The thing about having a space like this to write on, you start thinking about things to fill it up with. But when inspiration hits you may not be able to just fly down to the nearest terminal and input whatever has entered your mind. For my part, I've had a very busy week and have only just recovered- so let's see if there's anything of note for me to record.
Of course by "of note" I will hope for entertaining and otherwise take what I can get.
The oldest thing on my mind has to do with a random other blogspot page- feeling I should expand my interests here I read some page that started with a downer of an entry, I almost responded to try and cheer this person up... until I saw that every single post was similar. Glancing to the side with the authors personal info my worst fears were revealed- I was on a site written by an 18 year old girl. The mind recoils in horror.
My Wednesday and Thursday were a couple of Groundhog days- I had the same bus driver to work, and as I was crossing the bridge into the Exhibition grounds from Dufferin the GO train burst through and chugged along by me. It struck me as surreal.
I was thinking about this one friend of mine the other day, let's call him Steve. I was thinking about how he could be really sweet and nice, but also selfish, self involved; if you were to ask him about his own philosophy of life he would actually say something akin to "I look out for what's best for me".
While I'm sure it's no surprise to hear someone can be both good and bad (to put it as simply as possible) the real suprise comes when Steve flat out will tell you he's bad. It seems to me that this is a response to Steve trying to reconcile his disparate sides- because he knows he can't be good all the time, because he knows he has that other side to him, he chooses to embrace that other. It serves as both an excuse to have his other side (I do bad because I am bad) and as a protection against other peoples expectations. I know this because I do this as well, though for me I'll say (to use one example) something along the lines of "yes, I'm a pretty lazy guy" but then I'll be doing something and can sit back and watch myself and think "you know, I'm actually a really hard worker". So maybe I'm just projecting onto "Steve" and he's actually just a huge jerk. How should I know?? Well, unless I'm "Steve".
Hopefully I've made it as impossible as possible to tell who Steve could be- is it me, is it you? I guess I shouldn't obsess over obfuscating that identity.
Ah, I wallow in the certainty of a small readership.
That's everything I can remember I wanted to bring up.. I've got an interview for the supervisor position at Ontario Place tomorrow, so that's cool.
My dreams used to be 96% good. It's a radically different ratio these days. I wanted to say that to someone but it puts to much pressure on them. There's no good response they can give.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Varied Colours
While walking to work a few days ago I noticed an orange crayon on the ground, partially smashed with the little broken parts forming a sort of explosive effect.
To have a lone crayon like that, out on a deserted street, I thought was a powerful image. I was a little disappointed to find another crayon, purple, five feet away. You think somethings unique..
I then noticed my left hand was balled into a little fist (which genuinely surprised me), the taut skin between thumb and forefinger numb, the sole target of the remaining cold wind, like some kind of ineffective sail to the rest of my body.
For the remainder of the evening I couldn't help but try and put those two observations together into some kind of poetic cohesion- nothing really came to mind. So it's just the facts Ma'am.
I was pleased to note that the next day on my way to work the crayons were still there- even worse for wear, but there.
***
I saw a little girl call her mother "mumsy" (or something else appropriately folksy, pretty sure it was mumsy, but I was wracking my brain trying to be sure. All I can say with certainty was how it jumped out at me with its anachronistic sweetness. Cracked my heart a bit.)
My latest library holds weren't in the public access space, maybe they just hadn't been moved there yet, so the librarian went and got them for me from their safe spot behind the counter (I've recieved aid from that librarian before, hers is a face I've known for running on seven years now though I don't know her name. The cane is new, as is the limp. Not fair that she has to move around for the sake of my Incredible Hulk DVD. Cracked my heart a bit more.)
***
On the grass, just short of the street, on my way home- a green marker, still in one piece, sits on the off-green grass.
To have a lone crayon like that, out on a deserted street, I thought was a powerful image. I was a little disappointed to find another crayon, purple, five feet away. You think somethings unique..
I then noticed my left hand was balled into a little fist (which genuinely surprised me), the taut skin between thumb and forefinger numb, the sole target of the remaining cold wind, like some kind of ineffective sail to the rest of my body.
For the remainder of the evening I couldn't help but try and put those two observations together into some kind of poetic cohesion- nothing really came to mind. So it's just the facts Ma'am.
I was pleased to note that the next day on my way to work the crayons were still there- even worse for wear, but there.
***
I saw a little girl call her mother "mumsy" (or something else appropriately folksy, pretty sure it was mumsy, but I was wracking my brain trying to be sure. All I can say with certainty was how it jumped out at me with its anachronistic sweetness. Cracked my heart a bit.)
My latest library holds weren't in the public access space, maybe they just hadn't been moved there yet, so the librarian went and got them for me from their safe spot behind the counter (I've recieved aid from that librarian before, hers is a face I've known for running on seven years now though I don't know her name. The cane is new, as is the limp. Not fair that she has to move around for the sake of my Incredible Hulk DVD. Cracked my heart a bit more.)
***
On the grass, just short of the street, on my way home- a green marker, still in one piece, sits on the off-green grass.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Putting Words to Ideas
I blasted my way through this "Batman and Philosophy" book last night... in fact I kept going and read a third of this book of essays on Spider-Man. It's way too easy to instruct me with a super hero teaching aide.
