mix of sympathy for the marginalized characters and guilt for being a white devil myself. But that's a whole blog in itself. My point is I definitely engaged with the book, just not as much I thought I would. I'd had all these expectations, not just from the anonymous background murmur of criticism, but from Derek Kirk Kim. Derek! This book was not as life-altering as you led me to believe. I noticed on the ever-provident facebook that I wasn't alone in my disillusionment. But as I scanned the reviews on the living social visual bookshelf app, I found that I had qualms with the comments people left. Could be I'm just antagonistic. Or maybe what I (and others) failed to realize is that the real brilliance of the book doesn't come across without some thought and analysis after closing the back cover. English major to the rescue!
One example of Yang's story-telling innovation lies in the fact that he doesn't weave his three narratives together, as one might expect from a multiple narrative text. Rather, at the last minute, he pulls the proverbial curtain aside so the reader finds that the Monkey King, Jin, Wei-Chen, Danny, and Chin-Kee are sort of all the same character or at least related in unexpected ways. And not in a metaphorical, character foil sense; literally, Yang draws one character morphing into another. Or pulling off his head to reveal his true identity. And, good heavens, that's what this whole yarn is supposed to address in the first place. Identity I mean, not self-decapitation.
The moment all three stories come together marks another pretty awesome element of American Born Chinese that didn't dawn on me until after I'd set it down: the mythical folk tale, the personal history, and the caricature collide, and any sense of realism/ continuity within each story goes right out the window. When one of the mythic characters shows himself to be one of the main characters from the present, who was an analog for ANOTHER character all along, the divisions the reader had developed between those parts of the book are just obliterated. There's this serious rupture, but the story goes on, accepting everything that's happened as it ends. As I've studied biography (just a bit), especially of the graphic variety, I've found that writers and artists do some really amazing things with blurring and/ or exposing the lines between the factual things that happened to them over the course of their lives and the internal feelings and memories that accompany those experiences. In these terms, just wow- Yang has integrated not just personal history and memory/ internal experience, but CULTURAL history and experience into one biography. Now I'm no expert on the biographical genre (if genre is the right word), but I've never seen this particular mish-mash narrative technique pulled off quite the way Yang does it. It's brilliant. Ok Derek Kirk Kim, you've got me there.
I read the book a couple nights ago and it breaks down about like this: Yang tells three stories, alternating between them with each new chapter. In the first, he relays a folk tale of a monkey king who strives to be human, and he includes lots of other archetypal myth/ legend type themes and figures. And kung fu (whoooa.) In the second, the reader follows an Asian-American boy, Jin (a.k.a. probably the author), through his adventures and mishaps in third and fourth grade with his best friend Wei-Chen. The third story recalls a TV sitcom (laugh track and all) in which an all-American high-schooler, Danny, is visited and inadvertently terrorized by his inexplicably Chinese cousin, Chin-Kee, himself a grab bag of Asian stereotypes.
When I finished the book, I can't lie, I was a little disappointed. Not that it wasn't a diverting read, I did blow through the whole thing in one sitting. And there were parts that made me laugh, others that made me cringe with that wonderful mix of sympathy for the marginalized characters and guilt for being a white devil myself. But that's a whole blog in itself. My point is I definitely engaged with the book, just not as much I thought I would. I'd had all these expectations, not just from the anonymous background murmur of criticism, but from Derek Kirk Kim. Derek! This book was not as life-altering as you led me to believe. I noticed on the ever-provident facebook that I wasn't alone in my disillusionment. But as I scanned the reviews on the living social visual bookshelf app, I found that I had qualms with the comments people left. Could be I'm just antagonistic. Or maybe what I (and others) failed to realize is that the real brilliance of the book doesn't come across without some thought and analysis after closing the back cover. English major to the rescue!
One example of Yang's story-telling innovation lies in the fact that he doesn't weave his three narratives together, as one might expect from a multiple narrative text. Rather, at the last minute, he pulls the proverbial curtain aside so the reader finds that the Monkey King, Jin, Wei-Chen, Danny, and Chin-Kee are sort of all the same character or at least related in unexpected ways. And not in a metaphorical, character foil sense; literally, Yang draws one character morphing into another. Or pulling off his head to reveal his true identity. And, good heavens, that's what this whole yarn is supposed to address in the first place. Identity I mean, not self-decapitation.
The moment all three stories come together marks another pretty awesome element of American Born Chinese that didn't dawn on me until after I'd set it down: the mythical folk tale, the personal history, and the caricature collide, and any sense of realism/ continuity within each story goes right out the window. When one of the mythic characters shows himself to be one of the main characters from the present, who was an analog for ANOTHER character all along, the divisions the reader had developed between those parts of the book are just obliterated. There's this serious rupture, but the story goes on, accepting everything that's happened as it ends. As I've studied biography (just a bit), especially of the graphic variety, I've found that writers and artists do some really amazing things with blurring and/ or exposing the lines between the factual things that happened to them over the course of their lives and the internal feelings and memories that accompany those experiences. In these terms, just wow- Yang has integrated not just personal history and memory/ internal experience, but CULTURAL history and experience into one biography. Now I'm no expert on the biographical genre (if genre is the right word), but I've never seen this particular mish-mash narrative technique pulled off quite the way Yang does it. It's brilliant. Ok Derek Kirk Kim, you've got me there.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Phonies at the Symphony
Last Friday night, by the graces of the god of free tickets, I got the opportunity to go see the Dallas Symphony Orchestra with a friend of mine. This was a fairly classy event, so the following review will be about as high brow as I get. Unless we're talking about Stephen Colbert.
Anyway, we took the DART train downtown to the Meyerson Symphony Center, which I recommend doing if you're into irony of the class-based variety. The other symphony attendees were about as ostentatiously middle to upper-middle class as you get for a Friday evening, but I was surprised by the number of younger people there. Not only those of junior high, high school age- I imagine someone had arranged a class trip- but also 20-something couples and groups. I guess I shouldn't discount my own age group for taking part in such white collar festivities. Especially as I WAS there myself...
The program for the evening began with the Shostakovich Violin Concerto #1 (the proper phrasing for which can be found in the liner notes, not in my expertise of wording pieces of classical music) and ended with Tchaikovsky's 5th Symphony. Now I'm not an expert in classical tunes, but I will say this- those old Russian composers, damn; they're just amazing. No one channels suffering and angst into an art form quite like they do. I've been a conscious fan of Tchaikovsky since I was a little kid prancing around to the Nutcracker Suite, and the pieces I heard Friday really hit that home for me. The melodrama that these guys conjure up, it's breath taking. Literally; there were points where I noticed I was holding my breath. So the score one for the scores; the musical selection was top notch.
With that in mind, you might say that blasting ol' Shasta and Pyotr Ilyich from my stereo might be just as soul-shaking as listening to it in a concert hall. There are a couple reasons you'd be wrong. First, and this is by no means restricted to Friday evening's events, the people at the symphony- they must be emo. Maybe they were getting into the music in their own heads, but physically, there was nary a demonstration that they were enjoying what they were hearing until the applause. No head bobbing or foot tapping; no jumping at shows, I tell you! I was struggling to keep from dancing in my seat, and after a drink at intermission, this was no easy task. I know it isn't appropriate to get into it that much in such a setting, but I have to ask- isn't that a touch ridiculous? Classical music is like the most respected art in the (western) world, so would it be a stretch to say that it's among the best art? Wouldn't that mean the most moving, by some definition? I know I'm jumping around a bit here, but you get my point- art is supposed to move you and it's completely backwards to perform it in a setting where being moved in certain ways is not proper. So from this point of view, listening to these pieces out of a symphony hall would facilitate a superior experience because it would allow lots of flailing and jumping around to the music. And that is my digression.
On the other hand, watching musicians perform can add something to the experience of a piece, and this was absolutely the case on Friday. The DSO has recently come under new conductorship (conduction? conductor-ing?)- Jaap Van Zweden. This guy was such a blast to watch; all the stuff I just said about symphony patrons above applies in NO WAY to our tiny Belgian leader of the band. He was all over the place, stomping and waving kinda goofily, like I might have, had I been in the comfort of my own living room. And he gets away with it BECAUSE he's the conductor- you see how this works? Not fair! Still, it was great to watch him do his thing.
Funnily enough, all of my training in the Classical arts (if you wanna call them that) was in ballet, and reading back over this, I notice that I'm thinking about this experience in terms of movement and the body. So there's some continuity for ya, where maybe you expected an informed point of view?
Anyway, we took the DART train downtown to the Meyerson Symphony Center, which I recommend doing if you're into irony of the class-based variety. The other symphony attendees were about as ostentatiously middle to upper-middle class as you get for a Friday evening, but I was surprised by the number of younger people there. Not only those of junior high, high school age- I imagine someone had arranged a class trip- but also 20-something couples and groups. I guess I shouldn't discount my own age group for taking part in such white collar festivities. Especially as I WAS there myself...
The program for the evening began with the Shostakovich Violin Concerto #1 (the proper phrasing for which can be found in the liner notes, not in my expertise of wording pieces of classical music) and ended with Tchaikovsky's 5th Symphony. Now I'm not an expert in classical tunes, but I will say this- those old Russian composers, damn; they're just amazing. No one channels suffering and angst into an art form quite like they do. I've been a conscious fan of Tchaikovsky since I was a little kid prancing around to the Nutcracker Suite, and the pieces I heard Friday really hit that home for me. The melodrama that these guys conjure up, it's breath taking. Literally; there were points where I noticed I was holding my breath. So the score one for the scores; the musical selection was top notch.
With that in mind, you might say that blasting ol' Shasta and Pyotr Ilyich from my stereo might be just as soul-shaking as listening to it in a concert hall. There are a couple reasons you'd be wrong. First, and this is by no means restricted to Friday evening's events, the people at the symphony- they must be emo. Maybe they were getting into the music in their own heads, but physically, there was nary a demonstration that they were enjoying what they were hearing until the applause. No head bobbing or foot tapping; no jumping at shows, I tell you! I was struggling to keep from dancing in my seat, and after a drink at intermission, this was no easy task. I know it isn't appropriate to get into it that much in such a setting, but I have to ask- isn't that a touch ridiculous? Classical music is like the most respected art in the (western) world, so would it be a stretch to say that it's among the best art? Wouldn't that mean the most moving, by some definition? I know I'm jumping around a bit here, but you get my point- art is supposed to move you and it's completely backwards to perform it in a setting where being moved in certain ways is not proper. So from this point of view, listening to these pieces out of a symphony hall would facilitate a superior experience because it would allow lots of flailing and jumping around to the music. And that is my digression.
On the other hand, watching musicians perform can add something to the experience of a piece, and this was absolutely the case on Friday. The DSO has recently come under new conductorship (conduction? conductor-ing?)- Jaap Van Zweden. This guy was such a blast to watch; all the stuff I just said about symphony patrons above applies in NO WAY to our tiny Belgian leader of the band. He was all over the place, stomping and waving kinda goofily, like I might have, had I been in the comfort of my own living room. And he gets away with it BECAUSE he's the conductor- you see how this works? Not fair! Still, it was great to watch him do his thing.
