In about a day or so I will be leaving LA for the desert city of Las Vegas. From there I will stop by the Grand Canyon to get a post card or two, then home to Arkansas. Most of this will be driving down I-40, but I have never shied away from road trips.
I won't be sad doing this. When I get back to AR I have plenty of catching up to do in terms of videogames, friends, and rainfall. I also won't miss the horrid parking or at least having to pay to park anywhere that exists out here. There is also the excitement of moving into a house just off campus with some of my best friends that is also less than a block from my sister's residence. Life is waiting for me to get back there in other words.
While I have been out here my time has been fun. I have gone to the beach a few times, been in neighborhoods looking at houses that cost more than the net worth of most people I know, attended a filming of The Price is Right, eaten chicken and waffles at the same time, eaten Pink Berry, eaten Chinese food in a crowded restaurant in which Hannah and I were the only people of Western descent, seen famous movie houses, and over all just been around some of the most awesome places in the world. All said, it has been good in getting a feel for LA.
In terms of productivity... I wrote a bit for my thesis. It needs way more work, but in the pages I have written so far I have the ball rolling with my thoughts. I have read just about everything published by Chuck Klosterman. A man with whom I feel a certain bullshitter's connection. I have read a few other things as well, but nothing to point out. While I wish I had read and written more overall, there is nothing too specific that I did not do that I wanted to.
So while I go off into the future in the next few days I will be ready for it. Soon school will be starting and I will be forced to go into heavy work mode, something I forget that I am capable of doing during the summer but seem to fall right into the moment I find I have dozens of pages to write while studying for that many tests while trying to have a life and be an active Honors person too. It makes me wish I was going to be a PA again...
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Why LOST Is Better Than Heroes.
Hopefully this will be the first of many posts about my Comic-Con '08 experiences. It was only one day, but there were many things there that I gave me fuel for writing.
Right after getting our tags Hannah and I went down to get in line for Hall H's morning events of two of the biggest TV shows to be at the con, Heroes and Lost. I am much more of a Lost fan if only because the show lets me create wild solutions to what is going on only to have even wilder things happen on the show. Heroes just doesn't do this for me. Heroes tends to tell a neat story, but I have always felt that it gets bogged down in character development. To that point I do watch and enjoy both though.
Now this line I mentioned, I started walking toward the end of it not really sure where the end was. I just assumed that it was so winding that the end was somewhere within the grassy area next to the public art at the doors to Hall H. I was wrong. It actually was twisty, but the line wrapped around the convention center for what must have been over a mile. If there had been more than 6000 people in front of me I would have been sad.
So I waited. Hannah however felt the need to talk to the two very socially awkward guys standing near us. While I have a distaste for scenesters and pathetic IT guys, Hannah just wanted someone to talk to hopefully about Lost. My how she was disappointed. Both of these guys found Lost to be repulsive. They said that they never could get into it, that it was boring, and then tried to talk about what Hiro and Ando will do next season. Both Hannah and I were just baffled by this. When we finally narrowed down what it was that they didn't like about Lost, it seems that they only really like the cool superhero part of the show making anything about the story and plot development unimportant.
After we got in and the show actually started Jeph Loeb showed us the third part of the Heroes webasodes (I hate that name). The story is neat, if only as a back story for what a character in the next season, so it's cool we got to see it first. Then acting as if he had brought someone back from the dead he brought the entire main cast out on stage only to have them run away so that they could then show the entire first episode of the season.
After what seemed to me to be a pretty typical episode, the cast came back out for some Q&A. The problem with this is that there is nothing to ask any of these people. Anything that we might have questions about, we have no clues or even breadcrumbs to follow to the clues. Sylar says that Claire is different, but we have no hits as to what that means, even thematically. This means we get questions like this:
"Milo, I'm a single mother. Can I hug you?"
"Sylar, you're the coolest, but if you could have anyone's power (thus just one, thus not Peter's) whose would it be?"
"What was Volume 3 going to be called originally."
Only that last question shows that the fans of this show might be anywhere near thinking about the show. There are things that could have been asked if you wanted to learn anything about the show:
"Is Peter's Irish girlfriend going to be able to be saved from a future that doesn't exist any more?"