I'm pleased to note that there are a number of names that always show up; Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger and others- it's comforting that this ISN'T the first time I've read those names.
I especially enjoyed Heidegger in this book, here's a passage that caught my eye... okay here it is:
"But what does it mean to want to have a conscience? According to Heidegger, much of what passes for human behaviour is motivated by self-deception, both intentional and unintentional. People are constantly fleeing from their own possibilities, their past, and the inevitability of their own death, toward what is familiar and comforting. This state of fleeing is the defining characteristic of fallenness. We want existence to be something settled, to know we had no real choice in our failures or misfortunes, and that life has a clear-cut purpose we just need to find. As a result, much of social life ends up being an elaborate diversion to avoid contemplating the reality of our own mortality. As Heidegger sees it, we cannot authentically desire to have a conscience as long as we buy into a world in which everything in life is settled and death is some vague and distant event, since the only purpose that conscience can have under these conditions is censoring our individuality."
That was written by Jason J. Howard, most probably utilizing concepts from Heidegger's "Being and Time".
But I really wish I had written that instead.
It's interesting the different kind of language used in "Batman and Philosophy" versus "Webslingers". The philosophy entries are incredibly exact, introducing and defining each new term and how they relate to each other. Part of that is just to get things across to a layman- but I rather get the impression that this isn't too different from most academic writing on the subject. Not that I should really need to rely on my impression- I have read some academic philosophy (by which I mean modern philosophy and modern commentary on philosophy) at school, so- unequivocally (I'm taking a stand. In my chair. Metaphorically, I'm taking a stand.) this is how academic philosophy is presented!
With "Webslingers", on the other hand, there's much more freedom in the presentation, and far less concern with bringing up and arguing against the opposing points of view. The subject matter is necessarily different as well- philosophical subject matter contends with finding the good, maximizing potential, the meaning of life, all that simple stuff- while the others subject matter (it's easy to categorize the contents of "Batman and Philosophy" as philosophy- they tell me what to call it right in the title!) follows the varied interests and interpretations of the various writers involved- the first essay considers the Spider-Man origin story as subversive horror sliding through the Comics Code Authority, another addresses the evident self loathing responsible for keeping Spidey from getting his life together- it's sociology, psychology, politics, AND philosophy.
It's generally broader and, yes, easier, than just philosophy. In fact, in the one essay so far from "Webslingers" by a philosopher (I mean a professional student of philosophy, I wouldn't go so far as to say none of the others are philosophers.) says that if philosophy doesn't make you a bit uncomfortable, then it isn't doing its job right. That's a tough sales pitch.
A final thing, unless it isn't- my title "Putting Words to Ideas", aside from the obvious transference of certain words from in my brain to on this screen, I haven't really addressed why specifically that title was chosen for this post. Howard's interpretation of Heidegger expressed something that I have only barely, if ever, been able to articulate- and it's fantastic to me when that happens. When I see something that speaks to me, that is a real reflection of something in me, it tells me that maybe it is possible to communicate something and connect with someone. I get that with Wordsworths frustration at finding the right thing to write about... I think with Keats too, but it's been a couple of years on that one.
But then watch I'll explain what excited me about someones work (let's say to Wordsworth for hilarities sake) and he'll hear me out and then go- "yeeeah no. No, that's not what I meant at all."
One persons green is another persons orange. But they still call it green. If you get my meaning. It's okay if you don't, just so long as you think you do.
I'm pleased to note that there are a number of names that always show up; Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger and others- it's comforting that this ISN'T the first time I've read those names.
I especially enjoyed Heidegger in this book, here's a passage that caught my eye... okay here it is:
"But what does it mean to want to have a conscience? According to Heidegger, much of what passes for human behaviour is motivated by self-deception, both intentional and unintentional. People are constantly fleeing from their own possibilities, their past, and the inevitability of their own death, toward what is familiar and comforting. This state of fleeing is the defining characteristic of fallenness. We want existence to be something settled, to know we had no real choice in our failures or misfortunes, and that life has a clear-cut purpose we just need to find. As a result, much of social life ends up being an elaborate diversion to avoid contemplating the reality of our own mortality. As Heidegger sees it, we cannot authentically desire to have a conscience as long as we buy into a world in which everything in life is settled and death is some vague and distant event, since the only purpose that conscience can have under these conditions is censoring our individuality."
That was written by Jason J. Howard, most probably utilizing concepts from Heidegger's "Being and Time".
But I really wish I had written that instead.
It's interesting the different kind of language used in "Batman and Philosophy" versus "Webslingers". The philosophy entries are incredibly exact, introducing and defining each new term and how they relate to each other. Part of that is just to get things across to a layman- but I rather get the impression that this isn't too different from most academic writing on the subject. Not that I should really need to rely on my impression- I have read some academic philosophy (by which I mean modern philosophy and modern commentary on philosophy) at school, so- unequivocally (I'm taking a stand. In my chair. Metaphorically, I'm taking a stand.) this is how academic philosophy is presented!