Funnily enough, all of my training in the Classical arts (if you wanna call them that) was in ballet, and reading back over this, I notice that I'm thinking about this experience in terms of movement and the body. So there's some continuity for ya, where maybe you expected an informed point of view?
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Van Zant-tastic: Milk review
O December, you really do make it a challenge to get ANYTHING done. I started this review this weekend and it's still sitting here. Gah! Not that I'm on a time line or anything, but when things you like to do keep getting pushed to the back burner, well, you end up with burnt goods. Or some other extended metaphor... Anyway, end rant.
A few nights ago- Saturday- I found myself without a thing to do; heavens! So after sulking for a bit about my non-life, I got over myself and marched my butt to the theater down the street to see Gus Van Zant's latest cinematic effort, Milk. And wow, there is a LOT of good to say about this movie. Coincidentally enough, as soon as I got back home, I saw that a friend of a friend had written a stirring and thoughtful review, so for more reactions to the film, do start there.
In Milk, Van Zant tells the story of Harvey Milk, a gay businessman turned activist and politician in 1970s San Francisco. The movie reconstructs his life from his 40th birthday in 1970 as a suit in New York who has "done nothing with his life" to his assassination in San Francisco's City Hall in 1978. The plot shifts between his personal life- his lovers, friends, and aspirations- and his political career, making particularly clear how the two merged. If wikipedia is to be believed, Van Zant does a bang up job of getting his facts straight. The cast was great, which I spose one would expect from such a reverent project. Sean Penn stars as the approachable, ambitious title character, James Franco, as his adorable lover (can he just not be cute for one damn minute?), and Josh Brolin as an angry but impotent co-politico (can he just not play a dastardly conservative politician for one damn minute?).
A few nights ago- Saturday- I found myself without a thing to do; heavens! So after sulking for a bit about my non-life, I got over myself and marched my butt to the theater down the street to see Gus Van Zant's latest cinematic effort, Milk. And wow, there is a LOT of good to say about this movie. Coincidentally enough, as soon as I got back home, I saw that a friend of a friend had written a stirring and thoughtful review, so for more reactions to the film, do start there.
In Milk, Van Zant tells the story of Harvey Milk, a gay businessman turned activist and politician in 1970s San Francisco. The movie reconstructs his life from his 40th birthday in 1970 as a suit in New York who has "done nothing with his life" to his assassination in San Francisco's City Hall in 1978. The plot shifts between his personal life- his lovers, friends, and aspirations- and his political career, making particularly clear how the two merged. If wikipedia is to be believed, Van Zant does a bang up job of getting his facts straight. The cast was great, which I spose one would expect from such a reverent project. Sean Penn stars as the approachable, ambitious title character, James Franco, as his adorable lover (can he just not be cute for one damn minute?), and Josh Brolin as an angry but impotent co-politico (can he just not play a dastardly conservative politician for one damn minute?).
While Milk was a finely made film, had it not been historically grounded, it wouldn't have hit home quite so intensely. At the end, while the credits began rolling, photographs of the real people that had been portrayed by actors flashed on screen with short captions reporting what they went on to do after the events recounted in the film. Of all the emotionally charged moments in the film- and there were plenty- the images of the actual faces got to me the most. O reality, you cut me to the quick! I may be alone with that reaction, but still, I think it's the "true" rather than the "story" that makes Milk (the movie, not the guy. or the frosty beverage) so successful, especially given our immediate political climate. Not only is Prop. 8 and its backlash probably going to be in the forefront of the audiences' minds, but the messages of hope and change that Milk espouses would be equally at home in an Obama speech.
I majored in history when I was in college, so I'm in no way qualified to say that for the most part, we Americans don't know our own history. Some of us know some stuff, maybe even the basics, but unless an individual lived to see one or another event unfold, s/he might never come into contact with it. And even living at the time of a particular event is no guarantee you'll know anything about it. I don't want to insult the intelligence of the population, but you can't tell me it isn't easy to remain ignorant about the past if you really want to.
Without going on a tirade about the deficiencies in our education system and maybe even cultural attitudes about the past, let's just say that stories like Harvey Milk's tend to fall by the way side; I'll admit, I didn't know a thing about him going into the movie. His story and the history around it, they're important. Not just because of what's going on with anti-gay legislation right now, and not just so we can add to our arsenal of pub trivia knowledge (Who began the AIDS quilts? What was the Twinkie Defense? O, they're in there!). We should know the back story of our country- the hypocrisy and failings of American mythos and the people and movements that refuse to bend to them. And we should know the stories of the little guys (and girls. ahem) that go up against the norm. American history (and identity, I daresay) started with a bunch of outsiders who said 'fuck this' and did things their own way, and while our humble beginnings as a nation are all filled to the brim with a lot of seriously evil shit, that sentiment is part of who we are. Damn it.
I majored in history when I was in college, so I'm in no way qualified to say that for the most part, we Americans don't know our own history. Some of us know some stuff, maybe even the basics, but unless an individual lived to see one or another event unfold, s/he might never come into contact with it. And even living at the time of a particular event is no guarantee you'll know anything about it. I don't want to insult the intelligence of the population, but you can't tell me it isn't easy to remain ignorant about the past if you really want to.
Without going on a tirade about the deficiencies in our education system and maybe even cultural attitudes about the past, let's just say that stories like Harvey Milk's tend to fall by the way side; I'll admit, I didn't know a thing about him going into the movie. His story and the history around it, they're important. Not just because of what's going on with anti-gay legislation right now, and not just so we can add to our arsenal of pub trivia knowledge (Who began the AIDS quilts? What was the Twinkie Defense? O, they're in there!). We should know the back story of our country- the hypocrisy and failings of American mythos and the people and movements that refuse to bend to them. And we should know the stories of the little guys (and girls. ahem) that go up against the norm. American history (and identity, I daresay) started with a bunch of outsiders who said 'fuck this' and did things their own way, and while our humble beginnings as a nation are all filled to the brim with a lot of seriously evil shit, that sentiment is part of who we are. Damn it.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Hold onto your kidneys! Repo: The Genetic Opera
I live in walking distance of a movie theater that often shows independent films, and I don't take advantage of this nearly as often as I should. Until yesterday. I got an email that mentioned, among other goings-on in town, the opening of Repo: The Genetic Opera. The title alone hooked me and when I read the synopsis, I knew: this is what I'm doing today.
The premise of the movie is on the off kilter side: in the not too distance and very industrial-goth future, a plague causing organ failure has struck humanity, putting healthy organs into high demand and spurring leaps and bounds in the surgical field. One particular tycoon, Rotti Largo, takes control of basically the whole industry, first, by founding GeneCo. and offering payment plans to help people acquire organs, second, getting ridiculously wealthy and politically powerful, and third, passing a law allowing him to reclaim his 'products' from those who have missed payment deadlines. The Repo-Man carries out the dirty work of repossessing organs, to the delight (that is, disgust) of slasher fans. O there is plenty of blood-n-guts, as one might expect from Saw II, III, and IV director Darren Lynn Bousman. The Repo-Man, who takes a bit of twisted pleasure in his work, is not an out-and-out bad guy: the light of his life is his ailing, motherless daughter, who he keeps locked away... for, ya know, protection...? Well, he means well. Within the Largo family, three over-the-top siblings vie for the inheritance of GeneCo. Then there's the spokeswoman for GeneCo., an opera singer who has some murky back story. Are all the story lines tied up together? You betcha!
Did I mention Repo is all sung? This is grand opera, folks, in all its spared-no-expense sets, costumes, and effects, melo-dramatic, spectacular glory. And I was continually impressed by the quality of the singing. Paul Sorvino as Rotti Largo is despicable and awesome, with a booming, menacing voice to match. Anthony Head, who stunned the fan base with his vocal talents in Buffy the Vampire Slayer's famed musical episode, rocks out once more as the Repo Man. I'm not exaggerating, he ROCKS. All caps. Sarah Brightman plays the opera singer icon of GeneCo., so you know you're getting quality vocals from her. I was impressed with her theatricality as an actress, too, although I guess a professional singer of her ilk would have had some time to hone such a skill. Alexa Vega, of Spy-Kids fame, takes on the lead role of the Repo Man's daughter with a vengeance. Some of her songs were stronger than others, but all in all she gave a great performance. I guess when Joan Jett is backing you up on guitar, it's pretty easy to kick ass. Yeah, just when you thought you had this movie figured out, Joan Jett shows up. The Largo brood, played by Skinny Puppy vocalist Ogre, slasher favorite Bill Moseley, and Paris Hilton (I know. It threw me for a loop) are a bit rough around the edges, but it only makes them more likable. In an interview, Ogre and Moseley refer to future collaborations, and it's pretty awesome to watch their dynamic develop on screen. Also, um, Paris Hilton can sing. Who knew? Besides her however many million fans buying her records (note to self: find times. Get with them).
In addition to some knock out performances, the director's/ writers' fun and games with the opera/ film medium itself is fantastic. Repo constantly reminds viewers that they're watching an enormous, produced creation, not just with its inherent camp and elaborate costumes and sets, but also with plays-within-the-play, comic book inspired transitions to flashbacks, addresses to the audience by the drug dealing narrator. The fourth wall isn't just knocked down, it's all over the damn place.
Repo bills itself as being the next Rocky Horror, and while I can certainly see the similarities, I wouldn't necessarily make that call myself. I would, however, suggest to anyone who feels even the slightest penchant for unconventional musical theater, rock opera, punk cabaret (I guess that's its own sub genre now...?), and/ or gothiness to check this one out.
The premise of the movie is on the off kilter side: in the not too distance and very industrial-goth future, a plague causing organ failure has struck humanity, putting healthy organs into high demand and spurring leaps and bounds in the surgical field. One particular tycoon, Rotti Largo, takes control of basically the whole industry, first, by founding GeneCo. and offering payment plans to help people acquire organs, second, getting ridiculously wealthy and politically powerful, and third, passing a law allowing him to reclaim his 'products' from those who have missed payment deadlines. The Repo-Man carries out the dirty work of repossessing organs, to the delight (that is, disgust) of slasher fans. O there is plenty of blood-n-guts, as one might expect from Saw II, III, and IV director Darren Lynn Bousman. The Repo-Man, who takes a bit of twisted pleasure in his work, is not an out-and-out bad guy: the light of his life is his ailing, motherless daughter, who he keeps locked away... for, ya know, protection...? Well, he means well. Within the Largo family, three over-the-top siblings vie for the inheritance of GeneCo. Then there's the spokeswoman for GeneCo., an opera singer who has some murky back story. Are all the story lines tied up together? You betcha!