"If Sylar was able to learn Claire's ability without killing her, doesn't that make all that "Save the Cheerleader..." stuff kind of null and void (especially if she can't be killed like Sylar says)?"
"What things did the strike keep you from being able to do with Volume 3?"
Anyway, the cast just sort of smiled and looked ready to run for most of the Q&A.
When that was finally over a faux news ad for an expose about the Oceanic 6 came on the screens. It was very tasty and pushed that extratextual experience that Lost does so well. Next, Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse came out on stage. As the major creative forces behind the show, and probably some of the only people in the world who know how the show is going to play out, they are the public face of the show. They have really achieved this celebrity thanks to their dryly funny podcasts in which they avoid answering fan questions, but always give just enough to keep people satisfied with what they are(n't) saying.
They took Q&A, but that was mixed with a Dharma spokesman calling out for the winners of an "interview" that was given to people in the Lost booth down on the floor of the Con. These people then went off to get to see something that the rest of us were not going to get to see. That is until one of them "secretly" recorded what he saw. This was a video of the guy from all the Lost training videos talking about how the past needed to be fixed and a bunch of other things that are currently being processed by Lost fans on every Lost messageboard out there. All told, not only was the video interesting, but the presentation of it was pretty funny what with the Dharma getting mad and storming off stage.
Back in the Q&A, they did bring out Matthew Fox at one point, but most of the time was spent answering questions in the same pithy way that they do on their podcasts, but with the ability to hand out prizes related to the questions (i.e. ask about Jin get a stuffed panda). And the reason they were able to do this was simple. The fans actually asked good questions:
"Since the name Jeremy Bentham came up as a leader of the Island, would the Island happen to be a Panopticon?"
"Will Kate ever see Sawyer again?"
"Will we ever see Faraday and his tie again?"
While no one really expected a direct answer to any of these questions they were answered with enough tongue-in-cheek to know that the fans are on the right track in some of their discussions.
So in combination of what exactly was done by the shows' producers and the fans' questions it is clear that Lost is a smarter show that has a level of quality that rubs off on its fans.
Right after getting our tags Hannah and I went down to get in line for Hall H's morning events of two of the biggest TV shows to be at the con, Heroes and Lost. I am much more of a Lost fan if only because the show lets me create wild solutions to what is going on only to have even wilder things happen on the show. Heroes just doesn't do this for me. Heroes tends to tell a neat story, but I have always felt that it gets bogged down in character development. To that point I do watch and enjoy both though.
Now this line I mentioned, I started walking toward the end of it not really sure where the end was. I just assumed that it was so winding that the end was somewhere within the grassy area next to the public art at the doors to Hall H. I was wrong. It actually was twisty, but the line wrapped around the convention center for what must have been over a mile. If there had been more than 6000 people in front of me I would have been sad.
So I waited. Hannah however felt the need to talk to the two very socially awkward guys standing near us. While I have a distaste for scenesters and pathetic IT guys, Hannah just wanted someone to talk to hopefully about Lost. My how she was disappointed. Both of these guys found Lost to be repulsive. They said that they never could get into it, that it was boring, and then tried to talk about what Hiro and Ando will do next season. Both Hannah and I were just baffled by this. When we finally narrowed down what it was that they didn't like about Lost, it seems that they only really like the cool superhero part of the show making anything about the story and plot development unimportant.
After we got in and the show actually started Jeph Loeb showed us the third part of the Heroes webasodes (I hate that name). The story is neat, if only as a back story for what a character in the next season, so it's cool we got to see it first. Then acting as if he had brought someone back from the dead he brought the entire main cast out on stage only to have them run away so that they could then show the entire first episode of the season.
After what seemed to me to be a pretty typical episode, the cast came back out for some Q&A. The problem with this is that there is nothing to ask any of these people. Anything that we might have questions about, we have no clues or even breadcrumbs to follow to the clues. Sylar says that Claire is different, but we have no hits as to what that means, even thematically. This means we get questions like this:
"Milo, I'm a single mother. Can I hug you?"