With "Webslingers", on the other hand, there's much more freedom in the presentation, and far less concern with bringing up and arguing against the opposing points of view. The subject matter is necessarily different as well- philosophical subject matter contends with finding the good, maximizing potential, the meaning of life, all that simple stuff- while the others subject matter (it's easy to categorize the contents of "Batman and Philosophy" as philosophy- they tell me what to call it right in the title!) follows the varied interests and interpretations of the various writers involved- the first essay considers the Spider-Man origin story as subversive horror sliding through the Comics Code Authority, another addresses the evident self loathing responsible for keeping Spidey from getting his life together- it's sociology, psychology, politics, AND philosophy.
It's generally broader and, yes, easier, than just philosophy. In fact, in the one essay so far from "Webslingers" by a philosopher (I mean a professional student of philosophy, I wouldn't go so far as to say none of the others are philosophers.) says that if philosophy doesn't make you a bit uncomfortable, then it isn't doing its job right. That's a tough sales pitch.
A final thing, unless it isn't- my title "Putting Words to Ideas", aside from the obvious transference of certain words from in my brain to on this screen, I haven't really addressed why specifically that title was chosen for this post. Howard's interpretation of Heidegger expressed something that I have only barely, if ever, been able to articulate- and it's fantastic to me when that happens. When I see something that speaks to me, that is a real reflection of something in me, it tells me that maybe it is possible to communicate something and connect with someone. I get that with Wordsworths frustration at finding the right thing to write about... I think with Keats too, but it's been a couple of years on that one.
But then watch I'll explain what excited me about someones work (let's say to Wordsworth for hilarities sake) and he'll hear me out and then go- "yeeeah no. No, that's not what I meant at all."
One persons green is another persons orange. But they still call it green. If you get my meaning. It's okay if you don't, just so long as you think you do.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Learning is fun
A while ago I picked up the biography about Steve Ditko "Strange and Stranger: The World of Steve Ditko". It's an amazing coffee table style book (you know, if I believed in coffee tables), it's over sized, and chock full of Ditko's work. It does an excellent job of illustrating the difficulties of getting into the comic biz, and really just the entire comic environment during the era.
But I hardly needed a Ditko biography to learn about that, the fiction story "The Amazing Adventures of Cavalier and Clay" by Michael Chabon does that just as well, if not better. Actually, I don't really know where I first learned about that era, it's just something that I've naturally absorbed over time from various sources. Still, you could do much worse than checking out that Chabon book.
Anyways, back to Ditko's book: what I actually learned from it was some of the history of Ayn Rand, as well as some of the concepts and precepts of objectivism- a philosophy that quickly became wholly intertwined with Ditko's life.
Now while I'm not particularly a fan of objectivism, at the time I sounded pretty excited about it- why? Well, I just liked the idea of sitting back, reading something, and coming away with a few tangible facts that just stuck in my head. Often times when I read, well, I know the story, but very often it isn't particularly didactic about anything. Or if it is, it's something that I already learned in the past from a show or something. Maybe I learned it from Rocky and Bullwinkle? It's pretty likely.
So I returned home from the library yesterday with the books "Batman: Anarchy" and "Batman and Philosophy". The former is a collection of comics ranging from the 80's to a couple of years ago, while the latter is a collection of philosophical essays discussing topics relevant to a Batman style world "Is it right to make a Robin?", "Is the Joker morally acountable for his actions?" that kind of thing.
After being presented with the ideas in both books, I tried to remember what I'd learned about objectivism, as a sort of excercise to make sure I could still count that as information within my power, and though it took a bit longer to jog my memory than I'd care to admit, it did all come back. Yeah, that's pretty much the only reason I wanted to bring up Ditko and objectivism- so now let's talk about this new stuff I've been reading! (oh, what, you wanted to hear my understanding of objectivism? eeeeh, maybe later. I'm more interested in this newer info)
SO with Batman: Anarchy we chiefly follow the character (of course) named Anarchy, created by Alan Grant and Norm Breyfogle, with all of the stories written by Alan Grant.
I think the chief difficulty in selling the character Anarchy is that what "anarchy" means to Grant and Breyfogle (and as a result Anarchy himself) is different from the generally accepted definition of the word.
Let me just use the definition found on dictionary.com for reference
Anarchy:
1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.
Okay, so none of these definitons really surprise me, because that is the definition I think most people have been inculcated to accept as correct, with the greatest emphasis on the fourth definition. For the character Anarchy, however, he would only accept the first and third definitions as accurate.
So right off the bat we're dealing with a communications barrier to understanding what Alan Grant is trying to get across. It would be far more palatable to call it something like, I don't know, demarchy, and then propose your ideals.
Now, as much as I enjoyed Anarchy's ideas, my thinking is more along the lines of Plato and Hobbes- that people (in general) do need governance, otherwise they'd fall into "confusion; chaos; disorder", that fourth accepted definition of anarchy. There are a lot of people who could self govern, that would fully live up to the ideals Alan Grant is espousing- they are amazing people, but I think they're outnumbered. And it totally sucks that I think that. It's very negative.
Then I started reading "Batman and Philosophy" and I was pretty excited to see one essay make reference to "Batman: Anarchy" right after I'd just read it.
