tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38512641641981340502024-03-13T11:27:48.357-04:00Flying Houses"Who will laugh last?! Who will laugh last?!"JKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16199023801433187878noreply@blogger.comBlogger434125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3851264164198134050.post-25590661106385586442024-02-22T15:28:00.013-05:002024-03-08T11:22:46.553-05:002024 Academy Award Nominees for Best Picture<p><i>I heard recently that voting for the Academy Awards will end next week, right around February 29th or March 1st, and it would make a great deal more sense to complete this post prior to that date, and I realize now, the Awards ceremony itself is not very far away (March 10th). Because I enjoyed the exercise last year, I thought I'd do it again this year. It was a bit crazy, because I had to just about watch one movie per day for the last week, and now if I get on it, I will have more time. There are about 16 or 17 days left and I have 6 movies left to see. I will write about them in the order they were seen, as before. </i></p><p><u><b>Oppenheimer</b></u></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center; text-decoration-line: underline;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgS3l3W3Ky9HDTOkoJ-OEcVkP-jeG0GUCmi5_PtYJCitevX0FTI5UD1_0Pfcax8lujjvYt_KVPpsSiiWo028n8ON9S4CGcG5DKCXZ8chmoijHxK4EonfNLt-tQsLRHoezDUTMloPGkluvorYOLyN4znGp2RwMEahMEYb1cL4otL9Lkut9HQxwGBXXFRJquv/s1200/oppenheimer.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="1200" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgS3l3W3Ky9HDTOkoJ-OEcVkP-jeG0GUCmi5_PtYJCitevX0FTI5UD1_0Pfcax8lujjvYt_KVPpsSiiWo028n8ON9S4CGcG5DKCXZ8chmoijHxK4EonfNLt-tQsLRHoezDUTMloPGkluvorYOLyN4znGp2RwMEahMEYb1cL4otL9Lkut9HQxwGBXXFRJquv/w320-h213/oppenheimer.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />To date, Christopher Nolan has been recognized by the Academy for four films: <i>Memento</i>, <i>Inception, Dunkirk, </i>and this. He has not won Best Director, and I think this may be his year. I also think this may be the film to win Best Picture, if the Golden Globes are any indication. I have not looked too closely at predictions yet, and only know one sure-fire winner, which everyone should also know. <p></p><p>Both Robert Downey Jr. and Cillian Murphy won at the Golden Globes and SAG Awards, and also seem like fair picks to win Oscars. Matt Damon arguably deserved a nomination more than Downey Jr., and probably didn't get it because his character is "less interesting," even though he injected the film with sorely-needed comic relief. </p><p>Overall, I liked this movie. I saw it in IMAX 70 MM, which was cool, and the cinematography is beautiful. It's delicately made. One might say it is designed to win Oscars. I respect it as a film, and think it poses important questions, but left me feeling a bit cold, emotionally. The primary drama of the film is whether Oppenheimer's security clearance will be renewed, and it is played out over a lengthy series of administrative hearings. This is the type of thing I usually like--the audacity of a "blockbuster" about bureaucracy--but also makes me feel that it is prestige for the sake of prestige (and <i>The Prestige </i>is one of Nolan's many films that did not get the respect it deserved at the time). </p><p>17 years ago, that film was only nominated for Art Direction and Cinematography. A year later, Nolan followed it up with <i>The Dark Knight</i>, arguably the greatest blockbuster superhero action movie there has been, which won for Sound Editing and Supporting Actor. He followed that up with <i>Inception</i>, which demands multiple viewings (more recently <i>Tenet </i>required the same, though I think fewer wanted to try). We don't need to go through his whole filmography; suffice to say, he is clearly one of the greatest "mainstream" auteurs of our time, and is due for recognition. This is not my favorite film of his (I liked 3 or 4 of them better), but it is definitely the most "Oscar worthy," in a similar vein to <i>Dunkirk--</i>because it is historically accurate. This is a valuable thing when our world is prone to inaccuracies and questions surrounding stories told by the victors. <i>Oppenheimer </i>does bridge this gap nicely, showing the heart of the conflict inside the person, and how the world wants to see him, or not see him as his feelings evolve. I probably need to see it a second time. It didn't put me to sleep but my viewing companion did doze off in the theater.