"Sylar, you're the coolest, but if you could have anyone's power (thus just one, thus not Peter's) whose would it be?"
"What was Volume 3 going to be called originally."
Only that last question shows that the fans of this show might be anywhere near thinking about the show. There are things that could have been asked if you wanted to learn anything about the show:
"Is Peter's Irish girlfriend going to be able to be saved from a future that doesn't exist any more?"
"If Sylar was able to learn Claire's ability without killing her, doesn't that make all that "Save the Cheerleader..." stuff kind of null and void (especially if she can't be killed like Sylar says)?"
"What things did the strike keep you from being able to do with Volume 3?"
Anyway, the cast just sort of smiled and looked ready to run for most of the Q&A.
When that was finally over a faux news ad for an expose about the Oceanic 6 came on the screens. It was very tasty and pushed that extratextual experience that Lost does so well. Next, Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse came out on stage. As the major creative forces behind the show, and probably some of the only people in the world who know how the show is going to play out, they are the public face of the show. They have really achieved this celebrity thanks to their dryly funny podcasts in which they avoid answering fan questions, but always give just enough to keep people satisfied with what they are(n't) saying.
They took Q&A, but that was mixed with a Dharma spokesman calling out for the winners of an "interview" that was given to people in the Lost booth down on the floor of the Con. These people then went off to get to see something that the rest of us were not going to get to see. That is until one of them "secretly" recorded what he saw. This was a video of the guy from all the Lost training videos talking about how the past needed to be fixed and a bunch of other things that are currently being processed by Lost fans on every Lost messageboard out there. All told, not only was the video interesting, but the presentation of it was pretty funny what with the Dharma getting mad and storming off stage.
Back in the Q&A, they did bring out Matthew Fox at one point, but most of the time was spent answering questions in the same pithy way that they do on their podcasts, but with the ability to hand out prizes related to the questions (i.e. ask about Jin get a stuffed panda). And the reason they were able to do this was simple. The fans actually asked good questions:
"Since the name Jeremy Bentham came up as a leader of the Island, would the Island happen to be a Panopticon?"
"Will Kate ever see Sawyer again?"
"Will we ever see Faraday and his tie again?"
While no one really expected a direct answer to any of these questions they were answered with enough tongue-in-cheek to know that the fans are on the right track in some of their discussions.
So in combination of what exactly was done by the shows' producers and the fans' questions it is clear that Lost is a smarter show that has a level of quality that rubs off on its fans.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Some thoughts on the GOP
So it turns out that the GOP is really earning that Old part of their name. This doesn't really surprise me though. Not only is it the party most closely associated with old white guys, it is also the party that keeps making deals with that thrid of the US population who don't actually expect that the world will be around for the next election.
A year or two ago on my campus the president of the College Republicans was also an active member in the Young Democrats. He wasn't even really into politics, he was just a business major who wanted a nice thing to put on his resume, but enjoyed the YDs and thier parties. In fact, I seriously doubt whether or not he was even registered to vote. I do know that he was very much the type of person who would vote Republican if he could.
Now I go to a school located in what I refer to as the buckle of the Bible belt, and yet the YDs have more members than any other group on campus. It's even a public school! The reasons why the GOP is not stronger here is talked around in that article, but I think they are missing the point. Sure reaching out with modern campaign tactics is one thing, but just getting John McCain to start Twittering won't fix the party.
Here's what will:
1) Ditch the old dudes. The only really high ranking Neo-Con of the Reagan era that has not been pushed out of office or died is Cheney. The same Cheney who is hated by most Americans and seen as the guy who helped talk Bush into some of the many thing he has done in the last eight years. Clearly, he and his friends are of a dying breed. Let them and their military plans and overly scary big business connections die as well.
Also McCain... Please never let anyone his age run again unless they are some sort of rock god. Too bad all the Ramones are dead. They would have been perfect for this in a few years.
2) Ditch the Religious Right. Fell free to stay against abortion. That is a basic argument that seems to be going on in most of the 1st world. However, drop anything about any social issue that is only raised that marks your line too far into what many (young people) see as craziville. This means no more barking about a marriage amendment, talk about stem-cells, or even sex education. These are things that if you are asked about say that they are large social issues that must be put to masses to answer. In doing this you will seem not only more democratic, but also less reactionary. And we all know that reactionary is the feeling we all get when politics and religion intertwine on too deep a level.