Did I mention Repo is all sung? This is grand opera, folks, in all its spared-no-expense sets, costumes, and effects, melo-dramatic, spectacular glory. And I was continually impressed by the quality of the singing. Paul Sorvino as Rotti Largo is despicable and awesome, with a booming, menacing voice to match. Anthony Head, who stunned the fan base with his vocal talents in Buffy the Vampire Slayer's famed musical episode, rocks out once more as the Repo Man. I'm not exaggerating, he ROCKS. All caps. Sarah Brightman plays the opera singer icon of GeneCo., so you know you're getting quality vocals from her. I was impressed with her theatricality as an actress, too, although I guess a professional singer of her ilk would have had some time to hone such a skill. Alexa Vega, of Spy-Kids fame, takes on the lead role of the Repo Man's daughter with a vengeance. Some of her songs were stronger than others, but all in all she gave a great performance. I guess when Joan Jett is backing you up on guitar, it's pretty easy to kick ass. Yeah, just when you thought you had this movie figured out, Joan Jett shows up. The Largo brood, played by Skinny Puppy vocalist Ogre, slasher favorite Bill Moseley, and Paris Hilton (I know. It threw me for a loop) are a bit rough around the edges, but it only makes them more likable. In an interview, Ogre and Moseley refer to future collaborations, and it's pretty awesome to watch their dynamic develop on screen. Also, um, Paris Hilton can sing. Who knew? Besides her however many million fans buying her records (note to self: find times. Get with them).
In addition to some knock out performances, the director's/ writers' fun and games with the opera/ film medium itself is fantastic. Repo constantly reminds viewers that they're watching an enormous, produced creation, not just with its inherent camp and elaborate costumes and sets, but also with plays-within-the-play, comic book inspired transitions to flashbacks, addresses to the audience by the drug dealing narrator. The fourth wall isn't just knocked down, it's all over the damn place.
Repo bills itself as being the next Rocky Horror, and while I can certainly see the similarities, I wouldn't necessarily make that call myself. I would, however, suggest to anyone who feels even the slightest penchant for unconventional musical theater, rock opera, punk cabaret (I guess that's its own sub genre now...?), and/ or gothiness to check this one out.
Monday, December 8, 2008
The Last Shadow Puppets: the first album review
I have some friends in Belgium (why, dahling, of course I'm international) who are awesome and similarly awesome are their tastes in music. The last time I saw them, they burned a fraction of their itunes library for my enjoyment, including the debut album from The Last Shadow Puppets, The Age of the Understatement. The band is one part guy from the Arctic Monkeys, who I don't care for, one part guy from the Rascals, who I know nothing about, and one part guy from Simian Mobile Disco, who I adore. For the album, the group also employed the London Metropolitan Orchestra. Enticing line-up if ever there was one! If nothing else, we know it sounds British...
Of everything my Ghentlefriends gave me, I find myself listening to the Age of the Understatement the most, well, at least top five. Why, pray tell? Well here we go.
As seems to be a big fat trend with indie Brit pop, the overtones come right out the sixties. Not being an expert in this genre or music at all really, I can only suggest reasons for this: the strings which actually sounds stringy as opposed to synthy, the occasional electric organ and tambourine, those Beatle-y ahs and an echoing, scratchiness to the vocals (surely there's an actual word for that quality). And the drama, o lord, it's glorious. When I listen to music, I tend to pay attention to the sounds first, then the words, and one great thing about this album is the two are so well suited to each other, you hear lust, longing, heartache, and angst whether your ears guides you to the instruments or the lyrics.
The title track captivates immediately. Chugging drums underlie a larger, urgent mix of electric guitar, strings, and is that a horn section frosting the tips of this song? Whatever torrents of instrumental and lyrical angst build throughout "The Age of the Understatement," those outlaw, horse-chase drums keep charging along. Cinematic: there's an adjective for this song, and it sets the tone for the whole album.
The album takes an slightly optimistic turn after the first few tracks, with covers of of Billy Fury's "Wondrous Place" and David Bowie's "In the Heat of the Morning" (I had to look that up on wikipedia. I WISH I had that kind of familiarity with Brit pop). But after tipping their hats to their influences, The Puppets continue with tortured, spiteful separation anxiety fire crackers of songs, interspersed among quieter, but still pained melodies. And sometimes in the same song. "Separate and Ever Deadly" revisits the driving drums of the title track, and "Only the Truth," "Black Plant," and "In My Room" could easily find themselves in a spy movie. In fact, I found myself thinking of James Bond more than once as I listened to The Age of the Understatement on repeat. I recommend "I Don't Like You Anymore" to anyone going through a break up, or anyone who has, or well, anyone really. The last two tracks, "Meeting Place" and "The Time Has Come Again," bring the energy level down, but conclude the album on an appropriately forlorn note.
All in all, a fantastic album that balances perfectly woe-is-me-I-hate-you-but-I-would-take-you-back melodrama and get-up-outcha-chair-and-dance pop rock.
Of everything my Ghentlefriends gave me, I find myself listening to the Age of the Understatement the most, well, at least top five. Why, pray tell? Well here we go.
As seems to be a big fat trend with indie Brit pop, the overtones come right out the sixties. Not being an expert in this genre or music at all really, I can only suggest reasons for this: the strings which actually sounds stringy as opposed to synthy, the occasional electric organ and tambourine, those Beatle-y ahs and an echoing, scratchiness to the vocals (surely there's an actual word for that quality). And the drama, o lord, it's glorious. When I listen to music, I tend to pay attention to the sounds first, then the words, and one great thing about this album is the two are so well suited to each other, you hear lust, longing, heartache, and angst whether your ears guides you to the instruments or the lyrics.
The title track captivates immediately. Chugging drums underlie a larger, urgent mix of electric guitar, strings, and is that a horn section frosting the tips of this song? Whatever torrents of instrumental and lyrical angst build throughout "The Age of the Understatement," those outlaw, horse-chase drums keep charging along. Cinematic: there's an adjective for this song, and it sets the tone for the whole album.
The album takes an slightly optimistic turn after the first few tracks, with covers of of Billy Fury's "Wondrous Place" and David Bowie's "In the Heat of the Morning" (I had to look that up on wikipedia. I WISH I had that kind of familiarity with Brit pop). But after tipping their hats to their influences, The Puppets continue with tortured, spiteful separation anxiety fire crackers of songs, interspersed among quieter, but still pained melodies. And sometimes in the same song. "Separate and Ever Deadly" revisits the driving drums of the title track, and "Only the Truth," "Black Plant," and "In My Room" could easily find themselves in a spy movie. In fact, I found myself thinking of James Bond more than once as I listened to The Age of the Understatement on repeat. I recommend "I Don't Like You Anymore" to anyone going through a break up, or anyone who has, or well, anyone really. The last two tracks, "Meeting Place" and "The Time Has Come Again," bring the energy level down, but conclude the album on an appropriately forlorn note.
All in all, a fantastic album that balances perfectly woe-is-me-I-hate-you-but-I-would-take-you-back melodrama and get-up-outcha-chair-and-dance pop rock.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Connect the Zot!s: Scott McCloud's Zot!: The Complete Black and White Collection
So I've been in and out of town the past couple weeks, which means I've spent quite a bit of time on airplanes. One might think this would allow hours and hours of time to catch up on my reading, but one would be wrong: typically, I have a hard time reading for more than 30 or so minutes on a plane. After the drink service, all I want to do is stare at the back of the seat in front of me and try not to look at the time. Thank god for ipods, now I can at least listen to music while I slowly go bored out of my skull. I say 'typically' because every now and then (I fall apart! And I need you now tonight! ... whoa, Nicki French, where did you come from?) I'm able to concentrate on an exceptionally good book for the better part of a flight. Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince was one of these. And so was Scott McCloud's mega trade of Zot! 1987- 1991: The Complete Black and White Collection, which brings me to today's review.
Zot! follows the title character, a teenage superhero from a Utopian Earth in an alternate dimension, as he fights criminal masterminds in his world and interacts with his pals from ours. The first half-ish of the trade, "Heroes and Villains" focuses on superhero-y exploits and neato techy gadgets and places, while the second part, "Earth Stories," is more concerned with the characters and their backgrounds and stories. As an added bonus, McCloud includes a long introduction and commentaries after each story arc; these insights into the stories and glimpses into McCloud's life as he wrote them were hands down one of my favorite things about the book. I might be biased, because I, like scores of comic geeks around the globe, am Scott McCloud's number one fan (at least in the top 100?), so the biographical aspects of his stories are a real treat. Even for readers not familiar with his opus, the guy's just accessible and really funny. His prose reads like he's talking to you; it's better than a lot of his characters' dialogue. Now, if he had taken a page from Understanding/ Reinventing/ Making Comics and written his commentary in comic form- hm, that may have actually been too much... well, probably not.
The comics of "Heroes and Villains", like I said, mostly tell stories of Zot's adventures in his own dimension with his not-girlfriend Jenny (from our earth), her brother Butch (also a chimpanzee, depending on which dimension he's in), his Renaissance man uncle Max, and a handful of other not terribly developed friends and machines. There's some pretty good witty banter here and there, and some of the themes that come up with the villains invite further thought. In his commentaries, McCloud actually talks a bit about what ideas each of his villains represents, and really, I think the bad guys are the most interesting characters. 9Jack9 and Zybox bring up the subjectivity of morality- always a fun topic- and have probably some of the coolest names in the history of bad guy monikers. Dekko's perception of the world allows for some really neato visual possibilities- just one of the places where you can see McCloud's ideas from Understanding Comics coming into play. All in all, the visual aspect of "Heroes and Villains" is this section's strength- the settings and splash pages, all the neat futuristic gadgets and spaces on Zot's world, the villains, it's all great to look at. The story-telling is fun, but not outstanding, and the characters don't get much treatment as such. Truth be told, the promise of the next section to develop them kept me going.
And "Earth Stories" delivered. In this section, Zot gets trapped on Jenny's world (that is, ours), and so we get to follow the adventures of her friends, none of which are super-powered or fantastical. They're just kids in high school with angst and problems, and they happen to hang out with flight capable, visibility-optional Zot. See? Relatable! Pretty much each issue is told from a different character's point of view, giving the reader a peek into their lives, which mostly revolve around fears, insecurities, and self-delusion. Whoo drama! Even visually, McCloud gets a little more experimental in this second section. The two award winning issues- "Normal" and "The Conversation" deserve every bit of the praise they got. Within a story arc that takes homosexuality and tolerance as its main conflict, "Normal" tells the story of Jenny's friend Terry coming to terms with her own sexuality. Here, the story really grabbed me, and it took no time for me to get emotionally invested in Terry. And if Zot's trademark inherent goodness was a bit over the top in the previous section, in "Normal," I couldn't help loving him for it. The ending is a bit of a heart fuck (if I can invent a phrase), but it's glorious. "The Conversation" focuses on a story line that had been in the back of my mind from the onset- do, uh, Zot and Jenny ever get it on? The issue takes place over the span of a couple minutes, maybe ten, where Zot broaches the subject, questions are answered, and awkwardness ensues. McCloud NAILS this conversation, capturing the discomfort, hesitance, and honesty of the characters flawlessly in empty speech balloons, slow pacing (moment to moment transitions...!), and their gestures. He says in his commentary that capturing human "poses and expressions" was never his strong suit, but I think he's really outdone himself here. The final issue, "The Great Escape," was also stunning: McCloud begins by focusing on a character per page, then per half page, until finally, we're back to a more or less non-character specific perspective, where the story arc of Zot's stint on our Earth concludes. The issue becomes an apology for fiction, which really impressed me; it was a great way to end the book, in both the contexts of the fantastical tales of the "Heroes and Villains" as well as the character driven "Earth Stories."