</p><p>On rewatch, I recalled my friend's critique after the theater viewing: "I think I need to watch it with closed captioning." A word, briefly, about closed captioning. I was ashamed when I began regularly turning them on for most things I watched. I soon realized, perhaps in 2018 or 2019, that this practice had been adopted by the masses. Perhaps this is to deal with the influence of "mumblecore" films, but I doubt it (Joe Swanberg isn't Quentin Tarantino, or even Kevin Smith); we just miss less. And this film is populated by at least a dozen fairly nondescript white, male actors, referred to just by their last names, and it can be difficult to keep everyone straight. So I do think this film is aided by closed captioning, but that didn't make me like it much more.</p><p>I do think I am wrong about it being "historically accurate," just from the opening scene with the apple, which I had forgotten, along with another delusive move or two. I also forgot about my favorite "cameo" in it, and perhaps the way that character is barely in the movie at all and then has a major dramatic moment near the end. It surprised and befuddled me. I appreciated that weirdness, and I actually really liked how it "flashed forward," to show what happened after these hearings, later in his life. The dramatic bombast of it all is powerful, and befits the importance of the man itself--it is a big, loud movie, and I won't be surprised at all if it wins.</p><p><b><u>Barbie</u></b></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTuWv733MkAWyMSf2JRtD9TL4lrcvInb7Zmgs_666oftjFJFkmGgbNs5Nww1Zb4hjnqTG-P81WKXN6nxHto0z_w5ArcwVsPC_nXyfq7zbW66vN6An5xh7fdZTMSADL3SEsmukerVLW6_n25KPFNbBuaqWny1m4BHgdB0vR7bMOqeWzgTGZjTKb_EkRaofX/s2517/barbie.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="2517" height="191" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTuWv733MkAWyMSf2JRtD9TL4lrcvInb7Zmgs_666oftjFJFkmGgbNs5Nww1Zb4hjnqTG-P81WKXN6nxHto0z_w5ArcwVsPC_nXyfq7zbW66vN6An5xh7fdZTMSADL3SEsmukerVLW6_n25KPFNbBuaqWny1m4BHgdB0vR7bMOqeWzgTGZjTKb_EkRaofX/w400-h191/barbie.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Another film I probably need to see again is <i>Barbie</i>. Now, I liked <i>Barbie</i>, just fine--until the very end. Near the very end, there is a certain throwaway moment that will escape notice from just about everyone, except a very specific subset of people that will feel <i>seen</i>. And ashamed. But I am probably taking it too seriously. Suffice to say, I later heard an interview with Greta Gerwig (a contemporary) and she acknowledged that she does in fact love Pavement, so it's fine. Anytime the Fall is mentioned in a movie like this, we should take that as a win. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Apart from that idiosyncrasy, my issue is that this movie got far more love than <i>The Lego Movie</i>, and it is reductive of it. It will probably win Best Song, and that was <i>The Lego Movie</i>'s only nomination. Granted, visually, this film is stunning, even if it is "plastic." They are very different movies but they definitely have many things in common, one of which is Will Ferrell playing the bad guy, who is given more room to vamp here. It has a feminist message whereas <i>Lego </i>was just more focused on child-like glee. This also has its share of child-like glee, along with a bit of a darker edge. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">I have complicated feelings. Margot Robbie was robbed of a nomination. Ryan Gosling and America Ferrara deserved theirs. The plot of the film is also very similar to <i>The Lego Movie</i>. What's unique is that it is mainstream, fully endorsed by Mattel, and subversive. Perhaps one of the best things it did was open up conversations on gender politics, while still being a fantasy, and fun. Ultimately, it was recognized because it had its cultural moment, shared with <i>Oppenheimer</i>, that fully returned the masses to theaters. It was important in that respect, and I have to believe it was a better experience with a theater audience than <i>Oppenheimer </i>(I watched this at home on Max). I need to see it again probably, but basically yeah, I thought it was about as good as <i>The Lego Movie--</i>only a little better in the way the story was brought to life. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><u>Maestro</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><u><br /></u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjulNV2OcV_dLXEu4KAxbcJjg_zWBnh0vHXdHUKgr8YAe1Ed6xz-rq-93kem8qnopgWotpzKrmeRXRYuoMyZSqmColsxAnY3QAdRM5EuaISeVtcH4q2uB9XBX9C7XHYm8MLovAbz0kyQu_IjIaFkkRXQa2iJYmkQ1l956jRW7Ymo49wc2UjhtrqkBw2mLS/s1600/Maestro_20220522_00654r-1.