3) Ditch the connections to the rich. The problem is that most Americans aren't rich and never plan to be. To be fair this isn't so much the GOP's fault as it is the beginning of limits in the US economy, but those limits need to be talked about. No one feels like they will be able to make their own way in the world today the same way they might have in the 50s and 60s.
4) When it comes to the economy push for quality not quanity. This is a problem that most American conservatives have. They see that as the whole pie gets bigger everyone gains more. This often doesn't quite work out in the proportional way that it should, and even when it does it just makes people feel like things aren't changing. All the economists you talk to should at least be willing to admit that Keynes was right about some things.
5) Don't ever talk about Regan or W. ever again. Regan is of a golden past that people seem to remember as being better than it was. This is because the 80s did that to people. After all, it was the decade that had mall rock. If you are going to talk about a president of the recent past, talk about Nixon. Not only is he a figure that had the strength to run again after loosing so bitterly to Kennedy, he also did a good job before the world got to him and made him do something terrible. He is flawed but at least he lacks the cheese of Regan-worship. And as far as W., well lets just say that he will the the most popular president for a long time if only because he didn't do anything good (much less all the bad he did).
*Note to anyone named Jason - I am not a Republican. I just feel like the party does have something to offer, if it could just stop being so one sided.
A year or two ago on my campus the president of the College Republicans was also an active member in the Young Democrats. He wasn't even really into politics, he was just a business major who wanted a nice thing to put on his resume, but enjoyed the YDs and thier parties. In fact, I seriously doubt whether or not he was even registered to vote. I do know that he was very much the type of person who would vote Republican if he could.
Now I go to a school located in what I refer to as the buckle of the Bible belt, and yet the YDs have more members than any other group on campus. It's even a public school! The reasons why the GOP is not stronger here is talked around in that article, but I think they are missing the point. Sure reaching out with modern campaign tactics is one thing, but just getting John McCain to start Twittering won't fix the party.
Here's what will:
1) Ditch the old dudes. The only really high ranking Neo-Con of the Reagan era that has not been pushed out of office or died is Cheney. The same Cheney who is hated by most Americans and seen as the guy who helped talk Bush into some of the many thing he has done in the last eight years. Clearly, he and his friends are of a dying breed. Let them and their military plans and overly scary big business connections die as well.
Also McCain... Please never let anyone his age run again unless they are some sort of rock god. Too bad all the Ramones are dead. They would have been perfect for this in a few years.
2) Ditch the Religious Right. Fell free to stay against abortion. That is a basic argument that seems to be going on in most of the 1st world. However, drop anything about any social issue that is only raised that marks your line too far into what many (young people) see as craziville. This means no more barking about a marriage amendment, talk about stem-cells, or even sex education. These are things that if you are asked about say that they are large social issues that must be put to masses to answer. In doing this you will seem not only more democratic, but also less reactionary. And we all know that reactionary is the feeling we all get when politics and religion intertwine on too deep a level.
3) Ditch the connections to the rich. The problem is that most Americans aren't rich and never plan to be. To be fair this isn't so much the GOP's fault as it is the beginning of limits in the US economy, but those limits need to be talked about. No one feels like they will be able to make their own way in the world today the same way they might have in the 50s and 60s.
4) When it comes to the economy push for quality not quanity. This is a problem that most American conservatives have. They see that as the whole pie gets bigger everyone gains more. This often doesn't quite work out in the proportional way that it should, and even when it does it just makes people feel like things aren't changing. All the economists you talk to should at least be willing to admit that Keynes was right about some things.
5) Don't ever talk about Regan or W. ever again. Regan is of a golden past that people seem to remember as being better than it was. This is because the 80s did that to people. After all, it was the decade that had mall rock. If you are going to talk about a president of the recent past, talk about Nixon. Not only is he a figure that had the strength to run again after loosing so bitterly to Kennedy, he also did a good job before the world got to him and made him do something terrible. He is flawed but at least he lacks the cheese of Regan-worship. And as far as W., well lets just say that he will the the most popular president for a long time if only because he didn't do anything good (much less all the bad he did).
