DISCLAIMER: I write on this subject very much unwillingly. It's not that I feel it doesn't need to be discussed, I just find how big of a deal we make of things like this sort of disconcerting...
"We need more gun control! People like this should not be able to get their hands on guns!"
"Are you dumb?? We need more responsible, trained people to be able to protect us!"
I have seen these two arguments so many times, it makes me sick. My problem with them is that they seem to be a solution after the problem has already happened. I am a firm advocate of better mental health institutions as the solution to these kind of problems.
But that's not really what I want to talk about. I want to talk about our reaction to things like the shooting at Newtown, which is equal parts touching and sort of depressing. On one hand, you see people drawn together. Everyone feels for these people, and I think it helps many people transcend differences to recognize that we all hurt, that we all are human. And I view that as an extremely positive thing. I think we're too willing to nitpick over all the little ways we're different, which just breeds resentment.
On the other hand, we seem to split ourselves up. The above conversation is the most prevalent example of this. Instead of any sort of compassion towards the people affected, the two people in the conversation above simply point the blame finger everywhere but themselves.
That's the worst part about our political atmosphere now. It is everyone and everything's fault except your or your party's. Even conservatives, who consistently emphasize personal responsibility (an ideal I'm not opposed to), seem to take every available opportunity to point the finger at Democrats, and Democrats do likewise. Now I understand that that's kind of the point of our political system, but still this really seems to not be the right time to do it...
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Monday, December 10, 2012
A bit of Juxtaposition
As recommended by his comment on one of my blogs, I read through a blog of Mr. Tallman's, and watched Jim Valvano's speech at the 1993 ESPY awards (Even if you don't like sports at all, watch this. It's absolutely worth it). One part of his speech specifically stood out to me: his advice that everyone should laugh, think and cry everyday. I found this to be very profound advice that really shatters a lot of the stereotypical idea of what we are supposed to be as males.
Immediately after viewing this video, I saw a post on Facebook that I found to be very interesting in light of that advice. A male (whose identity I will attempt to conceal) posted something along the lines of:
"The best way to prevent yourself from crying while peeling onions is to chew gum. The best way to prevent yourself from crying the rest of the time is to stop being such a little bitch."
This struck me as such a perfect example of how we as males have somehow missed the point of Jimmy's advice entirely. How somehow, males have not been able to shake this useless, detrimental idea that emotion is weakness, that somehow crying or displaying any sort of sadness means that you've failed as a member of the male gender.
This idea disappoints me. As someone who grew up with two sisters, I feel that I have found that displaying my emotions comes somewhat easy to me. If I feign stoicism, it's because I don't like making a scene, not because I'm afraid to admit that I hurt. And it hasn't hurt me one bit. I am a well-adjusted, intelligent, confident young male who is very secure of my place in the world and in the gender of male.
As someone who's a pretty terrible actor, I've never really understood the appeal of faking who you are, and this carries through to emotions. If you hurt, that's fine. No one's life is perfect and no one is infinitely strong. So go ahead, laugh, think and cry. I guarantee that it will make your life that much better.
This idea disappoints me. As someone who grew up with two sisters, I feel that I have found that displaying my emotions comes somewhat easy to me. If I feign stoicism, it's because I don't like making a scene, not because I'm afraid to admit that I hurt. And it hasn't hurt me one bit. I am a well-adjusted, intelligent, confident young male who is very secure of my place in the world and in the gender of male.
As someone who's a pretty terrible actor, I've never really understood the appeal of faking who you are, and this carries through to emotions. If you hurt, that's fine. No one's life is perfect and no one is infinitely strong. So go ahead, laugh, think and cry. I guarantee that it will make your life that much better.
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Oh the Irony...
Perhaps one of Buddhism's most famous doctrines is The Middle Way. It is the overarching rule Buddha gives for how to reach Nirvana, and has drawn parallels to Aristotle's idea of the Golden Mean.
It's ironic then, that the two school of Buddhism that arose after Buddha's death have been so unable to find a way to reconcile their differences.
The differences between the two schools come down to their answers to three fundamental questions:
1. Are people independent or interdependent.
2. Is the universe inherently helpful to humans, indifferent to humans or hostile to humans?
3. What is the best part of the human heart, its head or its heart? Essentially, which is more human: reason or emotion?
The two schools of Buddhism split mostly along these questions, with Mahayana Buddhists answering interdependent, inherently helpful because of a divine being watching over them and the heart, respectively. Theravada Buddhism, on the other hand, answers independent, indifferent and the head, respectively.
The problem I have with this is that, often the different answers to these questions are not irreconcilable. Humanity is rather complex, and so often I find that there can be two answers to these questions. Perhaps independence and interdependence are equally important. The second question is a bit trickier, but it does provide its own middle ground: indifference. And finally, perhaps the head and the heart are both equally human. I see no reason why these two schools have to be hostile to each other when both sides have equally valid points. It seems that if they both truly believed in The Middle Way, they would find some way to split the differences between the two. Personally, I find that my answers to these questions fit in the middle of the two schools. So where would I belong?
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
An Epiphany (or two)
Today, I had a bit of an epiphany as to why I enjoy Language and Composition so much, as well as a bit of an insight into what the true nature of the class is.
After discussing our soliloquies, John Colpoys, Brendan Caulfield and I had a discussion on theater. We moved from discussing which plays in general we liked best to discussing which recent Festival one-act by BC High we enjoyed the best. John claimed that the "strongest" one-act that we had sent to Festival (colloquially referred to as "festi") was "A Lesson Before Dying", my freshman year. Having not seen it, I couldn't disprove his claim, however what I objected to was his claim that "The Kentucky Cycle" (my sophomore year) was not as strong because it was too dark. But John, I said, isn't "too dark" just a personal opinion or taste? His reply was that, yes it was, but wasn't the whole thing just opinion?
And this is where my minor epiphany came. My objection to John was purely based in language, our ensuing debate was pretty much entirely about language (a little bit of subjectivity vs. objectivity too) and I realized that the point of this class was to help us understand and analyze language. It's basically all semantics, and I love it.
I didn't object to John believing that "The Kentucky Cycle" was too dark; he's perfectly entitled to that opinion. What I objected to was the implication, which was couched in his language, that "too dark" was somehow a characteristic that could be objectively judged, that it was somehow a characteristic that justified his belief that it wasn't as "strong" as "A Lesson Before Dying". But if, as John correctly pointed out, the whole idea of judgement is subjective, what makes this particular subjective opinion invalid?
Well I have an idea about that. Subjectivity and objectivity, like most things on this world, are not black and white. They are gray. It is possible for one opinion to be more right than another opinion. If this sounds ridiculous to you, let me give you a very politically charged example: A leading environmental scientist claims that moving to alternative forms of energy would be very beneficial in the long run. A conservative pundit claims that global warming is a hoax and alternative energy sources a sham. Whose opinion is more valid? Well, the scientist's. As their has more experience and knowledge in the area of alternative energy and global warming, their opinion carries more weight than a pundit who is working off of nothing but his own knowledge, which presumably is not specialized in global warming.
But John is perfectly knowledgeable about theater, why is his opinion invalid?
Well, there are also, in a way, types of opinions. There are opinions that are based in observation or interpretation of facts (I thought that actor did a very good job portraying that character) and there are opinions based on personal taste (I don't like dark plays). If one wants to make any sort of decision resembling objectivity, one must rely on the first type of opinion rather than the second because it is based more in fact than the second, which is based entirely on personal preference.
After discussing our soliloquies, John Colpoys, Brendan Caulfield and I had a discussion on theater. We moved from discussing which plays in general we liked best to discussing which recent Festival one-act by BC High we enjoyed the best. John claimed that the "strongest" one-act that we had sent to Festival (colloquially referred to as "festi") was "A Lesson Before Dying", my freshman year. Having not seen it, I couldn't disprove his claim, however what I objected to was his claim that "The Kentucky Cycle" (my sophomore year) was not as strong because it was too dark. But John, I said, isn't "too dark" just a personal opinion or taste? His reply was that, yes it was, but wasn't the whole thing just opinion?
And this is where my minor epiphany came. My objection to John was purely based in language, our ensuing debate was pretty much entirely about language (a little bit of subjectivity vs. objectivity too) and I realized that the point of this class was to help us understand and analyze language. It's basically all semantics, and I love it.