Frankly, I'm pretty sure after reading these pop-philosophy books I will have learned more about philosophy than I was taught from an entire intro to philosophy class.
Boy, I've sure typed "philosophy" a lot just now, didn't I?
Anyway, it's all very interesting to me, that's what I'm trying to say.
But I hardly needed a Ditko biography to learn about that, the fiction story "The Amazing Adventures of Cavalier and Clay" by Michael Chabon does that just as well, if not better. Actually, I don't really know where I first learned about that era, it's just something that I've naturally absorbed over time from various sources. Still, you could do much worse than checking out that Chabon book.
Anyways, back to Ditko's book: what I actually learned from it was some of the history of Ayn Rand, as well as some of the concepts and precepts of objectivism- a philosophy that quickly became wholly intertwined with Ditko's life.
Now while I'm not particularly a fan of objectivism, at the time I sounded pretty excited about it- why? Well, I just liked the idea of sitting back, reading something, and coming away with a few tangible facts that just stuck in my head. Often times when I read, well, I know the story, but very often it isn't particularly didactic about anything. Or if it is, it's something that I already learned in the past from a show or something. Maybe I learned it from Rocky and Bullwinkle? It's pretty likely.
So I returned home from the library yesterday with the books "Batman: Anarchy" and "Batman and Philosophy". The former is a collection of comics ranging from the 80's to a couple of years ago, while the latter is a collection of philosophical essays discussing topics relevant to a Batman style world "Is it right to make a Robin?", "Is the Joker morally acountable for his actions?" that kind of thing.
After being presented with the ideas in both books, I tried to remember what I'd learned about objectivism, as a sort of excercise to make sure I could still count that as information within my power, and though it took a bit longer to jog my memory than I'd care to admit, it did all come back. Yeah, that's pretty much the only reason I wanted to bring up Ditko and objectivism- so now let's talk about this new stuff I've been reading! (oh, what, you wanted to hear my understanding of objectivism? eeeeh, maybe later. I'm more interested in this newer info)
SO with Batman: Anarchy we chiefly follow the character (of course) named Anarchy, created by Alan Grant and Norm Breyfogle, with all of the stories written by Alan Grant.
I think the chief difficulty in selling the character Anarchy is that what "anarchy" means to Grant and Breyfogle (and as a result Anarchy himself) is different from the generally accepted definition of the word.
Let me just use the definition found on dictionary.com for reference
Anarchy:
1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.
Okay, so none of these definitons really surprise me, because that is the definition I think most people have been inculcated to accept as correct, with the greatest emphasis on the fourth definition. For the character Anarchy, however, he would only accept the first and third definitions as accurate.
So right off the bat we're dealing with a communications barrier to understanding what Alan Grant is trying to get across. It would be far more palatable to call it something like, I don't know, demarchy, and then propose your ideals.
Now, as much as I enjoyed Anarchy's ideas, my thinking is more along the lines of Plato and Hobbes- that people (in general) do need governance, otherwise they'd fall into "confusion; chaos; disorder", that fourth accepted definition of anarchy. There are a lot of people who could self govern, that would fully live up to the ideals Alan Grant is espousing- they are amazing people, but I think they're outnumbered. And it totally sucks that I think that. It's very negative.
Then I started reading "Batman and Philosophy" and I was pretty excited to see one essay make reference to "Batman: Anarchy" right after I'd just read it.
Frankly, I'm pretty sure after reading these pop-philosophy books I will have learned more about philosophy than I was taught from an entire intro to philosophy class.
Boy, I've sure typed "philosophy" a lot just now, didn't I?
Anyway, it's all very interesting to me, that's what I'm trying to say.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Say Anything
It must have been within the last year, but okay, to be safe let's say within the last two years, that I saw the movie "Say Anything".
All I knew of the film was that at some point John Cusack held up a boom box to a girls window and it was somehow awesome enough that I'd absorbed knowledge of it through all the spoofs and references to it in the greater cultural arena. I can't even really think of a specific example, I can only feel the edges of the different versions kaleid with one another to create this awareness.
I'm sure I had my alarm set, but whatever the reason I missed the first ten minutes of the movie. Mornings are hard. It would be repeated later in the day, and again I missed the opening.
Cut to today, what was it, three in the morning? Doing some laundry, I couldn't go to bed before my clothes were tucked away for the night in the dryer, but I'd only just started the washing process. I figured I'd do some reading, propped upon three pillows quintessentially mine- but first I scrolled down through channels to check the weather... I never made it.
Two button presses north of the forecast and I caught the image of Lloyd Dobler and Diane Court. The movie was halfway over but I was immediately enthralled- Lloyd's straightforward beating around the bush, his nervous what d'ya call it... uuuh not twitching, not quite fumbling, but it could be described as either. Ah well. His simplicity and just plain sincerity. And then there's Diane- she tries to be completely rational about her feelings and verbalize everything, every instant so specifically, because she has a plan! She knows how things are supposed to work! And nothing works out that way at all. She's got these bright blue eyes, softest looking lips, and this quirky mouth with its underbite- when she's sad you want to comfort her, and when she's happy (usually when she's with Lloyd) she gets the widest smile and then I get the widest smile and everything is warm and fantastic in the world.
I should seriously consider buying this movie.