I'd recommend the complete Zot! to any McCloud fans, for the commentary if nothing else. I know I'm singing the tune of all the reviews I've read, which I hate doing, but: "Earth Stories," look, everyone, just track them down and read them. Also there is this, which I haven't read yet, since I'm still all googly over "Earth Stories." That might have to wait until next week.
Zot! follows the title character, a teenage superhero from a Utopian Earth in an alternate dimension, as he fights criminal masterminds in his world and interacts with his pals from ours. The first half-ish of the trade, "Heroes and Villains" focuses on superhero-y exploits and neato techy gadgets and places, while the second part, "Earth Stories," is more concerned with the characters and their backgrounds and stories. As an added bonus, McCloud includes a long introduction and commentaries after each story arc; these insights into the stories and glimpses into McCloud's life as he wrote them were hands down one of my favorite things about the book. I might be biased, because I, like scores of comic geeks around the globe, am Scott McCloud's number one fan (at least in the top 100?), so the biographical aspects of his stories are a real treat. Even for readers not familiar with his opus, the guy's just accessible and really funny. His prose reads like he's talking to you; it's better than a lot of his characters' dialogue. Now, if he had taken a page from Understanding/ Reinventing/ Making Comics and written his commentary in comic form- hm, that may have actually been too much... well, probably not.
The comics of "Heroes and Villains", like I said, mostly tell stories of Zot's adventures in his own dimension with his not-girlfriend Jenny (from our earth), her brother Butch (also a chimpanzee, depending on which dimension he's in), his Renaissance man uncle Max, and a handful of other not terribly developed friends and machines. There's some pretty good witty banter here and there, and some of the themes that come up with the villains invite further thought. In his commentaries, McCloud actually talks a bit about what ideas each of his villains represents, and really, I think the bad guys are the most interesting characters. 9Jack9 and Zybox bring up the subjectivity of morality- always a fun topic- and have probably some of the coolest names in the history of bad guy monikers. Dekko's perception of the world allows for some really neato visual possibilities- just one of the places where you can see McCloud's ideas from Understanding Comics coming into play. All in all, the visual aspect of "Heroes and Villains" is this section's strength- the settings and splash pages, all the neat futuristic gadgets and spaces on Zot's world, the villains, it's all great to look at. The story-telling is fun, but not outstanding, and the characters don't get much treatment as such. Truth be told, the promise of the next section to develop them kept me going.
And "Earth Stories" delivered. In this section, Zot gets trapped on Jenny's world (that is, ours), and so we get to follow the adventures of her friends, none of which are super-powered or fantastical. They're just kids in high school with angst and problems, and they happen to hang out with flight capable, visibility-optional Zot. See? Relatable! Pretty much each issue is told from a different character's point of view, giving the reader a peek into their lives, which mostly revolve around fears, insecurities, and self-delusion. Whoo drama! Even visually, McCloud gets a little more experimental in this second section. The two award winning issues- "Normal" and "The Conversation" deserve every bit of the praise they got. Within a story arc that takes homosexuality and tolerance as its main conflict, "Normal" tells the story of Jenny's friend Terry coming to terms with her own sexuality. Here, the story really grabbed me, and it took no time for me to get emotionally invested in Terry. And if Zot's trademark inherent goodness was a bit over the top in the previous section, in "Normal," I couldn't help loving him for it. The ending is a bit of a heart fuck (if I can invent a phrase), but it's glorious. "The Conversation" focuses on a story line that had been in the back of my mind from the onset- do, uh, Zot and Jenny ever get it on? The issue takes place over the span of a couple minutes, maybe ten, where Zot broaches the subject, questions are answered, and awkwardness ensues. McCloud NAILS this conversation, capturing the discomfort, hesitance, and honesty of the characters flawlessly in empty speech balloons, slow pacing (moment to moment transitions...!), and their gestures. He says in his commentary that capturing human "poses and expressions" was never his strong suit, but I think he's really outdone himself here. The final issue, "The Great Escape," was also stunning: McCloud begins by focusing on a character per page, then per half page, until finally, we're back to a more or less non-character specific perspective, where the story arc of Zot's stint on our Earth concludes. The issue becomes an apology for fiction, which really impressed me; it was a great way to end the book, in both the contexts of the fantastical tales of the "Heroes and Villains" as well as the character driven "Earth Stories."
I'd recommend the complete Zot! to any McCloud fans, for the commentary if nothing else. I know I'm singing the tune of all the reviews I've read, which I hate doing, but: "Earth Stories," look, everyone, just track them down and read them. Also there is this, which I haven't read yet, since I'm still all googly over "Earth Stories." That might have to wait until next week.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Big City: The Complete Oblivion City Saga, now with tangents!
Over the past couple months, I've been playing catch up with all the graphic novels one might consider classics, and it has been immensely groovy. However, I didn't want to neglect all the unheard of, independent, weird comics you only pick up by chance in used book stores and at the library. Andy Garcia's Oblivion City strip, collected into the trade Big City: the Complete Oblivion City Saga is one of those wacky reads. By the way, not Andy Garcia the actor (which made finding a link for this book nigh impossible. ).
What I liked off the bat was the total weirdness of Garcia's stories and the unpolished, uneven, black and white way he renders them. Stylistically, they're nowhere near the anxious, insomniac doom that Jhonen Vazquez so lovingly inks into his work (same publisher by the way. Hmmm), but I think because of the silliness in both, a comparison between the two drawing styles isn't out of the question. Or maybe the silliness should be only point of comparison and we'll leave visual analysis to the art critics.
Moving on. Reading Oblivion City was kind of like being back in the early 90s, watching MTV's Oddities as a kid, which, for me, had an enormous impact on what I would later think about popular culture, art, and cool. I didn't completely comprehend everything that was going on in these cartoons, and I was even a little creeped out by them, but I felt an overwhelming attraction to them and I knew then, beyond a shade of doubt, that they embodied awesome. In fact, Oddities still retains an aura of such untouchable neat that even wikipedia is speechless. But I'm not talking about Oddities (maybe I should go on rant later on... another one). I'm talking about Oblivion City. Like I said, the strip exemplifies weird for weird's sake, and it came out in the early 90s, so right around when weird for itself was cool, but not trendy yet. Like those fucking obnoxious Quizno's commercials. The ones with the stupid singing hamster things... remember those? They were short lived, thankfully.
Anyway even though at times, Oblivion City is over the top silly or disgusting or makes no sense at all, that overall spirit of good clean (well, sort of) weird fun is undeniable.
Near the end of the trade, Garcia starts getting a little more experimental with his layouts and that fourth wall, if I can borrow a term from the theatre (when it's spelled like that, you know you can read it in a British accent). This is one of the reasons I'm hooked on trades rather than individual issues (I'm helping to kill the comic book. I know, I know.): you can really get a feel for the development of the artist when you can look at a few years of his work in one place. I suppose you could do this with individual issues if you actually had them all, but how likely is that with this book? Anyway, I have little hope that I'll ever stumble across more of Garcia's Oblivion City- related series (Seth Throb Underground Artist, Sizzle Theater, Megazzar Dude), but I do want to see what the guy ended up doing after laying the groundwork in this initial book.
What I liked off the bat was the total weirdness of Garcia's stories and the unpolished, uneven, black and white way he renders them. Stylistically, they're nowhere near the anxious, insomniac doom that Jhonen Vazquez so lovingly inks into his work (same publisher by the way. Hmmm), but I think because of the silliness in both, a comparison between the two drawing styles isn't out of the question. Or maybe the silliness should be only point of comparison and we'll leave visual analysis to the art critics.
Moving on. Reading Oblivion City was kind of like being back in the early 90s, watching MTV's Oddities as a kid, which, for me, had an enormous impact on what I would later think about popular culture, art, and cool. I didn't completely comprehend everything that was going on in these cartoons, and I was even a little creeped out by them, but I felt an overwhelming attraction to them and I knew then, beyond a shade of doubt, that they embodied awesome. In fact, Oddities still retains an aura of such untouchable neat that even wikipedia is speechless. But I'm not talking about Oddities (maybe I should go on rant later on... another one). I'm talking about Oblivion City. Like I said, the strip exemplifies weird for weird's sake, and it came out in the early 90s, so right around when weird for itself was cool, but not trendy yet. Like those fucking obnoxious Quizno's commercials. The ones with the stupid singing hamster things... remember those? They were short lived, thankfully.
Anyway even though at times, Oblivion City is over the top silly or disgusting or makes no sense at all, that overall spirit of good clean (well, sort of) weird fun is undeniable.
Near the end of the trade, Garcia starts getting a little more experimental with his layouts and that fourth wall, if I can borrow a term from the theatre (when it's spelled like that, you know you can read it in a British accent). This is one of the reasons I'm hooked on trades rather than individual issues (I'm helping to kill the comic book. I know, I know.): you can really get a feel for the development of the artist when you can look at a few years of his work in one place. I suppose you could do this with individual issues if you actually had them all, but how likely is that with this book? Anyway, I have little hope that I'll ever stumble across more of Garcia's Oblivion City- related series (Seth Throb Underground Artist, Sizzle Theater, Megazzar Dude), but I do want to see what the guy ended up doing after laying the groundwork in this initial book.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Rocking in Dallas with Electric 6
At the moment, I'm living about two blocks away from one of my favorite live music venues in my home town- the Granada Theater. Last night, I went to see a show there, and since I haven't tried my hand at a music review here, that's what I'm doing today. Here we go. Take it away.
The Lions from Austin Texas were the first band of the night, with mane-ish locks that represented their name well. They played a rather hard rocking set, and while I don't often listen to such music, I have to admit that they sounded amazing: they were tight and on top of their songs from start to finish, sounding very professional. And while only a few people in the crowd mustered more enthusiasm than headed bobbing, the band's energy was way up there; either they were using this opportunity to practice for when they're filling stadiums, or they love rocking that much. As a closet optimist, I'm tending toward the latter. So while my personal taste won't propel me toward buying their albums any time soon, props to the Lions for exemplifying love for the rock.
After a bathroom break and a beer run, it was time for the next group, Local H. Once more, their sound is quite a bit harder than most music I find myself listening to, but the quality of their set was undeniable. First of all, Local H is two guys, a drummer and a really angry guitarist/ vocalist. And I know they had the aid of a probably killer sound system, but damn, they made a lot of noise! In the sense that they sounded like more than two guys, not that they were frivolously loud. Like their shaggy pals, Local H's energy was through the roof, and this time, more of the audience was up there with them. I was especially impressed that they skipped "Bound for the Floor", their single that probably got the most radio exposure: way to deflect expectations, dudes. I was a little disappointed that they didn't play more tracks from that album, As Good As Dead; I actually dig "Lovey Dovey" and "Eddie Vedder" quite a bit. However, it became pretty clear that these mellower tracks, while awesomely moody and disgruntled, may not have fit in with the rest of the high energy rants of the set list. Over all, had there been more flannel and less talk of the last election, I'd have sworn I was back in the mid nineties, and I mean that in the best possible way.