I didn't object to John believing that "The Kentucky Cycle" was too dark; he's perfectly entitled to that opinion. What I objected to was the implication, which was couched in his language, that "too dark" was somehow a characteristic that could be objectively judged, that it was somehow a characteristic that justified his belief that it wasn't as "strong" as "A Lesson Before Dying". But if, as John correctly pointed out, the whole idea of judgement is subjective, what makes this particular subjective opinion invalid?
Well I have an idea about that. Subjectivity and objectivity, like most things on this world, are not black and white. They are gray. It is possible for one opinion to be more right than another opinion. If this sounds ridiculous to you, let me give you a very politically charged example: A leading environmental scientist claims that moving to alternative forms of energy would be very beneficial in the long run. A conservative pundit claims that global warming is a hoax and alternative energy sources a sham. Whose opinion is more valid? Well, the scientist's. As their has more experience and knowledge in the area of alternative energy and global warming, their opinion carries more weight than a pundit who is working off of nothing but his own knowledge, which presumably is not specialized in global warming.
But John is perfectly knowledgeable about theater, why is his opinion invalid?
Well, there are also, in a way, types of opinions. There are opinions that are based in observation or interpretation of facts (I thought that actor did a very good job portraying that character) and there are opinions based on personal taste (I don't like dark plays). If one wants to make any sort of decision resembling objectivity, one must rely on the first type of opinion rather than the second because it is based more in fact than the second, which is based entirely on personal preference.
Friday, November 30, 2012
Sandman Volume 9: All of the Feels...
I recently finished the 9th volume of Sandman. For those of you with a good memory, I mentioned the Sandman series in my blog post defending the medium of comic books. I wanted to come back to it now because Volume 9 was without a doubt one of the greatest reading experiences I've had.
The series follows the adventures of Dream, one of the endless along with Despair, Destiny, Death, Delirium (formerly Delight), Destruction and Desire (yes, the D thing is on purpose). Each controls the realm that they are named after. So, when you dream, you visit the realm Dream, known as The Dreaming. There isn't really a central plot to all of the volumes, simply a collection of stories related to the character of Dream. As a result, the stories tend to be rather abstract, sometimes heavily featuring Dream and sometimes pushing him off to the side. All through it though, Neil Gaiman has created significant attachment to this character of Dream. That, I think, really is Neil Gaiman's genius. He is able to tell a great story because he is able to create amazing characters. The interesting thing is that he never really explains in depth his characters. He leaves a lot of his character mysterious, which really makes them that much more engaging and interesting. Humans in general don't really like everything to be spelled out for them, on a deep level. Thinking and analyzing satisfy us and so the most engaging books are those that make us think are the ones that last. Need proof, just look at Hamlet.
The series follows the adventures of Dream, one of the endless along with Despair, Destiny, Death, Delirium (formerly Delight), Destruction and Desire (yes, the D thing is on purpose). Each controls the realm that they are named after. So, when you dream, you visit the realm Dream, known as The Dreaming. There isn't really a central plot to all of the volumes, simply a collection of stories related to the character of Dream. As a result, the stories tend to be rather abstract, sometimes heavily featuring Dream and sometimes pushing him off to the side. All through it though, Neil Gaiman has created significant attachment to this character of Dream. That, I think, really is Neil Gaiman's genius. He is able to tell a great story because he is able to create amazing characters. The interesting thing is that he never really explains in depth his characters. He leaves a lot of his character mysterious, which really makes them that much more engaging and interesting. Humans in general don't really like everything to be spelled out for them, on a deep level. Thinking and analyzing satisfy us and so the most engaging books are those that make us think are the ones that last. Need proof, just look at Hamlet.
Monday, November 26, 2012
The Walking Feels
Many of us have at least heard of "The Walking Dead" series. The comic books are pretty popular, and the show is practically ubiquitous nowadays. I, however, have been heavily involved in another aspect of the series: the video game. Now before you make any assumptions, it's not what you think. You're not running around capping zombies in the head with an AK, or anything ridiculous like that. Similar to the comic book, and from what I've heard the TV series, the game focuses more on the relationships and the choices made by the characters. The big catch is that very often, YOU are making the decisions. The worst part is, most of them are timed. Every once in a while, they make you choose whose life to save, but most often the choices are social. Who do you give rations to? In the middle of an argument, who do you side with?
Perhaps a little more background. You play as Lee Everett, a man on his way to prison for murdering the man who slept with his wife when the zombies came. After stumbling through the forest along the highway, you come upon Clementine, a young girl whose parents were in Savannah when the apocalypse started. You adventure onward with Clementine, struggling to stay alive.
The interesting thing about this game is that none of the choices are even remotely black and white. Every argument has two valid sides, every conflict has consequences both obvious and unseen. This creates a very real test of morality that shows an almost embarrassingly large amount about the person playing. More than that though, it creates real genuine feelings and emotions throughout the game. Losing a member of my group felt like losing a family member (obviously on a much smaller scale, but still). To link to a previous blog post of Chris Hodge's, I feel that this power to create simulated relationships as well as mimic real life decisions to the point that I actually feel bad about actions I've taken or things I've said is what makes video games truly art, not pretty visuals.
Minor Update:
I just finished a couple of nights ago. I actually cried. What I realized is that because the decisions Lee was making were really MY decisions, I was able to identify with him and relate to him in a significantly stronger way than any book or movie would have been able to.
The interesting thing about this game is that none of the choices are even remotely black and white. Every argument has two valid sides, every conflict has consequences both obvious and unseen. This creates a very real test of morality that shows an almost embarrassingly large amount about the person playing. More than that though, it creates real genuine feelings and emotions throughout the game. Losing a member of my group felt like losing a family member (obviously on a much smaller scale, but still). To link to a previous blog post of Chris Hodge's, I feel that this power to create simulated relationships as well as mimic real life decisions to the point that I actually feel bad about actions I've taken or things I've said is what makes video games truly art, not pretty visuals.
Minor Update:
I just finished a couple of nights ago. I actually cried. What I realized is that because the decisions Lee was making were really MY decisions, I was able to identify with him and relate to him in a significantly stronger way than any book or movie would have been able to.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Closer Than We Appear
After Vundabar found my review of their EP, another local band, "Closer Than We Appear" asked me to review two singles they released at a concert this Saturday, 11/3. The two singles are called "Our Old Ways" and "Don't Ever Be Content".
Closer Than We Appear is composed of Gabe Goodman (Guitar & Vocals), Jack Duff (Bass guitar), Max DiRado (Guitar) and Ben Garman (Drums). A little bit more indie rock, and they'd be an Arcade Fire clone. A little bit poppier, and they'd be a Modest Mouse clone. A little bit more punk, and they'd remind me a lot of mewithoutYou. A little bit more classic rock, and I'd be having deja vu of U2. But they manage to walk the line between all four, and create a very unique and pleasing sound. That's not to say I don't have criticisms, but I do ultimately like these two tracks.
As far as complaints go, they're mostly nitpicks. The tracks sometimes felt a bit flat, without much change in intensity. I don't expect every song to have me on my feet, but as the tracks are often somewhat upbeat, there were times where I felt they could have done with a breakdown of some sort, something to break up the repetition and create some excitement. A big way to help this would be to add some space in the melodies and rhythm instruments. Sometimes the most powerful choice musically is to not play. Now, that's not to say that these tracks are bad, but within the context of an full length album, or even an EP, I would expect these two tracks to be among the more relaxed tracks, broken up perhaps by something more bold.
Other than that I don't really have much. I would have liked more bass, drums and rhythm guitar in the mix, but that's getting really specific. The recordings could use a bit more energy and passion, especially after having heard them done very energetically live. I think my final complaint is that the two tracks do sound somewhat similar, in a very broad way. That's not a bad thing for just two tracks but it could be a problem if it lasted across an entire album. On a full length release, I think it would be good to see them push boundaries a bit, try writing some songs that are more influenced by genres that don't typically show themselves in their music.
After listening to these two tracks, I am certainly excited to see where Closer Than We Appear is going. While certainly not flawless, I think they demonstrate a strong base that, with a little experimentation, could really become a versatile and interesting group to listen to.
Check out their Bandcamp (http://closerthanweappear.bandcamp.com) if you're interested. "Our Old Ways" and "Don't Ever Be Content" should be up for free download soon.
Closer Than We Appear is composed of Gabe Goodman (Guitar & Vocals), Jack Duff (Bass guitar), Max DiRado (Guitar) and Ben Garman (Drums). A little bit more indie rock, and they'd be an Arcade Fire clone. A little bit poppier, and they'd be a Modest Mouse clone. A little bit more punk, and they'd remind me a lot of mewithoutYou. A little bit more classic rock, and I'd be having deja vu of U2. But they manage to walk the line between all four, and create a very unique and pleasing sound. That's not to say I don't have criticisms, but I do ultimately like these two tracks.