For several reasons I began to think about The Graduate as I was watching Say Anything. If you don't sit back and compare and contrast movies at approaching 4 in the morning, well when are you going to do it? 'Cause it's gotta be done people!
I thought of The Graduate, first of all, because in a similar fashion, they are both movies that I knew only through cultural osmosis until recently. I must have only just watched The Graduate last December or January (it's the movie that has gotten me all nuts about Simon and Garfunkel, even though their close harmonies make it difficult to find a note and sing along. And I don't know the words. But that's what showers and solitary walks are for, consarnit! Singing a single line from some song you barely know over and over again!) and loved it.
Both films are about the beginning of the next chapter, about finding/deciding what your next step is going to be. I had to go back to add the "/deciding" because in my mind that's the key difference between the two leading pairs.
Benjamin Braddock is completely directionless after graduating, he ultimately latches on to the famous Mrs. Robinson's daughter Elaine. Latches is such a negative word. But there it is- how much is it the case that Ben loves this girl and how much is it rather that getting her is the all encompassing new problem for him to focus all his energy on. We've all heard of the moment at the end of the film when Ben and Elaine are on the bus and the euphoria of fighting off a church crowd with a cross has run its course and the two characters have that "so, what now?" look.
Compare that to the end of Say Anything, Lloyd and Diane are together, on a plane bound for England as the camera fades to black. Perhaps if the camera stayed on a second longer we would have seen another "so, what now?" look... but I don't think so. I think if anything the two would just be looking at each other, probably before Diane pulls Lloyd in for another soft kiss. These two people (yes, so very fictional) have managed to find each other, and I believe they'd have wound up with a fantastically happy life.
As you could imagine, I only did some reading during the comercials...
I really must apologize for spending all this time going on about the love lives of two fictional characters, except that I don't have to apologize for that. So many will completely disregard a piece of art because it isn't real. Well, as they say, what is real? That smile and inner warmth I described coming from my person before, that sure felt real to me. Something sure caused that.
Ah, I'm getting all defensive in preparation for an attack that isn't coming.
Sometimes I feel really behind the times- there are so many things out there for me to check out still, but even so there's a certain charm in finally (in this instance) seeing the movie that came out twenty years ago. It takes me back to the hot boring saturday afternoons, when a seven year old (six? eight?) could chose between watching golf and watching an incomprehensible old movie, set in sepia and making the world sepia with it. It was dark and made me sleepy, but when the Rancor appeared I couldn't watch and I couldn't not watch when a green sliver commanded my attention in the bright of day floating above the perilous nightmare inducing maw. Now I've gone and made myself all nostalgic.
All I knew of the film was that at some point John Cusack held up a boom box to a girls window and it was somehow awesome enough that I'd absorbed knowledge of it through all the spoofs and references to it in the greater cultural arena. I can't even really think of a specific example, I can only feel the edges of the different versions kaleid with one another to create this awareness.
I'm sure I had my alarm set, but whatever the reason I missed the first ten minutes of the movie. Mornings are hard. It would be repeated later in the day, and again I missed the opening.
Cut to today, what was it, three in the morning? Doing some laundry, I couldn't go to bed before my clothes were tucked away for the night in the dryer, but I'd only just started the washing process. I figured I'd do some reading, propped upon three pillows quintessentially mine- but first I scrolled down through channels to check the weather... I never made it.
Two button presses north of the forecast and I caught the image of Lloyd Dobler and Diane Court. The movie was halfway over but I was immediately enthralled- Lloyd's straightforward beating around the bush, his nervous what d'ya call it... uuuh not twitching, not quite fumbling, but it could be described as either. Ah well. His simplicity and just plain sincerity. And then there's Diane- she tries to be completely rational about her feelings and verbalize everything, every instant so specifically, because she has a plan! She knows how things are supposed to work! And nothing works out that way at all. She's got these bright blue eyes, softest looking lips, and this quirky mouth with its underbite- when she's sad you want to comfort her, and when she's happy (usually when she's with Lloyd) she gets the widest smile and then I get the widest smile and everything is warm and fantastic in the world.
I should seriously consider buying this movie.
For several reasons I began to think about The Graduate as I was watching Say Anything. If you don't sit back and compare and contrast movies at approaching 4 in the morning, well when are you going to do it? 'Cause it's gotta be done people!
I thought of The Graduate, first of all, because in a similar fashion, they are both movies that I knew only through cultural osmosis until recently. I must have only just watched The Graduate last December or January (it's the movie that has gotten me all nuts about Simon and Garfunkel, even though their close harmonies make it difficult to find a note and sing along. And I don't know the words. But that's what showers and solitary walks are for, consarnit! Singing a single line from some song you barely know over and over again!) and loved it.
Both films are about the beginning of the next chapter, about finding/deciding what your next step is going to be. I had to go back to add the "/deciding" because in my mind that's the key difference between the two leading pairs.
Benjamin Braddock is completely directionless after graduating, he ultimately latches on to the famous Mrs. Robinson's daughter Elaine. Latches is such a negative word. But there it is- how much is it the case that Ben loves this girl and how much is it rather that getting her is the all encompassing new problem for him to focus all his energy on. We've all heard of the moment at the end of the film when Ben and Elaine are on the bus and the euphoria of fighting off a church crowd with a cross has run its course and the two characters have that "so, what now?" look.