Another beer and a shuffle up to the front of the crowd later and I was ready for the headliners, Electric 6, the band I was most excited about seeing. Having heard only a smattering of their songs, I had assured myself that they would put on a dynamite show, and ya know, I was right. Frontman (or is he more than a man...?) Dick Valentine charged onto the stage in a flashy red cape (no, really, "flashy" was spelled out in sequins) and quickly tore it off to reveal... ANOTHER CAPE! You had me at flashy, Dick. They rocked boisterously through their set, spouting Polyphonic Spree jokes and other merry tomfoolery, pausing only to let a gentleman to propose to his girlfriend (aww!... some!) and to allow for an encore. They played their most famous songs Danger! High Voltage and Gay Bar, along with older fan favorites and new material, keeping the audience jamming and bouncing around all the way to their parting shot, Dance Commander. Except for the one-in-every-crowd kid who did NOT jump at shows (...emo?). She of course happened to stand right in front of me, so I had about six inches of space between her and the wall in which to boogie. But I managed. Ya know, for the rock.
While Electric 6's silly, dance inspiring tunes diverged a bit from the harsher, mosh-ier selections of the Lions and Local H, there could've been no doubt by the end of the show that a passion for rocking spurs each each of them (and their fans) ever onward.
The Lions from Austin Texas were the first band of the night, with mane-ish locks that represented their name well. They played a rather hard rocking set, and while I don't often listen to such music, I have to admit that they sounded amazing: they were tight and on top of their songs from start to finish, sounding very professional. And while only a few people in the crowd mustered more enthusiasm than headed bobbing, the band's energy was way up there; either they were using this opportunity to practice for when they're filling stadiums, or they love rocking that much. As a closet optimist, I'm tending toward the latter. So while my personal taste won't propel me toward buying their albums any time soon, props to the Lions for exemplifying love for the rock.
After a bathroom break and a beer run, it was time for the next group, Local H. Once more, their sound is quite a bit harder than most music I find myself listening to, but the quality of their set was undeniable. First of all, Local H is two guys, a drummer and a really angry guitarist/ vocalist. And I know they had the aid of a probably killer sound system, but damn, they made a lot of noise! In the sense that they sounded like more than two guys, not that they were frivolously loud. Like their shaggy pals, Local H's energy was through the roof, and this time, more of the audience was up there with them. I was especially impressed that they skipped "Bound for the Floor", their single that probably got the most radio exposure: way to deflect expectations, dudes. I was a little disappointed that they didn't play more tracks from that album, As Good As Dead; I actually dig "Lovey Dovey" and "Eddie Vedder" quite a bit. However, it became pretty clear that these mellower tracks, while awesomely moody and disgruntled, may not have fit in with the rest of the high energy rants of the set list. Over all, had there been more flannel and less talk of the last election, I'd have sworn I was back in the mid nineties, and I mean that in the best possible way.
Another beer and a shuffle up to the front of the crowd later and I was ready for the headliners, Electric 6, the band I was most excited about seeing. Having heard only a smattering of their songs, I had assured myself that they would put on a dynamite show, and ya know, I was right. Frontman (or is he more than a man...?) Dick Valentine charged onto the stage in a flashy red cape (no, really, "flashy" was spelled out in sequins) and quickly tore it off to reveal... ANOTHER CAPE! You had me at flashy, Dick. They rocked boisterously through their set, spouting Polyphonic Spree jokes and other merry tomfoolery, pausing only to let a gentleman to propose to his girlfriend (aww!... some!) and to allow for an encore. They played their most famous songs Danger! High Voltage and Gay Bar, along with older fan favorites and new material, keeping the audience jamming and bouncing around all the way to their parting shot, Dance Commander. Except for the one-in-every-crowd kid who did NOT jump at shows (...emo?). She of course happened to stand right in front of me, so I had about six inches of space between her and the wall in which to boogie. But I managed. Ya know, for the rock.
While Electric 6's silly, dance inspiring tunes diverged a bit from the harsher, mosh-ier selections of the Lions and Local H, there could've been no doubt by the end of the show that a passion for rocking spurs each each of them (and their fans) ever onward.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
A brief and wondrous review of Oscar Wao
This past summer, one of good friends was getting after me constantly- well, maybe not CONSTANTLY, but on a regular basis- to read Junot Diaz's The Brief and Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao. After selling some books in September, I had a bit of store credit at the glorious Montclair Book Center, so I picked up a copy of Oscar Wao (for like 12 bucks. Glorious, I tell you). Once I started actually reading it, a few weeks later, I found that it was, in fact, nigh impossible to put down.
Now, with my buddy's enthusiasm for the book, the 'Pulitzer Prize winner' sticker on its cover, and popular and critical acclaim from everywhere the populous and critics gather to do their acclaiming, I knew at the onset that I was supposed to like this piece. And I did, don't get me wrong. It's not the book's fault that its reputation precedes it (well, I guess that's arguable), and that it's staggeringly easy to become saturated with information about stuff like books, movies, etc. before giving them a glance yourself (she said before proceeding with her own review...). It's just an aspect of increasingly democratic access to information I spose. Anyway.
I'll start at the end (a very good place to start): I didn't emerge transformed from reading Oscar Wao, as I was half expecting. No doubt, Diaz crafted a fantastic story that informed, entertained, and made the pages fly at an alarming rate; but it wasn't one of those books that forces you to sit down and take a breath to re-align yourself with reality when you're done (if you're one of those people who reads standing up...).
But like I said, I enjoyed reading it: the geek references that have made the tale of the 'ghetto nerd' so famous are indeed pretty sweet. First, because it's great fun for the reader who recognizes them, and second, almost conversely, because it reminds us what a nerd is. Over the past couple years, pop-sci-fi shows, super hero comics and movies, and the fantasy genre have gotten fairly popular, even, dare I say it, trendy (there's a possibility I'm biased here). Knowing the Fantastic Four's encyclopedia of back story or intense familiarity with the geography of Middle Earth have become things to show off. To girls even. Hot ones. The rise of geek chic (the fact that that term even exists...) signals that the established lines between cool and dork are blurring. And yay for that. But on the other hand, we can't ignore the reality that these badges of nerdly honor are just that- badges- and that nerd PEOPLE still exist, catch flack, don't have friends, basically, are trapped in a state of junior high. Oscar Wao reminds us that to be a nerd, a nerd in the purest sense of the word, is not cool. It sucks. And no amount of fandom or knowledge or talent can take away or add to one's core nature, be that smokin' awesome, hopelessly clueless, or a moderation between the two.
Another prominent feature of Wao, the incorporation of Spanish slang, seemed to be an issue of non-contention in the reviews I encountered; that is, I've seen plenty of posts asking 'Did the Spanglish ever become a problem for non-Spanish speakers?' to which NO one replied in the affirmative. I don't know if Diaz made this choice to inspire research into the language or make it difficult for non Spanglophones or what, but I LOVED the way he fused the Spanish and English together. I've spent some pretty significant chunks of my life in Italy, and I found myself doing the same thing, borrowing words from one language to use in the other or beginning a sentence in one language e finirla con l'altra. On language- I get the impression that, especially in the US where bilingualism is rarer than it should be (this is changing though I think), we forget that language doesn't exist for itself. It's a tool we use to communicate with each other. So, stuff like perfect grammar (which I admit, I'm a fan of. Not totally though, you watch where I put that preposition), an impressive vocabulary, a knowledge of the parts of speech- all of this is secondary to getting an idea from your head to some one else's. And if you have to break rules, use only 'to be' verbs, or cross into other languages to that, congratulations, you're reaching a fellow human. And that is the point! So, another high five for Diaz- he does a masterful job of using the languages at his disposal to communicate. Hm, maybe that's part of why he got such mega props...
If I haven't already made this abundantly clear: the narrative of Wao rocks, it's such a fun read. Well, except for all the atrocity and violence... engaging, it's an ENGAGING read. The shifting point of view and nebulous voice of the narrator was, I thought, really fresh, and now that I'm writing this, I'm thinking I might add 'Oscar Who?: Narration in Oscar Wao' to my list of papers to write. And, I learned more about the Dominican Republic here than I have in any classroom or conversation. And knowledge is power, folks (but it can't make you cool).
Now, with my buddy's enthusiasm for the book, the 'Pulitzer Prize winner' sticker on its cover, and popular and critical acclaim from everywhere the populous and critics gather to do their acclaiming, I knew at the onset that I was supposed to like this piece. And I did, don't get me wrong. It's not the book's fault that its reputation precedes it (well, I guess that's arguable), and that it's staggeringly easy to become saturated with information about stuff like books, movies, etc. before giving them a glance yourself (she said before proceeding with her own review...). It's just an aspect of increasingly democratic access to information I spose. Anyway.
I'll start at the end (a very good place to start): I didn't emerge transformed from reading Oscar Wao, as I was half expecting. No doubt, Diaz crafted a fantastic story that informed, entertained, and made the pages fly at an alarming rate; but it wasn't one of those books that forces you to sit down and take a breath to re-align yourself with reality when you're done (if you're one of those people who reads standing up...).
But like I said, I enjoyed reading it: the geek references that have made the tale of the 'ghetto nerd' so famous are indeed pretty sweet. First, because it's great fun for the reader who recognizes them, and second, almost conversely, because it reminds us what a nerd is. Over the past couple years, pop-sci-fi shows, super hero comics and movies, and the fantasy genre have gotten fairly popular, even, dare I say it, trendy (there's a possibility I'm biased here). Knowing the Fantastic Four's encyclopedia of back story or intense familiarity with the geography of Middle Earth have become things to show off. To girls even. Hot ones. The rise of geek chic (the fact that that term even exists...) signals that the established lines between cool and dork are blurring. And yay for that. But on the other hand, we can't ignore the reality that these badges of nerdly honor are just that- badges- and that nerd PEOPLE still exist, catch flack, don't have friends, basically, are trapped in a state of junior high. Oscar Wao reminds us that to be a nerd, a nerd in the purest sense of the word, is not cool. It sucks. And no amount of fandom or knowledge or talent can take away or add to one's core nature, be that smokin' awesome, hopelessly clueless, or a moderation between the two.
Another prominent feature of Wao, the incorporation of Spanish slang, seemed to be an issue of non-contention in the reviews I encountered; that is, I've seen plenty of posts asking 'Did the Spanglish ever become a problem for non-Spanish speakers?' to which NO one replied in the affirmative. I don't know if Diaz made this choice to inspire research into the language or make it difficult for non Spanglophones or what, but I LOVED the way he fused the Spanish and English together. I've spent some pretty significant chunks of my life in Italy, and I found myself doing the same thing, borrowing words from one language to use in the other or beginning a sentence in one language e finirla con l'altra. On language- I get the impression that, especially in the US where bilingualism is rarer than it should be (this is changing though I think), we forget that language doesn't exist for itself. It's a tool we use to communicate with each other. So, stuff like perfect grammar (which I admit, I'm a fan of. Not totally though, you watch where I put that preposition), an impressive vocabulary, a knowledge of the parts of speech- all of this is secondary to getting an idea from your head to some one else's. And if you have to break rules, use only 'to be' verbs, or cross into other languages to that, congratulations, you're reaching a fellow human. And that is the point! So, another high five for Diaz- he does a masterful job of using the languages at his disposal to communicate. Hm, maybe that's part of why he got such mega props...