*Note to anyone named Jason - I am not a Republican. I just feel like the party does have something to offer, if it could just stop being so one sided.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
The Dark Knight
As far as superheroes go, Batman is totally nuts. While I am pretty sure this view became the common and popular one in the 80s, I also think that everyone since Bob Kane has thought this about the guy. After all, what kind of guy spends all of his free time either training for or actually fighting criminals in a bat suit? He has no super powers (beyond the incredible), but is just a kind of smart guy who knows how to fight.
In fact, he isn't even a hero in the way that someone like Superman is simply because he is not seen as some sort of angle that is here to protect ourselves. He is a vigilante. He only does what the cops can't do. He can break in and tie people up as gifts for the police. Because of this he can't be totally trusted and with good reason.
That said it wasn't until Frank Miller that this stuff was really seen as important to the Batmythos. But now it is everywhere. Bats is mad at the world. He sees crime and sin and desires something like justice. He desires order and safety. And for this sort of thing ordinary criminals are not enough.
This is where the Joker steps into the modern story. While just about ever other villian in Gotham has a very clear motive for evil, the Joker is only out to be Batman's mirror image. The Joker's past called him to see the world as not something that needs to be fixed, but something that needs to burn. That people fight all the time to just be decent. The Joker thinks the world would be better without that.
The problem comes in when the Joker and Batman begin to become too symbolic for good storytelling. It is always clear why the Joker doesn't just kill Batman; he is not in for the killing but the fun of torture. Yet, why can't Batman kill the Joker. This is a man who is powerful enough to have a bomb put inside another human being, a man who takes joy in watching people die, a man who thinks all of life is one big killing joke.
In Mr. Nolan's newest bat-flick we see this come up near the end of the movie. (None of this is really spoiler-y if you have seen anything about the movie that just came out.) And this keeps the movie's ending from being truly great.
The problem is that Batman is never allowed to truly become dark. There is talk about being a hero or being "something that is needed" in the movie. Yet, he never quite makes it to the point of being what is needed. Maybe this is suppose to be what keeps him from becoming something like the Joker, but it also keeps him from achieving his goals.
Overall, the movie is pretty awesome. The action is not over the top. The acting is good enough. The Joker is scary as all get out. The pieces were all set for Bats to become what I have always though he should be and he missed it by that much.
In fact, he isn't even a hero in the way that someone like Superman is simply because he is not seen as some sort of angle that is here to protect ourselves. He is a vigilante. He only does what the cops can't do. He can break in and tie people up as gifts for the police. Because of this he can't be totally trusted and with good reason.
That said it wasn't until Frank Miller that this stuff was really seen as important to the Batmythos. But now it is everywhere. Bats is mad at the world. He sees crime and sin and desires something like justice. He desires order and safety. And for this sort of thing ordinary criminals are not enough.
This is where the Joker steps into the modern story. While just about ever other villian in Gotham has a very clear motive for evil, the Joker is only out to be Batman's mirror image. The Joker's past called him to see the world as not something that needs to be fixed, but something that needs to burn. That people fight all the time to just be decent. The Joker thinks the world would be better without that.
The problem comes in when the Joker and Batman begin to become too symbolic for good storytelling. It is always clear why the Joker doesn't just kill Batman; he is not in for the killing but the fun of torture. Yet, why can't Batman kill the Joker. This is a man who is powerful enough to have a bomb put inside another human being, a man who takes joy in watching people die, a man who thinks all of life is one big killing joke.
In Mr. Nolan's newest bat-flick we see this come up near the end of the movie. (None of this is really spoiler-y if you have seen anything about the movie that just came out.) And this keeps the movie's ending from being truly great.
The problem is that Batman is never allowed to truly become dark. There is talk about being a hero or being "something that is needed" in the movie. Yet, he never quite makes it to the point of being what is needed. Maybe this is suppose to be what keeps him from becoming something like the Joker, but it also keeps him from achieving his goals.