Compare that to the end of Say Anything, Lloyd and Diane are together, on a plane bound for England as the camera fades to black. Perhaps if the camera stayed on a second longer we would have seen another "so, what now?" look... but I don't think so. I think if anything the two would just be looking at each other, probably before Diane pulls Lloyd in for another soft kiss. These two people (yes, so very fictional) have managed to find each other, and I believe they'd have wound up with a fantastically happy life.
As you could imagine, I only did some reading during the comercials...
I really must apologize for spending all this time going on about the love lives of two fictional characters, except that I don't have to apologize for that. So many will completely disregard a piece of art because it isn't real. Well, as they say, what is real? That smile and inner warmth I described coming from my person before, that sure felt real to me. Something sure caused that.
Ah, I'm getting all defensive in preparation for an attack that isn't coming.
Sometimes I feel really behind the times- there are so many things out there for me to check out still, but even so there's a certain charm in finally (in this instance) seeing the movie that came out twenty years ago. It takes me back to the hot boring saturday afternoons, when a seven year old (six? eight?) could chose between watching golf and watching an incomprehensible old movie, set in sepia and making the world sepia with it. It was dark and made me sleepy, but when the Rancor appeared I couldn't watch and I couldn't not watch when a green sliver commanded my attention in the bright of day floating above the perilous nightmare inducing maw. Now I've gone and made myself all nostalgic.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Denizens of the Deep
I've just finished "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" by Robert Louis Stevenson- why I couldn't have slept through two more hours and started reading again at 7 I'll never know.
That's just an expression, I know it's because my sleep schedule is all out of whack.
Though I've certainly got a thing or two to report on the book, it seems much of it was covered in the afterword by one Dan Chaon. He even references Pinky and the Brain. Clearly there isn't much left for me to add.
I came to this book already knowing it, the principal characters, setting, the uncanny transformation from a straight laced member of society to the, well, guy that does whatever he wants. I would have said"evil" or the like, but that attributes too much to Mr. Hyde; a selfish little animal who can only control his own appetites to the degree necessary to avoid being hung for his crimes until such a point as he no longer succeeds in that and must "Hyde" (Oh, I just got it! I'm kidding.) in the form of Dr. Jekyll.
That Chaon really took the wind out of my sails, he already commented on how, though we all know the story, we actually know very little of the details themselves. I was surprised to find that Jekyll was a full bodied individual, getting on in years, and that, when transformed into Hyde, was a smaller figure, actually shorter, not just hunched over, and that he was actually younger. The process involved wasn't merely the dissolution of the conscience, but the displacement by the inner entity, the different being, that was Hyde.
A quick word on "dissolution"- as I read the book and the process was described, Jekyll talks of it instead as a 'solution' instead of dissolution. His meaning is clear, but it's interesting that they probably didn't have the word dissolution back then (the book was released in 1886). Dissolution suddenly strikes me the same as saying 'irregardless' instead of 'regardless' a habit I fell out of quite happily several years ago at my friends insistence.
There was a reason I wanted to read this book, beyond it being a well known classic and that I had still to read anything by the author (I also haven't read Stevenson's 'Treasure Island')- preying on my mind during the holidays was the idea of that multifarious nature of myself and man in general. Hardly a new thought, but one that had been bugging me all the same.
My specific concern was the idea that when I engage in idle chatter with strangers (with varying degrees of strange) I'd naturally engage in a flippancy that, while a crowd pleaser, wasn't a fair representation of myself, and that I was doing a disservice to myself for not being more genuine, as well as to others for not giving them a chance to get past that wall.
"That isn't me," I'd think after the fact, " some smug guy that thinks he knows everything and has the clever riposte to your last comment. I don't like that guy, and it's really weird to me that other people do."
While I was complaining about this to a friend a couple of weeks ago he essentially said that whether I liked it or not, that is a part of who I am. When he said that I was struck by the idea that I could just have another part of me. Oh, yeah, just, you know, a whole other me. And though I didn't always like him, I can appreciate that he possesses a useful skill set, and it is mine. Isn't it amazing that we all have that? I'm amazed.
I've also been playing this video game, Persona 4, which deals with this- in fact every boss battle thus far is with the inner side of one of the main characters, a side that, once disavowed, turns into a giant monster to fight until it's accepted as a part of the character in question. Sure wish they'd get accepted BEFORE I wasted all my items.
Suddenly it seems quite natural that I'd want to pick up and finally read "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde", right?
As for the text itself, it is written in a very prim Victorian style, which I generally am a fan of, though I admit it can still lull you into a doze if you haven't the energy for it at the moment. As Chaon points out, the descriptions aren't very specific- except for a case of child brutality and the murder, we are left to our own devices to imagine the kind of skullduggery Hyde gets into. And our own devices are enough! It's a very simple impressionistic style, but effective. A little over half of the book is the account from the perspective of the lawyer Utterson, and so the story is a mystery. Personally, I like mysteries, but they're pretty boring when you have been told the ending over and over again for the past century.