As far as complaints go, they're mostly nitpicks. The tracks sometimes felt a bit flat, without much change in intensity. I don't expect every song to have me on my feet, but as the tracks are often somewhat upbeat, there were times where I felt they could have done with a breakdown of some sort, something to break up the repetition and create some excitement. A big way to help this would be to add some space in the melodies and rhythm instruments. Sometimes the most powerful choice musically is to not play. Now, that's not to say that these tracks are bad, but within the context of an full length album, or even an EP, I would expect these two tracks to be among the more relaxed tracks, broken up perhaps by something more bold.
Other than that I don't really have much. I would have liked more bass, drums and rhythm guitar in the mix, but that's getting really specific. The recordings could use a bit more energy and passion, especially after having heard them done very energetically live. I think my final complaint is that the two tracks do sound somewhat similar, in a very broad way. That's not a bad thing for just two tracks but it could be a problem if it lasted across an entire album. On a full length release, I think it would be good to see them push boundaries a bit, try writing some songs that are more influenced by genres that don't typically show themselves in their music.
After listening to these two tracks, I am certainly excited to see where Closer Than We Appear is going. While certainly not flawless, I think they demonstrate a strong base that, with a little experimentation, could really become a versatile and interesting group to listen to.
Check out their Bandcamp (http://closerthanweappear.bandcamp.com) if you're interested. "Our Old Ways" and "Don't Ever Be Content" should be up for free download soon.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Hinduism: What Can We Learn?
In my World Religions class, we are reading a section of a book about Hinduism. Not only have I found the topic matter to be incredibly interesting, I have also found a lot of the ideas contained in Hinduism to be very interesting. So far, the chapter has covered two main points: what people want (split up into two paths) and how to get it (split up into four paths). For what people want, Hinduism splits our desires into two paths: The Path of Desire and the Path of Restitution. The Path of Desire is defined as wanting physical things: wealth, sex, food, etc. This path is itself divided into two levels, pleasure and success. What is unique about Hinduism is that it does not tell its followers that these are bad; on the contrary it tells them that if you so desire them, than have them. Be intelligent and moral about it, yes, but fulfill them as much as you would like other than that. If this seems rather wasteful, that's because Hinduism has a very different perspective of time than we do. Because of their belief in reincarnation, one lifetime becomes practically worthless, except as a teaching tool. So, go waste a lifetime on pleasure, enjoy it. But when your next life comes, perhaps you'll realize how empty that life was. And then you'll turn to the Path of Restitution. This is also split up into two levels: a desire to help the community at large, and finally liberation from earthly desires. Each of these levels fulfills people on a deeper level.
While I personally don't believe in reincarnation, I do tend to believe that this attitude towards physical pleasure is healthier than the one that seems to permeate United States culture. Within U.S. culture, there seems to be this idea that if an activity is bad, a teenager should not participate in it, period. This attitude can be found in areas like sex, smoking or drinking. The problem is, when you tell a teenager not to do something, the almost immediate reaction of that teenager is to wonder what that activity is like. And so you get teen pregnancies and a good amount of teenagers smoking. I feel that if the culture took a less aggressive view, we would be much better off, from a health perspective. An example I could cite is drinking in Europe. Because they start at a young age in a controlled environment, teenagers over there are much less likely to binge drink. Trying to squash a teenager's curiosity is never going to be as effective as letting their curiosity prove your point.
Basically, I am finding that Hinduism seems to work much better with natural human desires than western culture does.
While I personally don't believe in reincarnation, I do tend to believe that this attitude towards physical pleasure is healthier than the one that seems to permeate United States culture. Within U.S. culture, there seems to be this idea that if an activity is bad, a teenager should not participate in it, period. This attitude can be found in areas like sex, smoking or drinking. The problem is, when you tell a teenager not to do something, the almost immediate reaction of that teenager is to wonder what that activity is like. And so you get teen pregnancies and a good amount of teenagers smoking. I feel that if the culture took a less aggressive view, we would be much better off, from a health perspective. An example I could cite is drinking in Europe. Because they start at a young age in a controlled environment, teenagers over there are much less likely to binge drink. Trying to squash a teenager's curiosity is never going to be as effective as letting their curiosity prove your point.
Basically, I am finding that Hinduism seems to work much better with natural human desires than western culture does.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
TED: Steven Levitt, crack and McDonalds
Part 1 of a series of blogs I intend to do on various TED talks.
Being the nerd that I am, I recently downloaded the TED Talk app to my phone and then downloaded a whole bunch of talks on a variety of subjects. My first video was of Steven Levitt (the author of Freakonomics) talking about the economics of a crack-cocaine selling gang. While these gangs tend to have a portrayal in media of being glamorous, with women, money and bling (see the Grand Theft Auto series), Levitt demonstrates that an entry-level job (i.e., the kind of job that comprises the vast majority of the gang) in a gang is much more like working at a McDonalds. Mr. Levitt, I found, is a pretty good speaker. While his delivery perhaps could have used some work (he paced throughout the whole video), his appeals were very solid and he was ultimately very convincing. The crux of his argument, where his ethos stems from, is that he was receiving data from inside a gang. He was in contact with Sudhir Alladi Venkatesh, a sociologist who had the good luck of being trusted by a gang through rather odd circumstances. While in the trusted circle of this gang, he was able to get his hands on their financial books, the contents of which he sent to Mr. Levitt. With humor, wit and intelligent insight, Mr. Levitt works this data into an analysis of the gang life that paints a very different picture than most people have. Rather than this idea of a glamorous life, he shows a life of danger, he tells the story of a very dangerous life with minimum payment. While he does a good job of banishing misconceptions, I felt that he could have done more analysis into why the foot soldiers stay on board with the gang when it is obviously such a terrible occupation.
Being the nerd that I am, I recently downloaded the TED Talk app to my phone and then downloaded a whole bunch of talks on a variety of subjects. My first video was of Steven Levitt (the author of Freakonomics) talking about the economics of a crack-cocaine selling gang. While these gangs tend to have a portrayal in media of being glamorous, with women, money and bling (see the Grand Theft Auto series), Levitt demonstrates that an entry-level job (i.e., the kind of job that comprises the vast majority of the gang) in a gang is much more like working at a McDonalds. Mr. Levitt, I found, is a pretty good speaker. While his delivery perhaps could have used some work (he paced throughout the whole video), his appeals were very solid and he was ultimately very convincing. The crux of his argument, where his ethos stems from, is that he was receiving data from inside a gang. He was in contact with Sudhir Alladi Venkatesh, a sociologist who had the good luck of being trusted by a gang through rather odd circumstances. While in the trusted circle of this gang, he was able to get his hands on their financial books, the contents of which he sent to Mr. Levitt. With humor, wit and intelligent insight, Mr. Levitt works this data into an analysis of the gang life that paints a very different picture than most people have. Rather than this idea of a glamorous life, he shows a life of danger, he tells the story of a very dangerous life with minimum payment. While he does a good job of banishing misconceptions, I felt that he could have done more analysis into why the foot soldiers stay on board with the gang when it is obviously such a terrible occupation.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Fight Club
WARNING: Spoiler Alerts. If you haven't seen "Fight Club", don't watch this
If you take a quick look at this video, you'll see a visual approximation of my head after watching the movie "Fight Club" for the first time. While I don't normally watch movies, this one absolutely sucked me in and blew me away. From the gradual build of Fight Club to Project Mayhem to the insane plot twist involving Tyler Durden to the high quality acting of Edward Norton, Brad Pitt and Helena Bonham Carter, this movie absolutely astounded me.
But, my policy with art, media or literature is that the creation in question must stand up to multiple views, reads or listens to truly be considered great. And so, back into the world of "Fight Club" I descend, rewatching it on my computer whenever I get a chance. And I'll be damned if the second time isn't better than the first. I had been sure when I started that I would be able to catch a slip on the writer's part; somewhere where a character reveals or acts contrary to the fact that Brad Pitt's character and Edward Norton's character are one and the same. But there's nothing. Not a single slip of character, not a single slip of dialogue that could even begin to give the secret away. The real brilliance of this though, is that the writers also manage to avoid giving you Edward Norton's character's name until the reveal, that the interactions between Brad Pitt's character and other characters in the film make perfect sense even when you go back and look at him as the same person as Edward Norton. The first time I watched it, I never found myself asking what the main character's name was. I simply assumed that I knew. And now that I'm watching it a second time, I'm finding that I'm never asking how Tyler Durden managed to do two things at once, because he doesn't.