Overall, the movie is pretty awesome. The action is not over the top. The acting is good enough. The Joker is scary as all get out. The pieces were all set for Bats to become what I have always though he should be and he missed it by that much.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
The Dawson Fallacy
This is an idea I am toying with putting in my thesis...
The Dawson Fallacy is the suggestion that every interaction with the world must not only be meaningful and important, but also dramatic. While I am sure that there are plenty of examples of this in the world, Dawson's Creek not only represents this, but also seems to be about this.
Dawson as a character never seems to have any interaction with anyone that is simply him being friends. While part of this is just the way television must work conserving time to push the plot forward, but even sometimes a story can move along without the characters analyzing it to death.
Mostly when this sort of thing happens it is very soap opera-y and is cast aside into the pile of low quality characters that populate the pop culture landfill. Dawson is different though. A combination of being right for the times and being somewhat smart in the cultural metaphors used in the dialog and the show works. Anyone who has watched the show will agree that it is good enough to want more, even if they will tell you that melodramas are brain rotting.
This is because there is a feeling that Dawson is self-aware of his acting out for maximum drama with his friends and loved ones just trying to make their way through their pulp romance lives. He knows he is a teenager and guy, but his ideas on what to do as a teen come from what he has seen in all the movies he has watched. His desire to be a filmmaker is then played out through his life. He doesn't want to just be a film maker he wants to live in a movie. He wants there to always be conflict. If as a teen he was ever happy it would be a sign that he is doing something wrong. He is not being a teen the way he should be.
This is why the end of Dawson's Creek is both satisfying to the audience and a painful realization for Dawson. The only way that Joey can ever be with Dawson is in Dawson's world of film. That's why in the TV show Dawson creates they are together. Joey as a real person goes off with Pacey who has always been the one who ended up in overly dramatic situations without having totally put himself in them.
-
This is really all I have right now. I have only really seen about half of the show's episodes so I do not feel too comfortable talking about the show in any great detail, but I feel like I am on to something here with Dawson. If anyone would was/is a fan of the show we need to talk. I want to see just how close to base I am.
The Dawson Fallacy is the suggestion that every interaction with the world must not only be meaningful and important, but also dramatic. While I am sure that there are plenty of examples of this in the world, Dawson's Creek not only represents this, but also seems to be about this.
Dawson as a character never seems to have any interaction with anyone that is simply him being friends. While part of this is just the way television must work conserving time to push the plot forward, but even sometimes a story can move along without the characters analyzing it to death.
Mostly when this sort of thing happens it is very soap opera-y and is cast aside into the pile of low quality characters that populate the pop culture landfill. Dawson is different though. A combination of being right for the times and being somewhat smart in the cultural metaphors used in the dialog and the show works. Anyone who has watched the show will agree that it is good enough to want more, even if they will tell you that melodramas are brain rotting.
This is because there is a feeling that Dawson is self-aware of his acting out for maximum drama with his friends and loved ones just trying to make their way through their pulp romance lives. He knows he is a teenager and guy, but his ideas on what to do as a teen come from what he has seen in all the movies he has watched. His desire to be a filmmaker is then played out through his life. He doesn't want to just be a film maker he wants to live in a movie. He wants there to always be conflict. If as a teen he was ever happy it would be a sign that he is doing something wrong. He is not being a teen the way he should be.
This is why the end of Dawson's Creek is both satisfying to the audience and a painful realization for Dawson. The only way that Joey can ever be with Dawson is in Dawson's world of film. That's why in the TV show Dawson creates they are together. Joey as a real person goes off with Pacey who has always been the one who ended up in overly dramatic situations without having totally put himself in them.
-
This is really all I have right now. I have only really seen about half of the show's episodes so I do not feel too comfortable talking about the show in any great detail, but I feel like I am on to something here with Dawson. If anyone would was/is a fan of the show we need to talk. I want to see just how close to base I am.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Writer's Block
The problem with writing is that the moment you take a day or two off from it you begin to loose any ability you ever had. You begin to be unable to make any kind of meaningful or new observation on the world. Every word is just a repeat. Every sentence feels forced and awkward. Oh! The paragraphs are nothing but death squads of letters waiting to make the unsuspecting reader go blind.