If I haven't already made this abundantly clear: the narrative of Wao rocks, it's such a fun read. Well, except for all the atrocity and violence... engaging, it's an ENGAGING read. The shifting point of view and nebulous voice of the narrator was, I thought, really fresh, and now that I'm writing this, I'm thinking I might add 'Oscar Who?: Narration in Oscar Wao' to my list of papers to write. And, I learned more about the Dominican Republic here than I have in any classroom or conversation. And knowledge is power, folks (but it can't make you cool).
Monday, November 10, 2008
Sex Drugs and Cocoa Puff: review for the breakasts of champion
I've been chipping away at Chuck Klosterman's Sex Drugs and Cocoa Puffs: a Low Culture Manifesto and I finished it a couple days ago, sort of unfortunately, because it was really fucking hilarious. Thanks to the ever provident youtube, I was watching some of his interviews and Q&As, and I figured out what the deal is: he writes like he speaks or he speaks like he writes, and either way, one translates so flawlessly to the other that you get this feeling you're having a conversation. He's a funny guy, and the conversation is his medium: what makes his observations, frustration, and experiences so damn entertaining is that he could be telling you, the reader, all this like you were old pals or acquaintances or just strangers shooting the shit in line waiting for coffee. His personality- or one he projects, which would be pretty close to the real thing, I think it's safe to assume- makes up his writings as much as, if not more than, his prose and his musings.
Klosterman's collection of essays does come with its hitches, for example, the layout of the chapters supposedly resembles a CD track listing, adding nothing to the work as a whole. Since most fans and readers, I assume, know him as a popular culture and music critic, there's continuity between this chapter set up and the author's public persona (as opposed to his private persona...?), which I guess could be relevant. Sort of. In any case, it's not a bad idea, but I think it's wasted here.
Namely because the essays and the interstitial commentaries (that was my freebie, no more stupid crossover terms from unrelated fields) hold themselves up fine. I don't always agree with Klosterman's conclusions and sometimes he does come off as kind of dick, but he's obviously not writing this stuff with hopes of winning Mr. Happy Fluffy Bunny of the Year. And overall, he does make some fantastically relevant and entertaining observations revolving around TV, rock bands, Sims, relationships, the sub culture of journalism, and the preoccupations that seem to run underneath current-ish popular culture. And it's funny. I laughed out loud reading this book more than any other since Christopher Moore's A Dirty Job, which slayed me until about three quarters of the way through. It disappoints one so when that happens; when a book rocks until ALMOST the end. Freedom from the constraints of keeping a good plot going is, it turns out, something collections of non-fiction essays have going for them, which brings me back to Klosterman (aha, that sounded like a tangent for a second, didn't it?).
It's tempting to just prattle on about my favorite bits of Sex Drugs and Cocoa Puffs (why Pam Anderson and Michael Jordan can never be together; 23 hypothetical questions; the oddly frightening social implications of youth soccer; the uncoolness of academic conferences on pop culture- I've noticed this myself; Internet porn; you see why I have to resist this temptation? I might as well put an annotated table of contents here). But I won't (any more), and instead, recommend this one for a good laugh, a conversation piece, and a strategy guide for social navigation.
Klosterman's collection of essays does come with its hitches, for example, the layout of the chapters supposedly resembles a CD track listing, adding nothing to the work as a whole. Since most fans and readers, I assume, know him as a popular culture and music critic, there's continuity between this chapter set up and the author's public persona (as opposed to his private persona...?), which I guess could be relevant. Sort of. In any case, it's not a bad idea, but I think it's wasted here.
Namely because the essays and the interstitial commentaries (that was my freebie, no more stupid crossover terms from unrelated fields) hold themselves up fine. I don't always agree with Klosterman's conclusions and sometimes he does come off as kind of dick, but he's obviously not writing this stuff with hopes of winning Mr. Happy Fluffy Bunny of the Year. And overall, he does make some fantastically relevant and entertaining observations revolving around TV, rock bands, Sims, relationships, the sub culture of journalism, and the preoccupations that seem to run underneath current-ish popular culture. And it's funny. I laughed out loud reading this book more than any other since Christopher Moore's A Dirty Job, which slayed me until about three quarters of the way through. It disappoints one so when that happens; when a book rocks until ALMOST the end. Freedom from the constraints of keeping a good plot going is, it turns out, something collections of non-fiction essays have going for them, which brings me back to Klosterman (aha, that sounded like a tangent for a second, didn't it?).
It's tempting to just prattle on about my favorite bits of Sex Drugs and Cocoa Puffs (why Pam Anderson and Michael Jordan can never be together; 23 hypothetical questions; the oddly frightening social implications of youth soccer; the uncoolness of academic conferences on pop culture- I've noticed this myself; Internet porn; you see why I have to resist this temptation? I might as well put an annotated table of contents here). But I won't (any more), and instead, recommend this one for a good laugh, a conversation piece, and a strategy guide for social navigation.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Travels with "Travels with Charley"
One to chip away at a mountain of books to read is to take one book at a time, or if you're me, about 5 books at a time with a slim possibility of finishing all 5. Then there are those people that can blow through roughly a book every couple days and thus HAVE no mountain, but there's no room for THAT kind of efficiency here. No sir and/or madam. Anyway, one of the books on top of my stacks happened to be Steinbeck's Travels with Charley: In search of America, and as I was about to embark on a trip myself a few days ago, I picked it up. Along with four others, three of which have only added weight to my luggage.
My background on this book is as follows: of Steinbeck's work, I've only read Grapes of Wrath, which was forced on me by well-meaning, but ultimately deleterious public high school English curriculum. Even as I read Charley, which I know is used to similar ends in other schools, I recognized that I wouldn't have enjoyed it nearly as much had I analyzed it to death, looking for examples of imagery, simile, tone, and voice. But that's not how I read it, so yay.
Anyway, I finished Charley today and liked it much more than I didn't like it. Sometimes, Steinbeck's prose gets a touch too... hm, sentimental? Flowery? Prose-y? Sometimes, I just got the impression he thought a bit highly of his own writing. But who can blame him, I mean he was one of not many artists to make a better than decent living off his work during his own lifetime. It also kept making me smirk that Steinbeck talks about going off in search of America while he's totally pimping out this truck, not to mention he has the cash to crash in motels every few nights. I don't know, maybe these are different times than when he wrote this in the early 60s, but even being able to afford that kind of gallivant today automatically seems to distance a person from most of America. And certainly this applies to me, I'm not criticizing. Just sayin. There's something so upper-middle class about the way he writes.
To his credit, Steinbeck's observation and treatment of racial tension in America is stellar. With this theme, I think he has hit on something that is so un-ignorably a part of being American, and the way he weaves it into his observations as a whole- equally representative. Through the first three sections, he hints at racist attitudes and customs, making his own stance more or less apparent; as he travels through the Northern and Western sections of the country, this theme is quiet and unobtrusive in his anecdotes and memories. At the end of his fourth section, when he describes his travels through the South, his encounters with nauseating racism become unavoidable and indeed, take up noticeably more of the content. His composition of the racial theme into the book is so dead on: in some areas of the country (because it's not as distinct as race-blind North and racist-South), and in some aspects of daily life, it doesn't come up much, but it is there. And because of how American history unfolded and continues to unfold, there remains a big ugly monster of racial tension and oppression that we can't get around and have to deal with, and this is exactly what Steinbeck leaves the reader with, both in the events he reports and his thoughts and conversations on the topic. Cool.
Another favorite bit of mine: about a quarter of the way through the book/ the journey, our dear author wants to cross into Canada and has some troubles because of his company, Charley. His exchange with the border officials made me laugh out loud, which I didn't expect from this book or this author. So, good one, John.
Finally, I want to quote something he says that, again, is strikingly relevant to today: "With all the polls and opinion posts, with newspapers more opinion than news so that we no longer know one from the other..." he wants to be sure that we know he doesn't presume to give a comprehensive or definitive picture of the country; this book is a record of his experiences (206). I know media bias is older than the western world itself, but to hear (...read) it enunciated in such specific terms is reassuring and jarring at the same time.
I don't want this to turn into a full-fledged essay (12 point font, double spaced), so I'll round it off here. The informal, but still heavily composed style and arrangement make this a pleasant read which could work equally well as a quiet, solitary read or a starting point for conversation.
My background on this book is as follows: of Steinbeck's work, I've only read Grapes of Wrath, which was forced on me by well-meaning, but ultimately deleterious public high school English curriculum. Even as I read Charley, which I know is used to similar ends in other schools, I recognized that I wouldn't have enjoyed it nearly as much had I analyzed it to death, looking for examples of imagery, simile, tone, and voice. But that's not how I read it, so yay.
Anyway, I finished Charley today and liked it much more than I didn't like it. Sometimes, Steinbeck's prose gets a touch too... hm, sentimental? Flowery? Prose-y? Sometimes, I just got the impression he thought a bit highly of his own writing. But who can blame him, I mean he was one of not many artists to make a better than decent living off his work during his own lifetime. It also kept making me smirk that Steinbeck talks about going off in search of America while he's totally pimping out this truck, not to mention he has the cash to crash in motels every few nights. I don't know, maybe these are different times than when he wrote this in the early 60s, but even being able to afford that kind of gallivant today automatically seems to distance a person from most of America. And certainly this applies to me, I'm not criticizing. Just sayin. There's something so upper-middle class about the way he writes.
To his credit, Steinbeck's observation and treatment of racial tension in America is stellar. With this theme, I think he has hit on something that is so un-ignorably a part of being American, and the way he weaves it into his observations as a whole- equally representative. Through the first three sections, he hints at racist attitudes and customs, making his own stance more or less apparent; as he travels through the Northern and Western sections of the country, this theme is quiet and unobtrusive in his anecdotes and memories. At the end of his fourth section, when he describes his travels through the South, his encounters with nauseating racism become unavoidable and indeed, take up noticeably more of the content. His composition of the racial theme into the book is so dead on: in some areas of the country (because it's not as distinct as race-blind North and racist-South), and in some aspects of daily life, it doesn't come up much, but it is there. And because of how American history unfolded and continues to unfold, there remains a big ugly monster of racial tension and oppression that we can't get around and have to deal with, and this is exactly what Steinbeck leaves the reader with, both in the events he reports and his thoughts and conversations on the topic. Cool.
Another favorite bit of mine: about a quarter of the way through the book/ the journey, our dear author wants to cross into Canada and has some troubles because of his company, Charley. His exchange with the border officials made me laugh out loud, which I didn't expect from this book or this author. So, good one, John.
Finally, I want to quote something he says that, again, is strikingly relevant to today: "With all the polls and opinion posts, with newspapers more opinion than news so that we no longer know one from the other..." he wants to be sure that we know he doesn't presume to give a comprehensive or definitive picture of the country; this book is a record of his experiences (206). I know media bias is older than the western world itself, but to hear (...read) it enunciated in such specific terms is reassuring and jarring at the same time.
I don't want this to turn into a full-fledged essay (12 point font, double spaced), so I'll round it off here. The informal, but still heavily composed style and arrangement make this a pleasant read which could work equally well as a quiet, solitary read or a starting point for conversation.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Zoos: a problem at the top of the food chain
Well, yesterday the fam and I blew through Epcot Center; today we drove to Tampa to continue our partaking of commercial culture disguised as good clean family fun at Busch Gardens.