Even now, after my second watching, there are still things I don't understand, lines that I haven't figured out, moments that don't make sense. So I guess it's back down the rabbit hole for another viewing. Look for an update to this post describing my third run through and until then, remember: The first rule of Fight Club is do not talk about Fight Club
If you take a quick look at this video, you'll see a visual approximation of my head after watching the movie "Fight Club" for the first time. While I don't normally watch movies, this one absolutely sucked me in and blew me away. From the gradual build of Fight Club to Project Mayhem to the insane plot twist involving Tyler Durden to the high quality acting of Edward Norton, Brad Pitt and Helena Bonham Carter, this movie absolutely astounded me.
But, my policy with art, media or literature is that the creation in question must stand up to multiple views, reads or listens to truly be considered great. And so, back into the world of "Fight Club" I descend, rewatching it on my computer whenever I get a chance. And I'll be damned if the second time isn't better than the first. I had been sure when I started that I would be able to catch a slip on the writer's part; somewhere where a character reveals or acts contrary to the fact that Brad Pitt's character and Edward Norton's character are one and the same. But there's nothing. Not a single slip of character, not a single slip of dialogue that could even begin to give the secret away. The real brilliance of this though, is that the writers also manage to avoid giving you Edward Norton's character's name until the reveal, that the interactions between Brad Pitt's character and other characters in the film make perfect sense even when you go back and look at him as the same person as Edward Norton. The first time I watched it, I never found myself asking what the main character's name was. I simply assumed that I knew. And now that I'm watching it a second time, I'm finding that I'm never asking how Tyler Durden managed to do two things at once, because he doesn't.
Even now, after my second watching, there are still things I don't understand, lines that I haven't figured out, moments that don't make sense. So I guess it's back down the rabbit hole for another viewing. Look for an update to this post describing my third run through and until then, remember: The first rule of Fight Club is do not talk about Fight Club
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Neil Gaiman: God of Literature
I just finished "American Gods" by Neil Gaiman, and am truly just amazed. The story was fantastic, the characters interesting and deep and some of the imagery was simply breathtaking.
The story revolves around the idea that gods exist as long as there are any that believe in them, and that as soon as people stop believing the gods wither and die. I really like this concept because it turns the whole idea of a deity on its head. Generally, a deity creates its subjects, but in this book the subjects create the deity. The major conflict that first becomes apparent to you is that the old gods, the ones from traditional cultures, are getting shoved out of the way by some of the newer gods, gods like technology, the internet, TV, etc.
Gaiman's ability to create tension so palpable you can practically feel it really drives this book. Up until the climax in the last 50 pages, the whole book is basically a long, slow build. It feels like the calm before the storm, dragged out over almost 500 pages. In truth, I did find this build to be fairly arduous at times. Indeed, it actually took me about 6 months to get through this book, because I occasionally put it down for long periods of time due to feeling like there was nothing happening. After finishing though, I recognize the necessity of every word Gaiman wrote. A comparison to "A Tale of Two Cities" seems kind of apt. When I read that, I found the first third to be incredibly difficult and somewhat dry to get through. But after finishing it, I realized that the entire first third was world and character building designed to attach us to the setting and characters, which added to the climax of the story. After all that we had been through with Shadow (the protagonist) I felt a very deep connection to him.
Actually, there was this one specific moment from the interview with Neil Gaiman that stuck out to me. He was discussing how he had created and become attached the character of Shadow and said this:
"As for what attracted me to Shadow- well, as protagonists go, he's an immensely frustrating one to write. I kept hoping for someone who kept less on the inside, who would run around and ask questions and do all those things authors like, to help the plot along. Shadow didn't. He was astonishingly frustrating to write. But I wouldn't have swapped him for anyone else." This quote really struck me. Gaiman literally thought of Shadow as alive, breathing and totally autonomous. It seems kinda silly, but I had never really thought of characters that way.
The story revolves around the idea that gods exist as long as there are any that believe in them, and that as soon as people stop believing the gods wither and die. I really like this concept because it turns the whole idea of a deity on its head. Generally, a deity creates its subjects, but in this book the subjects create the deity. The major conflict that first becomes apparent to you is that the old gods, the ones from traditional cultures, are getting shoved out of the way by some of the newer gods, gods like technology, the internet, TV, etc.
Gaiman's ability to create tension so palpable you can practically feel it really drives this book. Up until the climax in the last 50 pages, the whole book is basically a long, slow build. It feels like the calm before the storm, dragged out over almost 500 pages. In truth, I did find this build to be fairly arduous at times. Indeed, it actually took me about 6 months to get through this book, because I occasionally put it down for long periods of time due to feeling like there was nothing happening. After finishing though, I recognize the necessity of every word Gaiman wrote. A comparison to "A Tale of Two Cities" seems kind of apt. When I read that, I found the first third to be incredibly difficult and somewhat dry to get through. But after finishing it, I realized that the entire first third was world and character building designed to attach us to the setting and characters, which added to the climax of the story. After all that we had been through with Shadow (the protagonist) I felt a very deep connection to him.
Actually, there was this one specific moment from the interview with Neil Gaiman that stuck out to me. He was discussing how he had created and become attached the character of Shadow and said this:
"As for what attracted me to Shadow- well, as protagonists go, he's an immensely frustrating one to write. I kept hoping for someone who kept less on the inside, who would run around and ask questions and do all those things authors like, to help the plot along. Shadow didn't. He was astonishingly frustrating to write. But I wouldn't have swapped him for anyone else." This quote really struck me. Gaiman literally thought of Shadow as alive, breathing and totally autonomous. It seems kinda silly, but I had never really thought of characters that way.
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Disgusting
I know that this isn't exactly a reaction to W.A.L.L., but I just wanted to throw this reaction down while it's fresh.
As far as I am concerned, the fans of the Kansas City football team are the most disgusting human beings on the planet right now. If you didn't hear what they did, let me share. Their quarterback got hit so hard on a play that he literally passed out. And the fans cheered. They cheered for any physical injury he might have sustained, they cheered for what could be the end of his career, they cheered for the practically unavoidable brain damage that could not only completely end his career but also potentially his life as he knows it, and most of all, they cheered for the sole reason that the team hasn't been winning while he's in charge.
Is that what our culture has come to? Are we so obsessed with winning that we will literally wish brain damage on someone just because they are performing slightly worse than the best in the world? As much as I try to forgive the sports culture, the culture that pays people millions of dollars for a physical talent, the culture that has infected colleges to the point that a college football player isn't a student-athlete, he's an athlete who happens to be a student, the culture that sometimes seems to worship physical prowess as the be-all and end-all of everything, sometimes I just can't.
As far as I am concerned, the fans of the Kansas City football team are the most disgusting human beings on the planet right now. If you didn't hear what they did, let me share. Their quarterback got hit so hard on a play that he literally passed out. And the fans cheered. They cheered for any physical injury he might have sustained, they cheered for what could be the end of his career, they cheered for the practically unavoidable brain damage that could not only completely end his career but also potentially his life as he knows it, and most of all, they cheered for the sole reason that the team hasn't been winning while he's in charge.
Is that what our culture has come to? Are we so obsessed with winning that we will literally wish brain damage on someone just because they are performing slightly worse than the best in the world? As much as I try to forgive the sports culture, the culture that pays people millions of dollars for a physical talent, the culture that has infected colleges to the point that a college football player isn't a student-athlete, he's an athlete who happens to be a student, the culture that sometimes seems to worship physical prowess as the be-all and end-all of everything, sometimes I just can't.
Monday, October 8, 2012
I Admit, I Was Wrong
WARNING: Although I did my best to avoid too many plot spoilers in this post, I was unable to avoid spoiling quite a few of the better jokes. So if you still want to see "Pitch Perfect", don't read this.
As I read the Rotten Tomatoes description of "Pitch Perfect", I sighed thinking that it would be another Glee ripoff that's trying to cash in on the recent popularity of shows relating to music. But while the plot itself isn't exactly revolutionary, I found that I really enjoyed this movie for two reason. One, it's one of the funniest mainstream movies I've seen in a long time and second, they made several cinematographic/scene choices that I found pleasing.