The latter half is the written account of Dr. Jekyll explaining his deeds and sensations, and that is the part I tore through at 5 this morning when I should have been sleeping. I was especially drawn in by certain passages that surprised me with how relevant they were to the kind of discourse I was looking for:
"I was no more myself when I laid aside restraint and plunged in shame, than when I laboured, in the eye of day, at the furtherance of knowledge or the relief of sorrow and suffering."
"I thus drew steadily nearer to that truth (...) that man is not truly one, but truly two (...) I hazard the guess that man will be ultimately known for a mere polity of multifarious, incongruous and independent denizens."
"I saw that (...) even if I could rightly be said to be either, it was only because I was radically both."
I'd ramble on for a bit more, but these quotations are really cool sounding, so I should stop one sentence ago.
Word I learned: Lacunar, from lacuna, an empty space or a missing part; a gap
***
My next book is a collection of short stories by this famous Voltaire guy. He may by famous, but I have no clue what I'm in for.
That's just an expression, I know it's because my sleep schedule is all out of whack.
Though I've certainly got a thing or two to report on the book, it seems much of it was covered in the afterword by one Dan Chaon. He even references Pinky and the Brain. Clearly there isn't much left for me to add.
I came to this book already knowing it, the principal characters, setting, the uncanny transformation from a straight laced member of society to the, well, guy that does whatever he wants. I would have said"evil" or the like, but that attributes too much to Mr. Hyde; a selfish little animal who can only control his own appetites to the degree necessary to avoid being hung for his crimes until such a point as he no longer succeeds in that and must "Hyde" (Oh, I just got it! I'm kidding.) in the form of Dr. Jekyll.
That Chaon really took the wind out of my sails, he already commented on how, though we all know the story, we actually know very little of the details themselves. I was surprised to find that Jekyll was a full bodied individual, getting on in years, and that, when transformed into Hyde, was a smaller figure, actually shorter, not just hunched over, and that he was actually younger. The process involved wasn't merely the dissolution of the conscience, but the displacement by the inner entity, the different being, that was Hyde.
A quick word on "dissolution"- as I read the book and the process was described, Jekyll talks of it instead as a 'solution' instead of dissolution. His meaning is clear, but it's interesting that they probably didn't have the word dissolution back then (the book was released in 1886). Dissolution suddenly strikes me the same as saying 'irregardless' instead of 'regardless' a habit I fell out of quite happily several years ago at my friends insistence.
There was a reason I wanted to read this book, beyond it being a well known classic and that I had still to read anything by the author (I also haven't read Stevenson's 'Treasure Island')- preying on my mind during the holidays was the idea of that multifarious nature of myself and man in general. Hardly a new thought, but one that had been bugging me all the same.
My specific concern was the idea that when I engage in idle chatter with strangers (with varying degrees of strange) I'd naturally engage in a flippancy that, while a crowd pleaser, wasn't a fair representation of myself, and that I was doing a disservice to myself for not being more genuine, as well as to others for not giving them a chance to get past that wall.
"That isn't me," I'd think after the fact, " some smug guy that thinks he knows everything and has the clever riposte to your last comment. I don't like that guy, and it's really weird to me that other people do."
While I was complaining about this to a friend a couple of weeks ago he essentially said that whether I liked it or not, that is a part of who I am. When he said that I was struck by the idea that I could just have another part of me. Oh, yeah, just, you know, a whole other me. And though I didn't always like him, I can appreciate that he possesses a useful skill set, and it is mine. Isn't it amazing that we all have that? I'm amazed.
I've also been playing this video game, Persona 4, which deals with this- in fact every boss battle thus far is with the inner side of one of the main characters, a side that, once disavowed, turns into a giant monster to fight until it's accepted as a part of the character in question. Sure wish they'd get accepted BEFORE I wasted all my items.
Suddenly it seems quite natural that I'd want to pick up and finally read "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde", right?
As for the text itself, it is written in a very prim Victorian style, which I generally am a fan of, though I admit it can still lull you into a doze if you haven't the energy for it at the moment. As Chaon points out, the descriptions aren't very specific- except for a case of child brutality and the murder, we are left to our own devices to imagine the kind of skullduggery Hyde gets into. And our own devices are enough! It's a very simple impressionistic style, but effective. A little over half of the book is the account from the perspective of the lawyer Utterson, and so the story is a mystery. Personally, I like mysteries, but they're pretty boring when you have been told the ending over and over again for the past century.
The latter half is the written account of Dr. Jekyll explaining his deeds and sensations, and that is the part I tore through at 5 this morning when I should have been sleeping. I was especially drawn in by certain passages that surprised me with how relevant they were to the kind of discourse I was looking for:
"I was no more myself when I laid aside restraint and plunged in shame, than when I laboured, in the eye of day, at the furtherance of knowledge or the relief of sorrow and suffering."
"I thus drew steadily nearer to that truth (...) that man is not truly one, but truly two (...) I hazard the guess that man will be ultimately known for a mere polity of multifarious, incongruous and independent denizens."
"I saw that (...) even if I could rightly be said to be either, it was only because I was radically both."
I'd ramble on for a bit more, but these quotations are really cool sounding, so I should stop one sentence ago.