The park combines your typical amusement park fare- roller coasters, over priced crap in ubiquitous gift shops, the most inoffensive food they can muster- with animal habitats here and there, like a zoo. When I was a kid, I loved the zoo, but it did always gnaw at me to see tigers pacing in their tiny cages (it took a while to dawn on me (with some external prompting, of course) that the very concept of The Zoo represents a big, fat animal rights conflict). The animals we saw today- orangutans, tigers, gorillas, and chimps- lived in these expansive, complex habitats, and they didn't seem too bothered. We also went on this behind the scenes tour (I... yeah, I know, I have no room to talk. It wasn't my idea, alright?) where the animal handlers/ trainers/ keepers told us that the tigers had some say in what was done to them. For example, vets draw blood from them roughly every day to make sure things are in check. The tiger knows the command for 'lay down, have some meat substance, and prepare to have your tail pricked.' Most of the time, the tigers are cool with this, since the meat substance in exchange for anything is a pretty sweet deal, but if they are adamant about not doing it, the vet just leaves it and tries again the next day. Now this, I thought, is pretty cool.
The situation then can be summed up as follows. On one hand, you do have animals in captivity that don't get to choose what, when, or where to eat, when to go out, all that stuff- yeah, this is not optimal. But on the other hand, if what this keeper said was true, they at least have some sort of room for making their own calls in their day to day existence. Additionally (and I'll grant even this is up to debate), living in comfort and ease tops becoming some poacher's living room rug or a similar fate determined by some despicable character with opposable thumbs and no tail. And the same kind of situations exists for the big primates, other big cats, pandas, exotic birds and reptiles, it keeps going. I suppose it comes down a question of keeping the ideal of Wild Animal intact versus doing what's best for the animal in the world as it is. It seems so cut and dry with that phrasing, but I think it's really more complicated than that; both sides of the argument deserve recognition and validation.
I think of this conflict in terms of two friends of mine (cue safari music) (just kidding). One thinks that animals should be independent of human care/ ownership/ control. This means that no domestic cats or dogs should be inside only pets and owning an animal on Manhattan should be a veritable felony. The other subscribes to a school of thought that says there IS no "natural state," in so far as "natural" means "wild;" all animals are adaptive beings and adapting to live comfortably in your environment is a natural, as in innate, process, whether that environment is on the Serengeti or in a fish bowl. If you don't adapt to whatever your environment becomes, you opt out of nature, that is, you die. Like I said, both of these points of view are credible, and I have no answers here. But (cue comforting, fatherly music), the best questions don't lead to answers.
The park combines your typical amusement park fare- roller coasters, over priced crap in ubiquitous gift shops, the most inoffensive food they can muster- with animal habitats here and there, like a zoo. When I was a kid, I loved the zoo, but it did always gnaw at me to see tigers pacing in their tiny cages (it took a while to dawn on me (with some external prompting, of course) that the very concept of The Zoo represents a big, fat animal rights conflict). The animals we saw today- orangutans, tigers, gorillas, and chimps- lived in these expansive, complex habitats, and they didn't seem too bothered. We also went on this behind the scenes tour (I... yeah, I know, I have no room to talk. It wasn't my idea, alright?) where the animal handlers/ trainers/ keepers told us that the tigers had some say in what was done to them. For example, vets draw blood from them roughly every day to make sure things are in check. The tiger knows the command for 'lay down, have some meat substance, and prepare to have your tail pricked.' Most of the time, the tigers are cool with this, since the meat substance in exchange for anything is a pretty sweet deal, but if they are adamant about not doing it, the vet just leaves it and tries again the next day. Now this, I thought, is pretty cool.
The situation then can be summed up as follows. On one hand, you do have animals in captivity that don't get to choose what, when, or where to eat, when to go out, all that stuff- yeah, this is not optimal. But on the other hand, if what this keeper said was true, they at least have some sort of room for making their own calls in their day to day existence. Additionally (and I'll grant even this is up to debate), living in comfort and ease tops becoming some poacher's living room rug or a similar fate determined by some despicable character with opposable thumbs and no tail. And the same kind of situations exists for the big primates, other big cats, pandas, exotic birds and reptiles, it keeps going. I suppose it comes down a question of keeping the ideal of Wild Animal intact versus doing what's best for the animal in the world as it is. It seems so cut and dry with that phrasing, but I think it's really more complicated than that; both sides of the argument deserve recognition and validation.
I think of this conflict in terms of two friends of mine (cue safari music) (just kidding). One thinks that animals should be independent of human care/ ownership/ control. This means that no domestic cats or dogs should be inside only pets and owning an animal on Manhattan should be a veritable felony. The other subscribes to a school of thought that says there IS no "natural state," in so far as "natural" means "wild;" all animals are adaptive beings and adapting to live comfortably in your environment is a natural, as in innate, process, whether that environment is on the Serengeti or in a fish bowl. If you don't adapt to whatever your environment becomes, you opt out of nature, that is, you die. Like I said, both of these points of view are credible, and I have no answers here. But (cue comforting, fatherly music), the best questions don't lead to answers.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
American culture: still totally insane
First and foremost: hell yeah, Mr. Obama! Thank you, America, not just for electing the guy I wanted, but for getting out there and voting at all. In record numbers. If democracy's going to work, WE, the masses have to take responsibility for it, and that means, at the very least, voting. Of course, there are serious flaws in the democratic aspect of a representative democracy, but that's a whole rant unto itself. For now, we work with what we have, and at this moment, I can say, without any sarcasm: America, fuck yeah!
So, I went to bed last night feeling more patriotic than I have in a matter of years, and this morning, to rein in all that sentimental, feel-goody-ness, I did the most American thing I could think to do. I went to Disney World.
Actually, Epcot, which is the closest I want to get to Disney World, short of conducting an anthropological survey, and even that's a stretch. Lemme splain. I happen to be on a family vacation in Orlando at the moment (yeah, I know), and we had planned on going to Epcot the Wednesday following the election, that is, today. No causality there, that was just the plan (and god, if my family can plan something, ANYTHING, I am not rocking that boat). So, there I was, riding an uncharacteristic wave of pro-America enthusiasm when we strolled up to the ticket counter. 75 bucks for a day at Epcot. 70. 5. Dollars. Plus tax. Really, Disney? Damn. I'll go ahead and say right now, for this post, Disney= America. Indoctrination of American youth, American middle class, American myth. It's all practically synonymous. And 75 smackaroos for one day in a theme park that already is overcharging for stuff on the inside and already isn't hurting, come whatever economic crisis, this doesn't cry 'America' to me. Or rather it does, a lot. Cue waning of love of country. We may be taking a step in the right direction politically, but culturally, well, there we are.
I knew going into the park that I was in for insupportable Disney music all day, little kids running around thinking they're having these magic moments, not realizing they're being programmed (I honestly can't hold them totally accountable for this), and creepy as hell automatons. And I think I handled all this pretty well. What really bowled me over was the American Adventure in the American Theatre thingy in the World Showcase. I know, I know- what was I expecting, but a sappy, jingostic account of history with songs and those god damned robots? Well, it was still enough to make me cringe. But enough kvetching, because I should've known better.
Here's what totally rocked about Epcot:
Again, in the world Showcase section/ whatever, there's a Norway pavillion where you go on this stupid ride thing (automatons a plenty!) that represents Norway. The narrator sounded like a cross between Dracula and Swedish Chef, and damn, if that didn't make my morning.
Then I got to use my knowledge of the Norwegian language- which encompasses the word for 'thanks,'- at the over priced gift shop to get a chocolate bar called Daim. As in daim, that is some sweet candy, you might say. Yeah, language practice is nice. I will say this for Disney- at the world show case, they have Norwegians in the Norway Pavillion, Germans in the German Pavillion, etc. If nothing else, this adds another glorious level to the hyper/ surreality of a Disney theme park. Forget Waldo, find authenticity! Whee!
Later on, I was filling up my 2 dollar water bottle at a fountain (take THAT, Dis!) when I heard these two kids playin around behind me. Their repartee is as follows:
Kid 1- O yeah, well you're a freak. You're a freak-a-zoid!
Kid 2- You're a freak of nature!
Kid 1- YOU're a freak of ... Norway!
Rock on, little kids. Rock on.
Finally, on the closest thing they have to a roller coaster out there, I sat next to this tiny girl who A) wasn't wearing a princess costume, and 2. was going 'faster! whoo!' the whole time. They're not all conforming to their gender roles. Not totally, not yet. There is hope.
So, I went to bed last night feeling more patriotic than I have in a matter of years, and this morning, to rein in all that sentimental, feel-goody-ness, I did the most American thing I could think to do. I went to Disney World.
Actually, Epcot, which is the closest I want to get to Disney World, short of conducting an anthropological survey, and even that's a stretch. Lemme splain. I happen to be on a family vacation in Orlando at the moment (yeah, I know), and we had planned on going to Epcot the Wednesday following the election, that is, today. No causality there, that was just the plan (and god, if my family can plan something, ANYTHING, I am not rocking that boat). So, there I was, riding an uncharacteristic wave of pro-America enthusiasm when we strolled up to the ticket counter. 75 bucks for a day at Epcot. 70. 5. Dollars. Plus tax. Really, Disney? Damn. I'll go ahead and say right now, for this post, Disney= America. Indoctrination of American youth, American middle class, American myth. It's all practically synonymous. And 75 smackaroos for one day in a theme park that already is overcharging for stuff on the inside and already isn't hurting, come whatever economic crisis, this doesn't cry 'America' to me. Or rather it does, a lot. Cue waning of love of country. We may be taking a step in the right direction politically, but culturally, well, there we are.
I knew going into the park that I was in for insupportable Disney music all day, little kids running around thinking they're having these magic moments, not realizing they're being programmed (I honestly can't hold them totally accountable for this), and creepy as hell automatons. And I think I handled all this pretty well. What really bowled me over was the American Adventure in the American Theatre thingy in the World Showcase. I know, I know- what was I expecting, but a sappy, jingostic account of history with songs and those god damned robots? Well, it was still enough to make me cringe. But enough kvetching, because I should've known better.
Here's what totally rocked about Epcot:
Again, in the world Showcase section/ whatever, there's a Norway pavillion where you go on this stupid ride thing (automatons a plenty!) that represents Norway. The narrator sounded like a cross between Dracula and Swedish Chef, and damn, if that didn't make my morning.
Then I got to use my knowledge of the Norwegian language- which encompasses the word for 'thanks,'- at the over priced gift shop to get a chocolate bar called Daim. As in daim, that is some sweet candy, you might say. Yeah, language practice is nice. I will say this for Disney- at the world show case, they have Norwegians in the Norway Pavillion, Germans in the German Pavillion, etc. If nothing else, this adds another glorious level to the hyper/ surreality of a Disney theme park. Forget Waldo, find authenticity! Whee!
Later on, I was filling up my 2 dollar water bottle at a fountain (take THAT, Dis!) when I heard these two kids playin around behind me. Their repartee is as follows:
Kid 1- O yeah, well you're a freak. You're a freak-a-zoid!