The first choice I noticed was that they did not show the cliche "announcing the winner" scene. Rather than use this championship as sort of a cheap way to build tension, that scene was skipped right over. For me, this helped place the emphasis of the movie not on the championship, but on the characters. The triumph was not the Bellas winning the championship, it was Aubrey learning to lose control, Beca learning to take control and finally, the group of girls that made up the Bellas learning to work together and organically to make music. If the crowning of the champion had been shown, it would have removed some of the character emphasis, replacing it instead with a sort of "everything is perfect at the end" cheap feel that I would have found very unsatisfying. The second choice (probably a directorial choice, but I'm no film expert) was the choice to end without wrapping everything perfectly up. The only romantic conclusion was Beca and Jesse and the whole rivalry with the Treblemakers was completely unresolved. I like it when a movie does this though, it allows a certain amount of imagination on the side of the watcher. It also just feels more realistic. In life, not everything ends absolutely perfectly. At least something small goes wrong, and this kind of ending allows for that.
Finally, the comedy. My low expectations were preparing me for a slew of sarcastic one-liners that would fall right out of my head the instant I left the theater. What I got was a mix of language, visual, and verbal humor that was occasionally shocking and always very funny. There were a fair amount of one-liners, but they were generally pretty original and good to hold you over until the next serious joke. The character Fat Amy had me falling out of my seat from the get-go, starting with her bit about matching a pitch all the way through her almost constant sarcastic commentary. I have to say though, my favorite character from a comedy point of view was the Chinese girl, Lily. Her running joke was that she said everything incredibly quietly. The thing is, some of her lines could have fit in a horror movie, if they were delivered in the right tone. For example, my favorite line of hers came when all the Bellas were telling each other one fact about themselves that no one knew. Lily's line? "I ate my twin in the womb." The absurdity of that line almost reminded me of some of the weirder British humor that came from the likes of Monty Python.
This movie really renewed my faith in modern filmmaking, showing that it is still possible for a big-name movie to be quirky, powerful and hysterically absurd.
As I read the Rotten Tomatoes description of "Pitch Perfect", I sighed thinking that it would be another Glee ripoff that's trying to cash in on the recent popularity of shows relating to music. But while the plot itself isn't exactly revolutionary, I found that I really enjoyed this movie for two reason. One, it's one of the funniest mainstream movies I've seen in a long time and second, they made several cinematographic/scene choices that I found pleasing.
The first choice I noticed was that they did not show the cliche "announcing the winner" scene. Rather than use this championship as sort of a cheap way to build tension, that scene was skipped right over. For me, this helped place the emphasis of the movie not on the championship, but on the characters. The triumph was not the Bellas winning the championship, it was Aubrey learning to lose control, Beca learning to take control and finally, the group of girls that made up the Bellas learning to work together and organically to make music. If the crowning of the champion had been shown, it would have removed some of the character emphasis, replacing it instead with a sort of "everything is perfect at the end" cheap feel that I would have found very unsatisfying. The second choice (probably a directorial choice, but I'm no film expert) was the choice to end without wrapping everything perfectly up. The only romantic conclusion was Beca and Jesse and the whole rivalry with the Treblemakers was completely unresolved. I like it when a movie does this though, it allows a certain amount of imagination on the side of the watcher. It also just feels more realistic. In life, not everything ends absolutely perfectly. At least something small goes wrong, and this kind of ending allows for that.
Finally, the comedy. My low expectations were preparing me for a slew of sarcastic one-liners that would fall right out of my head the instant I left the theater. What I got was a mix of language, visual, and verbal humor that was occasionally shocking and always very funny. There were a fair amount of one-liners, but they were generally pretty original and good to hold you over until the next serious joke. The character Fat Amy had me falling out of my seat from the get-go, starting with her bit about matching a pitch all the way through her almost constant sarcastic commentary. I have to say though, my favorite character from a comedy point of view was the Chinese girl, Lily. Her running joke was that she said everything incredibly quietly. The thing is, some of her lines could have fit in a horror movie, if they were delivered in the right tone. For example, my favorite line of hers came when all the Bellas were telling each other one fact about themselves that no one knew. Lily's line? "I ate my twin in the womb." The absurdity of that line almost reminded me of some of the weirder British humor that came from the likes of Monty Python.
This movie really renewed my faith in modern filmmaking, showing that it is still possible for a big-name movie to be quirky, powerful and hysterically absurd.
Saturday, October 6, 2012
Album Rundown
As an aficionado of music, I have quite a few albums that I'd like to review. Instead of doing a full post on all of them, I'd like to do a quick rundown of at least most of them. These are not necessarily in order from my favorite to my least favorite, just several albums that I truly find fantastic.
Neutral Milk's Hotel "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea" is probably one of the most emotional albums I've ever heard. The driving force behind the band is Jeff Mangum, the guitarist, vocalist and songwriter. His lyrics range from relatively obvious (see "The King of Carrot Flowers Pt. One") to the slightly bizarre (see "Communist Daughter") but his singing is always incredible passionate. There's one moment in the 8th track "Oh Comely" where he sings a long note and his voice just catches in a way that is just heartbreaking.
It's certainly not a perfect album (Mangum can be very pitchy at times) but the overwhelming emotion Mangum brings is well worth any technical flaws.
Favorite Track: "The King of Carrot Flowers Pt. One"
Next up: "The Suburbs" by Arcade Fire. Another emotionally ranging selection, "The Suburbs" is a concept album about something to do with the suburbs. I've really never figured out exactly what it's about, but it doesn't really matter. Win Butler's lyrics are fantastic, his singing passionate and the whole (despite being 8 people big) really seems to connect on a musical level to create a cohesive album that really flows from one track to the next. While it's certainly less raw than some of their previous albums, I think the polish just makes it sound more complete.
Favorite Track: "Rococo"
To change it up a little bit, next up is Rage Against the Machine's debut album, "Rage Against the Machine". The beauty of this album comes from its simplicity: Tom Morello's riffs barely move out of the Minor Pentatonic scale and very often feature large amounts of power chords. But the brutal simplicity of it works. They're not trying to amaze you with their musical talent, they're trying to slap you over the head with power.
And power they bring. With Zack de la Rocha's powerful leftist lyrics, Tom Morello's crazy solos, the grounded but still fantastic bass lines and the rock-solid drums, these guys really sound like one cohesive unit tossing musical Molotov cocktails onto the political scene.
Favorite Track: "Bullet in the Head"
Moving into some more modern sounds, here I have "Don't Say We Didn't Warn You" by Does It Offend You, Yeah? As you might have guessed, subtlety is not exactly this band's strong point. From screaming "get out of my f**king way" on "John Hurts" to yelling about funky monkeys on "The Monkeys Are Coming", the purpose of this album is to get right in your face and basically be as obnoxious as possible. That's not to say they don't have their soft side. Both "Pull Out My Insides" and "Broken Arms" are touching tracks, just to give your ears a break. For the most parts though, the rest of the tracks just want to make you get on your feet and dance very aggressively.
Favorite Track" "Wrestler"
Finally, I'd like to end with an album that has currently captured me, The xx's first album, "xx". A neat, whispery indie rock album, what has captured me most is that it's surprisingly catchy. Consisting of 2 guitarists, a bass and a drummer who play on synth, they have a really unique sound that I really haven't heard before. Even down to the drumming, they're very minimalist. There is a good amount of silence on the album, or even just space filled with only one instrument. The result is a very organic sounding album that, despite getting a bit repetitive, will leave you humming the tunes for hours after.
Favorite Track: "Crystalised"
Neutral Milk's Hotel "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea" is probably one of the most emotional albums I've ever heard. The driving force behind the band is Jeff Mangum, the guitarist, vocalist and songwriter. His lyrics range from relatively obvious (see "The King of Carrot Flowers Pt. One") to the slightly bizarre (see "Communist Daughter") but his singing is always incredible passionate. There's one moment in the 8th track "Oh Comely" where he sings a long note and his voice just catches in a way that is just heartbreaking.
It's certainly not a perfect album (Mangum can be very pitchy at times) but the overwhelming emotion Mangum brings is well worth any technical flaws.
Favorite Track: "The King of Carrot Flowers Pt. One"
Next up: "The Suburbs" by Arcade Fire. Another emotionally ranging selection, "The Suburbs" is a concept album about something to do with the suburbs. I've really never figured out exactly what it's about, but it doesn't really matter. Win Butler's lyrics are fantastic, his singing passionate and the whole (despite being 8 people big) really seems to connect on a musical level to create a cohesive album that really flows from one track to the next. While it's certainly less raw than some of their previous albums, I think the polish just makes it sound more complete.