Word I learned: Lacunar, from lacuna, an empty space or a missing part; a gap
***
My next book is a collection of short stories by this famous Voltaire guy. He may by famous, but I have no clue what I'm in for.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Getting over myself
It's a very fine line between getting across one's own personality and just being completely unaccessible.
I have a great tendency to go off into various asides while writing, usually utilizing my much beloved parentheses (in fact I will sometimes write an aside, and then be tempted to write an asides aside, but am stopped by the idea that THAT, somehow, is crossing a line. I dare say it's an overpowering command of my super ego. And for that we should all be thankful that the planet Freud blew up and sent us the lone survivor who became Super Ego.) One of my favourite teachers once told me I shouldn't use those parentheses- that if I'm going to say something I should just say it, intimating that the words in brackets "don't really count". I got that advice years ago, and though I obviously don't hold to it, it has stuck with me.
But for me parenthesis are an excellent visual cue reflecting how I speak, or rather, communicate. It's true that the ultimate goal of sending out words into the void is to get a specific idea across, and I regret when I fail to achieve that (it does happen often enough), but there's also the "how" and "why" to consider.
Whoah there, I almost lost you there. Me too. Let me break it down for myself.
I think we're pretty familiar with the who, what, when, where, why, and how of getting a story across- the important facts of what has happened. But let's say (to humour me) that there's a corresponding who, what, when, where, why, and how to telling a story- the who, what, when, and where has to do with the facts of the matter themselves that anyone can relate.
But then there's also the "how" and "why" to consider (I'm using the same words as above for emphasis. I'm fully conscious of the repetition)
the HOW are we going to get this information across? and-
the WHY am I the one telling this story?
Those two questions are key (whether we remember them or not) for our personal communiques, and their answers are inextricably linked with each other. Why am I the one telling this story? Because no one else can tell it with the exact same point of view, life experience, and style as I can. How am I going to get this information across? I'm going to use my point of view, life experience, and style as the focus for expressing this story.
Yes, both questions have nearly identical answers, don't be alarmed, that was expected.
It was a very liberating feeling when I read Emily Dickinson- her use of the hyphen everywhere (or, if that was later added in by editors for the sake of our sanity, then her use of spacing and non-punctuation) affirmed my own view of just being comfortable with how ones self writes. Any reluctance to include parentheses and hyphens in my own writing virtually disappeared after encountering her, to the great chagrin of grammarians everywhere.
But all that confusing-ness said- Dude! Isaac! Could you TRY to make more sense to people? I'm glad you're all liberated and whatnot, but get over yourself.
***
In other news, I've just read the introduction to a copy of Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde, and anticipate a fun post in regards to that book. It shouldn't take too long before that happens, it's a rather short book, but it all depends on when I get into it.
I have a great tendency to go off into various asides while writing, usually utilizing my much beloved parentheses (in fact I will sometimes write an aside, and then be tempted to write an asides aside, but am stopped by the idea that THAT, somehow, is crossing a line. I dare say it's an overpowering command of my super ego. And for that we should all be thankful that the planet Freud blew up and sent us the lone survivor who became Super Ego.) One of my favourite teachers once told me I shouldn't use those parentheses- that if I'm going to say something I should just say it, intimating that the words in brackets "don't really count". I got that advice years ago, and though I obviously don't hold to it, it has stuck with me.
But for me parenthesis are an excellent visual cue reflecting how I speak, or rather, communicate. It's true that the ultimate goal of sending out words into the void is to get a specific idea across, and I regret when I fail to achieve that (it does happen often enough), but there's also the "how" and "why" to consider.
Whoah there, I almost lost you there. Me too. Let me break it down for myself.
I think we're pretty familiar with the who, what, when, where, why, and how of getting a story across- the important facts of what has happened. But let's say (to humour me) that there's a corresponding who, what, when, where, why, and how to telling a story- the who, what, when, and where has to do with the facts of the matter themselves that anyone can relate.
But then there's also the "how" and "why" to consider (I'm using the same words as above for emphasis. I'm fully conscious of the repetition)
the HOW are we going to get this information across? and-
the WHY am I the one telling this story?
Those two questions are key (whether we remember them or not) for our personal communiques, and their answers are inextricably linked with each other. Why am I the one telling this story? Because no one else can tell it with the exact same point of view, life experience, and style as I can. How am I going to get this information across? I'm going to use my point of view, life experience, and style as the focus for expressing this story.
Yes, both questions have nearly identical answers, don't be alarmed, that was expected.
It was a very liberating feeling when I read Emily Dickinson- her use of the hyphen everywhere (or, if that was later added in by editors for the sake of our sanity, then her use of spacing and non-punctuation) affirmed my own view of just being comfortable with how ones self writes. Any reluctance to include parentheses and hyphens in my own writing virtually disappeared after encountering her, to the great chagrin of grammarians everywhere.
But all that confusing-ness said- Dude! Isaac! Could you TRY to make more sense to people? I'm glad you're all liberated and whatnot, but get over yourself.
***
In other news, I've just read the introduction to a copy of Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde, and anticipate a fun post in regards to that book. It shouldn't take too long before that happens, it's a rather short book, but it all depends on when I get into it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