In times of being unable to write I turn to reading. I always do this feeling that reading others' words will put me into a literary mindset, but always close the book feeling even more hopeless than before I opened the book. "How can I ever hope to produce anything like this?!" my mind yells with each page. I begin to feel like I am faking at being anything near a writer. This guy is obviously better than I am at putting words into real thoughts. The only things I can even think are self-absorbed feelings that no one hasn't heard before.
At this point I decide that I need to try to write again. I start reading where I left off in my writing and discover that I have written myself into a corner! What was I thinking when I wrote this shit? I need to fix all of this. But then I realize that I can't get rid of it before I can write again otherwise I will have ended up with negative progress for the day! Damn... I frantically add a paragraph to the work in the hopes that I can get on to the next point in my outline, but the transition isn't fluid enough.
I decide I can't care about that. That is for me to edit later when I have the two parts already. But then I can't think of how to make my point in a way that doesn't just come off as me saying something. I need an argument. I need examples.
I go back to reading. I check the news. I check the mail.
I sit down and decide to write a page of pure fiction. Here I start to just let my mind wonder as I talk about the slightly overweight, but mousy girl who works at the late night coffee shop down the road from the bar that hipsters and truckers frequent. But then what happens next is a dead end. Does she meet someone? Do I even want to keep up with this person when the group of friends in the booth by the jukebox is having such an interesting conversation about the worst sexual encounters they have ever had? At least I don't need a plot or a point, but, god, why can't I think of anything worse than the time Marcus was on a second date with a girl and they went to her house and as they were getting naked he finds mint jelly in her bed. "Yeah, mint jelly! As in what you put on lamb. When I asked her about it she turned bright red and told me to get out."
That is when I break down and blog.
In times of being unable to write I turn to reading. I always do this feeling that reading others' words will put me into a literary mindset, but always close the book feeling even more hopeless than before I opened the book. "How can I ever hope to produce anything like this?!" my mind yells with each page. I begin to feel like I am faking at being anything near a writer. This guy is obviously better than I am at putting words into real thoughts. The only things I can even think are self-absorbed feelings that no one hasn't heard before.
At this point I decide that I need to try to write again. I start reading where I left off in my writing and discover that I have written myself into a corner! What was I thinking when I wrote this shit? I need to fix all of this. But then I realize that I can't get rid of it before I can write again otherwise I will have ended up with negative progress for the day! Damn... I frantically add a paragraph to the work in the hopes that I can get on to the next point in my outline, but the transition isn't fluid enough.
I decide I can't care about that. That is for me to edit later when I have the two parts already. But then I can't think of how to make my point in a way that doesn't just come off as me saying something. I need an argument. I need examples.
I go back to reading. I check the news. I check the mail.
I sit down and decide to write a page of pure fiction. Here I start to just let my mind wonder as I talk about the slightly overweight, but mousy girl who works at the late night coffee shop down the road from the bar that hipsters and truckers frequent. But then what happens next is a dead end. Does she meet someone? Do I even want to keep up with this person when the group of friends in the booth by the jukebox is having such an interesting conversation about the worst sexual encounters they have ever had? At least I don't need a plot or a point, but, god, why can't I think of anything worse than the time Marcus was on a second date with a girl and they went to her house and as they were getting naked he finds mint jelly in her bed. "Yeah, mint jelly! As in what you put on lamb. When I asked her about it she turned bright red and told me to get out."
That is when I break down and blog.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
American Nerd: The Story of My People
This book was getting just enough media attention for me to crack it, but from what I found inside I wonder if anybody was actually reading it.
Don't get me wrong. It is fairly well written, moderately informative, and mostly entertaining. But, it fails in putting the biographical and the historical together in a cohesive way. Instead it tends to let the two act as if they have no reason to be in the same book. Ben Nugent talks about fictional characters and those from his own life to give one of the clearest pictures of what nerds are, but by separating them he never gets to any kind of universal statement on Nerdom.