Favorite Track: "Rococo"
To change it up a little bit, next up is Rage Against the Machine's debut album, "Rage Against the Machine". The beauty of this album comes from its simplicity: Tom Morello's riffs barely move out of the Minor Pentatonic scale and very often feature large amounts of power chords. But the brutal simplicity of it works. They're not trying to amaze you with their musical talent, they're trying to slap you over the head with power.
And power they bring. With Zack de la Rocha's powerful leftist lyrics, Tom Morello's crazy solos, the grounded but still fantastic bass lines and the rock-solid drums, these guys really sound like one cohesive unit tossing musical Molotov cocktails onto the political scene.
Favorite Track: "Bullet in the Head"
Moving into some more modern sounds, here I have "Don't Say We Didn't Warn You" by Does It Offend You, Yeah? As you might have guessed, subtlety is not exactly this band's strong point. From screaming "get out of my f**king way" on "John Hurts" to yelling about funky monkeys on "The Monkeys Are Coming", the purpose of this album is to get right in your face and basically be as obnoxious as possible. That's not to say they don't have their soft side. Both "Pull Out My Insides" and "Broken Arms" are touching tracks, just to give your ears a break. For the most parts though, the rest of the tracks just want to make you get on your feet and dance very aggressively.
Favorite Track" "Wrestler"
Finally, I'd like to end with an album that has currently captured me, The xx's first album, "xx". A neat, whispery indie rock album, what has captured me most is that it's surprisingly catchy. Consisting of 2 guitarists, a bass and a drummer who play on synth, they have a really unique sound that I really haven't heard before. Even down to the drumming, they're very minimalist. There is a good amount of silence on the album, or even just space filled with only one instrument. The result is a very organic sounding album that, despite getting a bit repetitive, will leave you humming the tunes for hours after.
Favorite Track: "Crystalised"
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
I Am Impressed
That title basically sums up my feelings about "Words Like Loaded Pistols" after that introduction.
Sam Leith's writing truly encapsulates everything I like about non-fiction authors. He's funny and engaging, but still very informative. He also oozes this sort of assured confidence that usually comes with experience and deep knowledge. A little rule I have for life is that the best way to test if someone knows there stuff in a certain subject is if they are able to make a witty joke or use a clever example, and Leith does both very effectively. He also isn't afraid to poke fun at himself (the footnote on page 22) as well, a trait that I find pretty important as well. People who genuinely poke fun at themselves often do so because they are self-confident enough to know that they aren't perfect and never will be and humble enough to admit it, two powerful traits.
What's kind of scary is that it's entirely possible that he's using rhetoric very effectively on me. Perhaps he isn't really clever or funny or humble. Perhaps he's actually kind of a jerk; all I can see is the persona he's chosen to put on for this book. I mean, to a certain extent who you are very much comes through in your writing, but as we learned from Zeitoun, it's entirely possible for an author to sleight your view of a character pretty significantly in a certain direction.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not calling Leith a liar. I think of myself as a pretty trusting guy, and so I'm willing to believe that he in real life is at least mostly similar to the persona he puts up in his writing. But all that is required to totally fool us over is the skill he is an expert in: rhetoric.
But, regardless of how genuine he actually is, his writing seems very helpful and I am very much looking forward to learning from Leith.
Sam Leith's writing truly encapsulates everything I like about non-fiction authors. He's funny and engaging, but still very informative. He also oozes this sort of assured confidence that usually comes with experience and deep knowledge. A little rule I have for life is that the best way to test if someone knows there stuff in a certain subject is if they are able to make a witty joke or use a clever example, and Leith does both very effectively. He also isn't afraid to poke fun at himself (the footnote on page 22) as well, a trait that I find pretty important as well. People who genuinely poke fun at themselves often do so because they are self-confident enough to know that they aren't perfect and never will be and humble enough to admit it, two powerful traits.
What's kind of scary is that it's entirely possible that he's using rhetoric very effectively on me. Perhaps he isn't really clever or funny or humble. Perhaps he's actually kind of a jerk; all I can see is the persona he's chosen to put on for this book. I mean, to a certain extent who you are very much comes through in your writing, but as we learned from Zeitoun, it's entirely possible for an author to sleight your view of a character pretty significantly in a certain direction.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not calling Leith a liar. I think of myself as a pretty trusting guy, and so I'm willing to believe that he in real life is at least mostly similar to the persona he puts up in his writing. But all that is required to totally fool us over is the skill he is an expert in: rhetoric.
But, regardless of how genuine he actually is, his writing seems very helpful and I am very much looking forward to learning from Leith.
Monday, October 1, 2012
Liberal Arts: Worth the Money?
According to Scott Gerber, no and he sure is good at backing that claim up. From statistics to logos to just plain anger, Mr. Gerber does a very good job of demonstrating how LIberal Arts programs are failing their students.
His opening line, "When are Americans going to wake up and realize that the 60s and 70s-era nostalgia for the "value" of a college degree is just that -- nostalgia?" He follows the statistics with an anecdote. He was at a conference in California at the Lyles Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship. He praises some of the colleges here for adapting to the times and recognizing that entrepreneurship is a necessary skill in today's world. However, he bashes one specific college president who cut an entrepreneurship program because he "didn't understand the tangible value of such a program." And this is where the pathos begins. For the next paragraph and a half, he doesn't really offer any proof or even logic, he simply makes emotional claims such as "we are failing not only our kids with the current state of liberal arts degrees, we are failing the economy". These claims work though, because he has already demonstrated with numbers that he's right in the preceding paragraphs.
He then jumps back into numbers, giving poll results on students and finding that of the 44 percent of the population that had access to entrepreneur classes, only 38 percent found those classes helpful. Again, before going too deep into pathos he falls back to statistics, which help his ethos because it veers away from bias and toward fact.
Then he starts another anecdote about Babson, this time relying on logos for persuasion. Babson students spend less time in the classroom, and more time being an entrepreneur in a controlled environment. Learn by doing, makes sense right? It does makes sense, and Mr. Gerber is depending on that.
He ends with a pretty personal stab at college presidents by comparing them to CEOs. If a CEO turned out a product that was unusable (unusable being an analogy for unemployed), that CEO would get fired. And so too should college presidents, Gerber says.
Through his varied use of different types of appeals and clever placement of facts, Scott Gerber creates a very persuasive point that sounds passionate without sounding biased.
His opening line, "When are Americans going to wake up and realize that the 60s and 70s-era nostalgia for the "value" of a college degree is just that -- nostalgia?" He follows the statistics with an anecdote. He was at a conference in California at the Lyles Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship. He praises some of the colleges here for adapting to the times and recognizing that entrepreneurship is a necessary skill in today's world. However, he bashes one specific college president who cut an entrepreneurship program because he "didn't understand the tangible value of such a program." And this is where the pathos begins. For the next paragraph and a half, he doesn't really offer any proof or even logic, he simply makes emotional claims such as "we are failing not only our kids with the current state of liberal arts degrees, we are failing the economy". These claims work though, because he has already demonstrated with numbers that he's right in the preceding paragraphs.
He then jumps back into numbers, giving poll results on students and finding that of the 44 percent of the population that had access to entrepreneur classes, only 38 percent found those classes helpful. Again, before going too deep into pathos he falls back to statistics, which help his ethos because it veers away from bias and toward fact.
Then he starts another anecdote about Babson, this time relying on logos for persuasion. Babson students spend less time in the classroom, and more time being an entrepreneur in a controlled environment. Learn by doing, makes sense right? It does makes sense, and Mr. Gerber is depending on that.
He ends with a pretty personal stab at college presidents by comparing them to CEOs. If a CEO turned out a product that was unusable (unusable being an analogy for unemployed), that CEO would get fired. And so too should college presidents, Gerber says.
Through his varied use of different types of appeals and clever placement of facts, Scott Gerber creates a very persuasive point that sounds passionate without sounding biased.
Monday, September 24, 2012
To the Haters,
This post is not so much a reaction to literature as it is a reaction to a reaction to literature.
Let me explain. Recently, I have gotten into several debates with some of my peers (both inside and outside of this classroom) on the merit of the medium of comic books. My fellow classmates seem to be convinced that they are practically without literary merit when compared to regular books and generally look upon them with a certain amount of disdain and, if I may say so myself, arrogance. Their uneducated attitude has inspired me to defend a medium that I have become quite a fan of in the last several years.