Kid 2- You're a freak of nature!
Kid 1- YOU're a freak of ... Norway!
Rock on, little kids. Rock on.
Finally, on the closest thing they have to a roller coaster out there, I sat next to this tiny girl who A) wasn't wearing a princess costume, and 2. was going 'faster! whoo!' the whole time. They're not all conforming to their gender roles. Not totally, not yet. There is hope.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
W.: Review and Election anxiety
So in the spirit of inundating a brain with election-related media, I went to see W this afternoon to warm up for the final showdown tonight.
On W, as a Texan liberal who loves satire and has no stomach for Hollywood blockbuster crap, I'll say this: it wasn't too bad, really. I thought the portrayals of cabinet members leaned toward caricature WAY more than those of the main characters, but as a whole, the lampoon impressions ala SNL, etc. that I had been expecting didn't take over the movie at all. I was surprised by the portrayal of Bush, Sr., in the sense that he wasn't an unsympathetic character, far from it. The title character, on the other hand, came off as almost completely pathetic, and while I don't know dir. Oliver Stone's political leanings, I'd say it wasn't his mission to tear the guy a new one. My friends who I saw the movie with said that, because of this non-satirical portrait, the character W probably more closely resembled the actual guy W. I'm not so sure, I think that may have been the point; just because a picture's more believable doesn't necessarily mean it's safer to take as truth. The opposite, really. But, I do also have to conceed that the film showed the central characters- Bush the elder and the lesser- in both good and bad lights and when it comes to giving an individual an honest look, it's hard to get closer to the truth than that.
The whole thing is worth it, though, to get to see Colin Powell tell Dick Cheney "fuck you" at a cabinet meeting near the end of the movie (don't worry, that didn't spoil anything... like you don't know what happens!). It kind of reminded me of when Yoda threw down at the end of Attack of the Clones: say what you want about the rest of the movie (it sucked), that moment rocked.
Well, I can't put it out of my mind any longer. The polls across the country are starting to close. Time to tune into the election coverage. I'll leave you with this weak Election Day pun: M'Cain-did opinion is that the Republicans Palin comparison to the Democrats, but I'm Biden my time to relax about it, in case the race takes an Obama-nable turn.
On W, as a Texan liberal who loves satire and has no stomach for Hollywood blockbuster crap, I'll say this: it wasn't too bad, really. I thought the portrayals of cabinet members leaned toward caricature WAY more than those of the main characters, but as a whole, the lampoon impressions ala SNL, etc. that I had been expecting didn't take over the movie at all. I was surprised by the portrayal of Bush, Sr., in the sense that he wasn't an unsympathetic character, far from it. The title character, on the other hand, came off as almost completely pathetic, and while I don't know dir. Oliver Stone's political leanings, I'd say it wasn't his mission to tear the guy a new one. My friends who I saw the movie with said that, because of this non-satirical portrait, the character W probably more closely resembled the actual guy W. I'm not so sure, I think that may have been the point; just because a picture's more believable doesn't necessarily mean it's safer to take as truth. The opposite, really. But, I do also have to conceed that the film showed the central characters- Bush the elder and the lesser- in both good and bad lights and when it comes to giving an individual an honest look, it's hard to get closer to the truth than that.
The whole thing is worth it, though, to get to see Colin Powell tell Dick Cheney "fuck you" at a cabinet meeting near the end of the movie (don't worry, that didn't spoil anything... like you don't know what happens!). It kind of reminded me of when Yoda threw down at the end of Attack of the Clones: say what you want about the rest of the movie (it sucked), that moment rocked.
Well, I can't put it out of my mind any longer. The polls across the country are starting to close. Time to tune into the election coverage. I'll leave you with this weak Election Day pun: M'Cain-did opinion is that the Republicans Palin comparison to the Democrats, but I'm Biden my time to relax about it, in case the race takes an Obama-nable turn.
Monday, November 3, 2008
A Contract with God: Review and musings
A few days ago, I picked up a copy of Will Eisner's A Contract with God, one of a mountain of books I promised myself I'd read now that I'm between jobs/ school/ chapters of life. I've never read any of Eisner's work, although, having snuggled pretty well into comics scholarship and fandom, I know who I'm reading and what it means. Well, I have an inkling anyway. So I blew through the book last night and man, I knew it was going to rock, but it really got me in the gut.
The book is divided into four stories which revolve around four characters/ families in a Bronx tenement building in the 1930s, and it contains stories of which "some are true. Some could be true." I love this: I've been looking at historical comics for the past year or so for my Masters thesis and I'm still enthralled by the simple fact that truth is fluid, and that representations of truth put fact and imagination into conversation in seemingly infinite ways. The truths of the past, in particular, seem so loaded because now, in the ever-obsoleting present, we've had time to invest them with personal, familial, national, and mythic meanings. And not all of that meaning comes from the truth itself. But that doesn't necessarily make the meaning any less real, especially in retrospection. O the search for meaning, that core crux of any life. At the very least, any English major's...
So, back to A Contract with God. In one of several prefaces, Eisner wrote that he used this book to experiment with the comic form, with the integration of words and image to create a seamless language for his story-telling. The first story, same name as the title of the collection, really hit this home for me. While speech bubbles remain, Eisner disposes of text boxes and defined panels, so that everything happens on one plane; the story unfolds in a one space- the page. Sure, with the exception of some avant-garde stuff, all comics technically take place on the page. But the division of text versus image space blurs a lot more here than in, say, most super hero comics you might pick up. I'm not the first to say this, of course. But it's still neat. And that's why we're here!
The themes that emerge in these stories probably won't surprise, given their setting: doing what you gotta do versus doing the right thing, sacrifice versus happiness, delusion versus facing reality, the struggle for physical, emotional, financial survival running underneath it all. For the most part, no character is completely innocent or guilty, and more to the point, innocence-guilt isn't quite the dynamic Eisner's stories are operating by. Again, these are stories of survival and self-delusion, and while good-evil conflict certainly comes up, I don't think that's the characters' or the author's central concern. As I was reading, my feminist sensibilities almost immediately began tugging at my brain 'ya know, the ladies are not represented too favorably here,' but as became clear by the end of the book, neither are the fellas. I'd have to spend more time on this to really untangle the gender dynamics here, because I still have this feeling that the girls end up with the uglier portrayals. Maybe that'll be another post; I don't want to get hung up here on the problems I may or may not have with this book. At the end of the day (or book, as it were), in the 30s as now, in Eisner's stories as in the real world (although even that term is up to debate), good guys and bad guys are more states of being that most people cycle through, rather than static identity.
A Contract with God also appears in a trilogy of the same name, containing related stories of the tenement building on Dropsie Avenue in the Bronx. The other two sections, I believe, were written after the first, and I'd be interested to see them and trace themes and patterns mentioned above. And, taking off my grad student hat, to read some stirring, masterfully constructed slice-of-life comics.
The book is divided into four stories which revolve around four characters/ families in a Bronx tenement building in the 1930s, and it contains stories of which "some are true. Some could be true." I love this: I've been looking at historical comics for the past year or so for my Masters thesis and I'm still enthralled by the simple fact that truth is fluid, and that representations of truth put fact and imagination into conversation in seemingly infinite ways. The truths of the past, in particular, seem so loaded because now, in the ever-obsoleting present, we've had time to invest them with personal, familial, national, and mythic meanings. And not all of that meaning comes from the truth itself. But that doesn't necessarily make the meaning any less real, especially in retrospection. O the search for meaning, that core crux of any life. At the very least, any English major's...
So, back to A Contract with God. In one of several prefaces, Eisner wrote that he used this book to experiment with the comic form, with the integration of words and image to create a seamless language for his story-telling. The first story, same name as the title of the collection, really hit this home for me. While speech bubbles remain, Eisner disposes of text boxes and defined panels, so that everything happens on one plane; the story unfolds in a one space- the page. Sure, with the exception of some avant-garde stuff, all comics technically take place on the page. But the division of text versus image space blurs a lot more here than in, say, most super hero comics you might pick up. I'm not the first to say this, of course. But it's still neat. And that's why we're here!
The themes that emerge in these stories probably won't surprise, given their setting: doing what you gotta do versus doing the right thing, sacrifice versus happiness, delusion versus facing reality, the struggle for physical, emotional, financial survival running underneath it all. For the most part, no character is completely innocent or guilty, and more to the point, innocence-guilt isn't quite the dynamic Eisner's stories are operating by. Again, these are stories of survival and self-delusion, and while good-evil conflict certainly comes up, I don't think that's the characters' or the author's central concern. As I was reading, my feminist sensibilities almost immediately began tugging at my brain 'ya know, the ladies are not represented too favorably here,' but as became clear by the end of the book, neither are the fellas. I'd have to spend more time on this to really untangle the gender dynamics here, because I still have this feeling that the girls end up with the uglier portrayals. Maybe that'll be another post; I don't want to get hung up here on the problems I may or may not have with this book. At the end of the day (or book, as it were), in the 30s as now, in Eisner's stories as in the real world (although even that term is up to debate), good guys and bad guys are more states of being that most people cycle through, rather than static identity.
A Contract with God also appears in a trilogy of the same name, containing related stories of the tenement building on Dropsie Avenue in the Bronx. The other two sections, I believe, were written after the first, and I'd be interested to see them and trace themes and patterns mentioned above. And, taking off my grad student hat, to read some stirring, masterfully constructed slice-of-life comics.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
All in all, it's just another blog on the... web
So. They're out there- thousands (millions?) of people with interesting things to say, now afforded the opportunity to effortlessly analyze, criticize, create, speculate, bitch, riff, satirize, and do a thousand (million?) other things in the form of verbs via blogs. Did you know that? It's overwhelming, even for someone who is at the moment not employed and not particularly busy, and so, arguably has nothing better to do than sit and read blogs all day. So after loosing thousands (...) of hours to blog-reading by now, does it make any sense at all to start my own, adding to the noise? Nope! But I'm doing it, and here is why:
I noticed the other day that I think in blog format- ideas progress into composed, developed, but not too long chunks of text, sometimes snarky, often with links to other interesting thoughts or pictures. It could be that a lot of people think like this and the blog (or before that, the op ed piece or newspaper column, or before that, well I don't know, surely something along those lines) format just fit the bill. Which created which- don't know, probably an endless cycle of both. Point is, I think I might like it here, I can practice writing and being clever, and I don't have to answer for any of it- a switch from my usual upstanding, responsible self.
I don't know quite what I expect to write about or how often, but many an adventure has started this way, so I'm hopeful.
Look at that, an introductory post. We're cookin now!
I noticed the other day that I think in blog format- ideas progress into composed, developed, but not too long chunks of text, sometimes snarky, often with links to other interesting thoughts or pictures. It could be that a lot of people think like this and the blog (or before that, the op ed piece or newspaper column, or before that, well I don't know, surely something along those lines) format just fit the bill. Which created which- don't know, probably an endless cycle of both. Point is, I think I might like it here, I can practice writing and being clever, and I don't have to answer for any of it- a switch from my usual upstanding, responsible self.
I don't know quite what I expect to write about or how often, but many an adventure has started this way, so I'm hopeful.
Look at that, an introductory post. We're cookin now!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