This is only accented further by his talks about feudal roleplayers. While describing the social order and complexities of this particular group he tries to connect them to his past of boffing and D&D. This, while trying to show off the way nerds are always trying to create systems of order, seems to distract even more from his thesis.
While none of this is truly offensive, the book provides nothing in the way nerd culture has actually effected the world around it. In this way, Nugent only provides more description to probably one of the most self-described groups in our culture. There are no new thoughts on nerds, just one man's observations.
Don't get me wrong. It is fairly well written, moderately informative, and mostly entertaining. But, it fails in putting the biographical and the historical together in a cohesive way. Instead it tends to let the two act as if they have no reason to be in the same book. Ben Nugent talks about fictional characters and those from his own life to give one of the clearest pictures of what nerds are, but by separating them he never gets to any kind of universal statement on Nerdom.
This is only accented further by his talks about feudal roleplayers. While describing the social order and complexities of this particular group he tries to connect them to his past of boffing and D&D. This, while trying to show off the way nerds are always trying to create systems of order, seems to distract even more from his thesis.
While none of this is truly offensive, the book provides nothing in the way nerd culture has actually effected the world around it. In this way, Nugent only provides more description to probably one of the most self-described groups in our culture. There are no new thoughts on nerds, just one man's observations.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Finally I have found it!
I can't believe Donna has never told me about it. I guess it has never really come up during all of our conversations, but if it has and she did not tell me about it I will be upset.
I am referring, of course, to my search for a movie in which there is no love story. For years I have been in search of a movie in which romance plays no role whatsoever. This is hard because there always seems to be some dame that the hero has to leave or save or find or be with.
I have had an ill contempt for what often seem like love stories in the middle of a story that would do just as well without. The movie Get Smart which I just saw is a prime example of this. Why Max and 99 have to fall in love is beyond reason. They could have just become trusting partners and maybe friends. But no. They have to fall in love.
What is even worse is the way that love stories make it into stories as plot devices that motivate the hero to save the day. The most despicable instance of this being the climax of The Matrix which forces Trinity to say she loves Neo even though there has been nothing of real romance between them at all. If maybe there had been some sort of development in their relationship during the movie (at least more than her shooting up a building lobby with him--is that a date?) the kiss would not have been so unimpressive.
However, I have found a movie without all of that.
Lawrence of Arabia is truly epic. It is filled with wide shots of the desert, the growth of a character over a long bit of time, and Peter O'toole and Omar Sharif drunkenly riding camels during some of the most physically challenging scenes. That said, there are almost no women in the movie. There are a few here and there in the background mostly, but there aren't even any credited.
To make it even better, there aren't even any female characters. Lawrence has no girlfriend, wife, or unrequited love. Instead he has only his ego and his desire to show that he is an extraordinary man. And for this he is a classic character.
I am referring, of course, to my search for a movie in which there is no love story. For years I have been in search of a movie in which romance plays no role whatsoever. This is hard because there always seems to be some dame that the hero has to leave or save or find or be with.
I have had an ill contempt for what often seem like love stories in the middle of a story that would do just as well without. The movie Get Smart which I just saw is a prime example of this. Why Max and 99 have to fall in love is beyond reason. They could have just become trusting partners and maybe friends. But no. They have to fall in love.
What is even worse is the way that love stories make it into stories as plot devices that motivate the hero to save the day. The most despicable instance of this being the climax of The Matrix which forces Trinity to say she loves Neo even though there has been nothing of real romance between them at all. If maybe there had been some sort of development in their relationship during the movie (at least more than her shooting up a building lobby with him--is that a date?) the kiss would not have been so unimpressive.
However, I have found a movie without all of that.
Lawrence of Arabia is truly epic. It is filled with wide shots of the desert, the growth of a character over a long bit of time, and Peter O'toole and Omar Sharif drunkenly riding camels during some of the most physically challenging scenes. That said, there are almost no women in the movie. There are a few here and there in the background mostly, but there aren't even any credited.
To make it even better, there aren't even any female characters. Lawrence has no girlfriend, wife, or unrequited love. Instead he has only his ego and his desire to show that he is an extraordinary man. And for this he is a classic character.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)