For starters, several of my classmates (well, one really. But I won't single him out) are convinced that comic books are not even literature. I take extreme offense to that statement, especially considering the rather broad definition of literature. According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of literature is as follows:
(1): Writings in prose or verse; especially; writings having excellence in form or expression of ideas of permanent or universal interest (2): an example of such writings
A comic book tells a story through prose, so already it's in. Beyond that, many comic books have excellence of form or expression and quite a few express ideas of permanent or universal interest. If you really want to continue arguing about whether comic books as a whole are literature, I can simply roll out the example of "Twilight" to "prove" that books as a whole aren't literature.
Once it's been proved that it is literature, they fall back on another argument: "Well then they have less literary merit than books."
Really? Now let me ask you, how many comic books have you read? Now I'm not talking about some Spiderman comic you read in the newspaper as a kid because those are basically like reading the book of any Hollywood action movie (yes, those do exist), I'm talking something with depth and meaning, something like Sandman by Neil Gaiman or Watchmen by Alan Moore. You've read none? And yet you want to comment on their literary merit, something that is, for the most part, pretty darn subjective? Even Mr. Tallman admits that what he sees in a book is not always the only correct answer, that it is possible to view things in an entirely different way than him and still be right but you, without even reading any of them, are able to judge them in their entirety? If that doesn't SCREAM arrogance, I really don't know what does.
If you don't believe that these comic books actually have depth, go read them. In them you will find some of the most interesting characters I've ever encountered, some of the most interesting plot twists I've ever experienced, and some of the most well-used tropes, themes and symbols I've ever found. The 8th volume of Sandman features an introduction by Stephen King that reads in part, "So these are smart stories, and cunningly crafted stories. Fortunately for us, they are also good stories, little wonders of economy and surprise."
No offense to all you students, but I'm pretty sure Stephen King knows a thing or two about writing that you might not. So when he recommends something so strongly, I suggest you take a listen.
After all that, they fall back on another easily contested argument: "Well, comic books don't need descriptions so they don't have as much merit."
Ohh where to start. In fairness, there is a certain amount of truth to this. The authors don't have to describe what everything looks like. However, this often leads them into an even more difficult description: what someone is like, what that person's essence, what their being is like. Beyond that, the visuals of a comic allow the author (who has a more significant process in the drawing than you'd think) another place to put symbols, to emphasize themes, adding another dimension to the important parts of literature that hide just beneath the story, adding to it in subtle but important ways. Finally, the art actually helps lead the story along, helps push the reader's assumptions and views in a certain direction, and add meaning to the story in a way that the author really has to be in firm control of if they want to have control over their story.
If this was too long for you, basically what I'm saying is that you should just shut your mouth about comic books until you've actually read some.
Let me explain. Recently, I have gotten into several debates with some of my peers (both inside and outside of this classroom) on the merit of the medium of comic books. My fellow classmates seem to be convinced that they are practically without literary merit when compared to regular books and generally look upon them with a certain amount of disdain and, if I may say so myself, arrogance. Their uneducated attitude has inspired me to defend a medium that I have become quite a fan of in the last several years.
For starters, several of my classmates (well, one really. But I won't single him out) are convinced that comic books are not even literature. I take extreme offense to that statement, especially considering the rather broad definition of literature. According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of literature is as follows:
(1): Writings in prose or verse; especially; writings having excellence in form or expression of ideas of permanent or universal interest (2): an example of such writings
A comic book tells a story through prose, so already it's in. Beyond that, many comic books have excellence of form or expression and quite a few express ideas of permanent or universal interest. If you really want to continue arguing about whether comic books as a whole are literature, I can simply roll out the example of "Twilight" to "prove" that books as a whole aren't literature.
Once it's been proved that it is literature, they fall back on another argument: "Well then they have less literary merit than books."
Really? Now let me ask you, how many comic books have you read? Now I'm not talking about some Spiderman comic you read in the newspaper as a kid because those are basically like reading the book of any Hollywood action movie (yes, those do exist), I'm talking something with depth and meaning, something like Sandman by Neil Gaiman or Watchmen by Alan Moore. You've read none? And yet you want to comment on their literary merit, something that is, for the most part, pretty darn subjective? Even Mr. Tallman admits that what he sees in a book is not always the only correct answer, that it is possible to view things in an entirely different way than him and still be right but you, without even reading any of them, are able to judge them in their entirety? If that doesn't SCREAM arrogance, I really don't know what does.
If you don't believe that these comic books actually have depth, go read them. In them you will find some of the most interesting characters I've ever encountered, some of the most interesting plot twists I've ever experienced, and some of the most well-used tropes, themes and symbols I've ever found. The 8th volume of Sandman features an introduction by Stephen King that reads in part, "So these are smart stories, and cunningly crafted stories. Fortunately for us, they are also good stories, little wonders of economy and surprise."
No offense to all you students, but I'm pretty sure Stephen King knows a thing or two about writing that you might not. So when he recommends something so strongly, I suggest you take a listen.
After all that, they fall back on another easily contested argument: "Well, comic books don't need descriptions so they don't have as much merit."
Ohh where to start. In fairness, there is a certain amount of truth to this. The authors don't have to describe what everything looks like. However, this often leads them into an even more difficult description: what someone is like, what that person's essence, what their being is like. Beyond that, the visuals of a comic allow the author (who has a more significant process in the drawing than you'd think) another place to put symbols, to emphasize themes, adding another dimension to the important parts of literature that hide just beneath the story, adding to it in subtle but important ways. Finally, the art actually helps lead the story along, helps push the reader's assumptions and views in a certain direction, and add meaning to the story in a way that the author really has to be in firm control of if they want to have control over their story.
If this was too long for you, basically what I'm saying is that you should just shut your mouth about comic books until you've actually read some.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Surprised by Logos
When Mr. Tallman announced that we must write a blog post about some sort of rhetorical appeal, I immediately knew where I would go. The column on the left side of the Metro section of the Boston Globe always has some sort of appeal to pathos, whether it be a story about gang violence told from the perspective of the mothers of victims or a success story of some extraordinary kid. But, to my surprise, I found that this Sunday's column was much more of an appeal to logos. The article, by Yvonne Abraham, discusses Gavin Middle School in South Boston. Previously a school where 75% of the students scored less than proficient on the math MCAS, the school has turned itself around very quickly and very efficiently. The reasons why constitutes the bulk of the article. The first step Superintendent Carol Johnson took was to turn the school into the city's first in-district charter school, using a non-profit school management organization called Unlocking Potential. The newly christened UP Academy immediately saw math MCAS "proficiency" rates jump almost 25%, with English "proficiency" rates jumping 22% as well.
How did they do it? Not through any sort of radical new teaching method but through simple, logical steps that any school could pretty easily take. First, lengthen the school day. As obvious as it sounds, more time in school equals more learning. Second of all, hire extra teachers. The extra personnel allows for more tutoring hours with the students more collaboration between the teachers and extra professional days, simply because each teacher has more time outside the classroom to better their performance inside the classroom. Finally, UP Academy puts emphasis on teacher evaluation, giving the teachers the knowledge they need to improve their classroom.
What makes this an appeal to logos, though, is the relative lack of statistics. Yes, there were the before and after percentages I mention above, but Ms. Abraham makes no effort to prove that the steps taken caused those changes, instead merely pointing out a correlation. What proves to the reader that these steps have been effective is that they are logical. More time in school equals better grades: it makes sense. It doesn't require statistics or numbers to be persuasive, because it speaks to reason and logic.
How did they do it? Not through any sort of radical new teaching method but through simple, logical steps that any school could pretty easily take. First, lengthen the school day. As obvious as it sounds, more time in school equals more learning. Second of all, hire extra teachers. The extra personnel allows for more tutoring hours with the students more collaboration between the teachers and extra professional days, simply because each teacher has more time outside the classroom to better their performance inside the classroom. Finally, UP Academy puts emphasis on teacher evaluation, giving the teachers the knowledge they need to improve their classroom.
What makes this an appeal to logos, though, is the relative lack of statistics. Yes, there were the before and after percentages I mention above, but Ms. Abraham makes no effort to prove that the steps taken caused those changes, instead merely pointing out a correlation. What proves to the reader that these steps have been effective is that they are logical. More time in school equals better grades: it makes sense. It doesn't require statistics or numbers to be persuasive, because it speaks to reason and logic.
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Obama vs. the Middle East?
Note: This is not my appeal post, just something I finished up
After a summer of eating my first meal of the day with "The Boston Globe" or "The Wall Street Journal" in hand, I've developed a brand new idiosyncrasy: whenever I sit down to eat, I get an overwhelming urge to read something political. This time, I picked up the most recent print of Newsweek, a magazine I'm a fan of. While there were quite a few interesting articles on the movie trailer that has sparked Islamic rage across the world, the article that caught my eye was entitled "Obama's Mideast Meltdown" by Niall Ferguson. In it, Mr. Ferguson describes how he believes Obama botched foreign relations with the Middle East. This article certainly stimulated thought for me, although I'm still trying to figure whether or not I agree. Mr. Ferguson, does however, write very persuasively and succinctly.
Mr. Ferguson's first starts with a flashback to Jimmy Carter, another Democrat in the White House while a violent Islamic revolution was occurring. He quotes speeches by both presidents, pointing out how similar they both are and then makes the claim that as Jimmy Carter's hopes for respect and tolerance were met with extremism, so have Obama's hopes for respect and tolerance. While I was still skeptical of the claim that foreign relations were as strained as they were in 1980, Mr. Ferguson's use of primary sources is pretty darn powerful.
After that, Mr. Ferguson began backing up his claim with statistics, mostly polls showing how many of the population dislike America. While the blatant and occasionally brutal use of these statistics is very effective, my skepticism was not quite allayed. For one, any poll coming out of an area as unstable as that is going to be pretty inaccurate. For two, I have a hard time blaming a president for a region's opinions on the entirety of America. For example, the movie trailer that has recently gone viral has caused massive outrage among Muslim countries, but there is simply no way for Obama to prevent that. This section really does work though, because simply put numbers are very effective.
While I don't feel that Mr. Ferguson managed to completely convince me, his article was certainly well written, as they usually are.
After a summer of eating my first meal of the day with "The Boston Globe" or "The Wall Street Journal" in hand, I've developed a brand new idiosyncrasy: whenever I sit down to eat, I get an overwhelming urge to read something political. This time, I picked up the most recent print of Newsweek, a magazine I'm a fan of. While there were quite a few interesting articles on the movie trailer that has sparked Islamic rage across the world, the article that caught my eye was entitled "Obama's Mideast Meltdown" by Niall Ferguson. In it, Mr. Ferguson describes how he believes Obama botched foreign relations with the Middle East. This article certainly stimulated thought for me, although I'm still trying to figure whether or not I agree. Mr. Ferguson, does however, write very persuasively and succinctly.
Mr. Ferguson's first starts with a flashback to Jimmy Carter, another Democrat in the White House while a violent Islamic revolution was occurring. He quotes speeches by both presidents, pointing out how similar they both are and then makes the claim that as Jimmy Carter's hopes for respect and tolerance were met with extremism, so have Obama's hopes for respect and tolerance. While I was still skeptical of the claim that foreign relations were as strained as they were in 1980, Mr. Ferguson's use of primary sources is pretty darn powerful.
After that, Mr. Ferguson began backing up his claim with statistics, mostly polls showing how many of the population dislike America. While the blatant and occasionally brutal use of these statistics is very effective, my skepticism was not quite allayed. For one, any poll coming out of an area as unstable as that is going to be pretty inaccurate. For two, I have a hard time blaming a president for a region's opinions on the entirety of America. For example, the movie trailer that has recently gone viral has caused massive outrage among Muslim countries, but there is simply no way for Obama to prevent that. This section really does work though, because simply put numbers are very effective.
While I don't feel that Mr. Ferguson managed to completely convince me, his article was certainly well written, as they usually are.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Vundabar
NOTE: I know this is sort of an unorthodox post for an AP English blog, but I wrote this review for a music blog I'm a part of (http://muziqclub.blogspot.com/) so I figured I'd just post it on here.
Vundabar is a band from Scituate, Massachusetts, comprised of Brandon Hagen (vocals, guitar) and Drew McDonald (drums). They recently released their first EP, The Holy Toledo, which is available for free on Bandcamp.
For starters, I’ll just say up front that I do really like this EP. It ain’t perfect, not by a long shot, but it shows a ton of potential. The riffs, drum parts, vocals just their whole feel really has a certain amount of depth and originality that is a pleasure to the ear.
For starters, I’ll just say up front that I do really like this EP. It ain’t perfect, not by a long shot, but it shows a ton of potential. The riffs, drum parts, vocals just their whole feel really has a certain amount of depth and originality that is a pleasure to the ear.
Saturday, September 15, 2012
"The Paradox Of Choice"
Recently, I have been reading “The Paradox of Choice” by
Barry Schwartz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice:_Why_More_Is_Less),
a book that asks the question of whether the astounding amount of choice today’s
world offers is truly helping us. I am only several chapters in, but I can
already make several complaints about his writing and claims.
The first section of this book is dedicated to outlining
ways that choice has expanded exponentially in our lives. It’s not exactly an
exciting start, but I’ll get into that more later. One claim he made really
stuck out to me. He mentioned TV shows and how the amount of them has simply
exploded since the TV was introduced, eventually mentioning TiVo as another way
that our choice has expanded. After all that, he claims that with all the
choice available, “American TV viewers will be struggling to find a shared TV
experience.” I found this statement to be highly objectionable. The most
popular TV shows get millions of viewers. Finding someone at school who doesn’t
at least know about the Big Bang Theory is quickly becoming impossible. Also,
with the popularity of Facebook, being able to share in a show is exponentially
easier. He made a similar claim with college too, saying that the lack of core
courses was leading to a lack of a shared experience among young adults. Well,
I thought, some colleges have upwards of 8,000 students. For each graduating
class, that’s 2,000 students. No matter how many core classes you share, no one
can really bond with 2,000 people. Psychologically, the average person can only
form deep relationships with about 150 people.
Don’t get me wrong, I think that Mr. Schwartz probably has a valid point about choice, it just seems that it fits better for consumer choices rather than cultural or educational.
Don’t get me wrong, I think that Mr. Schwartz probably has a valid point about choice, it just seems that it fits better for consumer choices rather than cultural or educational.
My second complaint involves the structure of the book. As I
mentioned above, the book starts off simply listing ways that modern America has
too many choices. Unfortunately, this gets rather tedious pretty quickly. He
seems to be saying basically the same thing over and over, simply replacing
what exactly he’s talking about without really altering the point of each
section. Not only is it boring, it seems like kind of a waste being put here.
It would make much more sense to me to save all of these statistics and claims
to use in a more anecdotal way later on in the book. Used that way, it seems
like it could add some validity and variety to a section that is perhaps more
theoretical or psychological. As is, it’s just kind of boring.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
My College Essay
Playing on the BC High JV Tennis
Team was a blast. I had improved my playing skills, made a bunch of friends and
matured mentally. Although I was a little disappointed that I wouldn’t get to
work on this awesome play a bunch of my friends were writing, I was looking
forward to playing on the team, so sure that I would make it again. A week of
tryouts later, I was officially cut from the team. By Monday at about 3:30pm, I
had totally forgotten about tennis. At that moment, I was in the theatre,
helping out with that play my friends and I were working on. I was having more
fun than I ever had playing tennis, and more than that, what we were doing felt
very satisfying. Although I had been playing tennis for basically all my life,
the satisfaction and enjoyment I was experiencing from theater helped me
quickly move on from the disappointment of getting cut.
Now that I’ve started in medias
res, let me go back to the beginning of my adventures in theater. My first
experience with theater was at the beginning of sophomore year, totally on a
whim. I had a friend who did theater tech, and I had nothing to do in the fall
so I figured what the heck. With the exception of August 2011 and August 2012,
I haven’t really stopped since. Mainly, I’ve done shows for school but I’ve
also worked as an intern at a local summer theater company and even been a part
of an all-teen acting troupe. My biggest regret in life is that I was narrow-minded
freshman year and convinced myself that “theater just wasn’t for me.” I could
not have been further from the truth. Theater fits who I am and who I want to
be perfectly. I was always shy, but theater has boosted my self-confidence.
I’ve always thought of myself as a problem solver and critical thinker, theater
lets me stretch those muscles every day. Despite being shy, I have always been
interested in people (psychology is one of my favorite subjects) and theater is
possibly the most social performing art there is. I have always believed that
the best friends are not those who are the most popular, but those who are the
most interesting. I have yet to meet an uninteresting theater person. Actually,
there is a quote that really resonates with me from Aesop’s Fables that states
“You are known by the company that you keep”.
To be known by the company I keep means to be known as quirky,
interesting, intelligent, kind, funny and most of all outgoing and confident. After
an entire childhood and early adolescence suggesting otherwise, I have found
that my true home, my true niche in life is being a theater person.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)