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjulNV2OcV_dLXEu4KAxbcJjg_zWBnh0vHXdHUKgr8YAe1Ed6xz-rq-93kem8qnopgWotpzKrmeRXRYuoMyZSqmColsxAnY3QAdRM5EuaISeVtcH4q2uB9XBX9C7XHYm8MLovAbz0kyQu_IjIaFkkRXQa2iJYmkQ1l956jRW7Ymo49wc2UjhtrqkBw2mLS/s320/Maestro_20220522_00654r-1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><i><br /></i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><i>Maestro </i>is a fine film, but it almost feels like Bradley Cooper wanted more after <i>A Star is Born</i>. Lady Gaga did not win Best Actress for that, but everyone acknowledged her as the best thing about it. Cooper was also nominated for Best Actor for that, in a very good performance as well, but it felt like token recognition. Lady Gaga was the star, and in <i>Maestro</i>, Cooper is the star. It's a largely admirable effort that is also likely to leave audiences cold, perhaps ironically, even colder than <i>Oppenheimer</i>. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">I liked parts of it. The interplay between Cooper and Carey Mulligan is the best thing about the movie. The two of them have a handful of scenes in it that are as good as anything else that came out this year, and would be borderline iconic if not crushed beneath the weight of the rest of the film, which is a biopic that attempts to cover a rather long period of time. Credit Cooper for taking on difficult material, and portraying the conflicted bisexuality of his character (even if audiences may feel more sympathy for Mulligan). Of course, the cultural milieu plays a role in that dynamic, and the film's historical accuracy approaches that of <i>Oppenheimer</i>. It still feels like a mash-up of <i>Tar </i>and <i>Star</i>, and not as good as either. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">It is worth watching, however, for the scenes between Mulligan and Cooper. It gains speed as it moves along, as Cooper dials up the absurdity of his performance, which is iconic in its own right. I don't expect it to win anything, and its place here is a result of the expanded Oscar ballot. It is worthy of recognition, but so is <i>The Iron Claw </i>(Zac Efron's performance in that was criminally underrated).</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><u>Killers of the Flower Moon</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhblYe7mcr6sTtPS40agHsT64egPFovvYratI7gw_8iM8sNx45x-GK2EXHAqCUKfpNJGVX0SFw1IPy0OuZ0p3SFwzZU6wSjpbIYa_2cynPvFHaq4pWGNFsFMcJbeI4qE7Y2eFUeqKgNimIDZhheH1WfkgS3C8TsKd75TLjguloSTj7E6z0gLV-oqlTmq6Pk/s1200/MCDKIOF_PA015.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="1200" height="166" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhblYe7mcr6sTtPS40agHsT64egPFovvYratI7gw_8iM8sNx45x-GK2EXHAqCUKfpNJGVX0SFw1IPy0OuZ0p3SFwzZU6wSjpbIYa_2cynPvFHaq4pWGNFsFMcJbeI4qE7Y2eFUeqKgNimIDZhheH1WfkgS3C8TsKd75TLjguloSTj7E6z0gLV-oqlTmq6Pk/w400-h166/MCDKIOF_PA015.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">In terms of what "deserves to win," it seems it comes down to <i>Oppenheimer </i>and <i>Killers of the Flower Moon</i>. Both are over 3 hours long. I am not sure how others felt, but even though this one is about 30 minutes longer, it felt shorter to me. I didn't fall asleep during either. It's perhaps worth noting that I watched this on Apple TV+ and started it with my dad at 11 PM. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">He told me he had tried to watch it before, and he didn't like it. He said it made him uncomfortable to watch. He made it about 45 minutes deep. This time, he lasted until 1 AM. I stayed up until 2:30 AM to finish it. He left right before the most awful part of the movie happens. This is a really awful movie in terms of morality, and it continues to be dialed up until it reaches that epitome. After, it shifts into its second half, which must be where the controversial "intermissions" had been inserted by theater owners, when Jesse Plemons shows up to investigate the murders. It loses a tiny bit of steam in the second half, and there are bizarre elements that ultimately coalesce in a memorable epilogue that underscores the most heartbreaking element at the center of the film. Its last words teared me up. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Is it more important than <i>Oppenheimer</i>? Probably. The movie takes place 100 years ago. Most of the awful atrocities committed against Native Americans occurred in the 1600's-1800's, but this film shows that really nothing changed in the 1900's, and thereby questions how much has actually changed in the 2000's. Everyone in America is living on Native land and we often forget that. Near the end of the film, Robert DeNiro delivers a short monologue that encapsulates every argument that could be made for colonialism, and reveals the film to be a perfect allegory of the history of the plight of the indigenous. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">It's another significant accomplishment by Martin Scorsese, and a testament to his rightful place in the all-time canon of cinema. We can only hope that in 25 years, Christopher Nolan will remain at the top of his game and do the best work of his career, because it feels that way for Scorsese. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><u>The Holdovers</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><u><br /></u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjH4romNFgNidCpZUoctI4ewn39fNHt8vSa0CCoxsm3qs2ZDsD5zft6ii3MNiIOcGellrCtTcXCzpUhqppMYCdkbExgF781vo-SQM7jvQHLpfn6hk6zl-VI59C60sXrYylHhSNOxn6ps5rnfyrQiFdN1uPaN4XOI76AQfAOwdjPgTh919JpPmr7oZnlBCDK/s1500/the-holdovers-2.jpeg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1000" data-original-width="1500" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjH4romNFgNidCpZUoctI4ewn39fNHt8vSa0CCoxsm3qs2ZDsD5zft6ii3MNiIOcGellrCtTcXCzpUhqppMYCdkbExgF781vo-SQM7jvQHLpfn6hk6zl-VI59C60sXrYylHhSNOxn6ps5rnfyrQiFdN1uPaN4XOI76AQfAOwdjPgTh919JpPmr7oZnlBCDK/s320/the-holdovers-2.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div><br /></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">On Friday, February 23rd, I subscribed to Peacock for a month and watched <i>The Holdovers </i>(enveloping it with a re-watch of <i>Oppenheimer</i>, see above for update). The movie tricked me, for a minute. I didn't realize it took place in December 1970. At first, I thought it was a flashback, where Paul Giamatti was a teacher in present day, and a student in 1970. But then he would be playing about 15-20 years older than he is. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">In more ways than one, this movie is a throwback. It might remind a viewer of some of Hal Ashby's work. It is an R-rated film, but it should be PG-13, because it ultimately is a family film. One of the stills I almost chose was connected to an article titled "the 65 best Christmas movies of all time," and so this may be considered an instant classic, and an obvious choice for future television programming around the holidays. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">I was struck by how "uncynical" it was. I liked it fine, but similar to <i>Maestro</i>, and our next item, feel that its place here is a result of the expanded ballot. I think I have to put it over <i>Maestro</i> because it is a finely-paced, complete film. It <i>does not </i>attempt to make any major message, unlike some of the other nominees. It is a small, quiet, heartfelt film, filled with great compassion for its characters, and about as gentle as one can imagine. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Some people think the Best Actor category comes down to Cillian Murphy and Paul Giamatti (the others are Bradley Cooper, Jeffrey Wright, and Colman Domingo from <i>Rustin</i>, which I should also see). It is a tough call who will win. Giamatti, I think, may win for "career achievement," because while Cillian Murphy has had his own lengthy career at this point, Giamatti is a feted actor that was robbed of a nomination for his previous collaboration with Alexander Payne, <i>Sideways</i>. (It is difficult to say whether Giamatti will beat Murphy, and it is difficult to say whether Da'Vine Joy Randolph will beat America Ferrara, but I believe this film has a slight edge in the Best Supporting Actress category; it may well win for both, but should be recognized for at least one. The SAG Awards seem to indicate it will be Randolph and not Giamatti.) </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">In a lot of ways, <i>The Holdovers </i>is a redux of <i>Sideways,</i> a buddy comedy with Giamatti, except in this case he is playing more of a curmudgeon than a snob. And it's not about wine culture, but boarding school culture. Giamatti himself went to Choate, and I thought I might "see myself" in this, but I didn't really (the film was shot at Groton, NMH, Deerfield, and two other prep schools, though not LC, sadly). This was not the great boarding school film that is yet to be made (the way <i>The Catcher in the Rye </i>is the great boarding school novel). It is, however, a moving meditation on the nature of family and togetherness, and unmistakably touching in how it teases out the vulnerabilities of its characters. I teared up at least once or twice. Yet even with this air of melancholy, it is heartwarming, and the "lightest" nominee after <i>Barbie</i>. It would be difficult to hate this film, and I liked it, but as noted, I believe this is late recognition for <i>Sideways</i>, because nearly 20 years later, that film is rightly considered a modern classic. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><u><br /></u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><u>American Fiction</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><u><br /></u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhe09HDWAWAJe5t9wTP4Lpd6XwyvHvYhcv43iBFaD68Nu2E2BmqJzNhDI9t87JD44YGkzRwxqJaBqwxaPDRqK-2Fo_89HetbGdJdiFhjZMC2mxBkTiX5PgP_uG8Zu1mQI2ZNuEk5kZFSfbhZg7z1EGd_dqBO4SXPBDtxgDAyR5Ako_3gl4hKwmzVcW8H9BJ/s1480/231214135232-03-american-fiction-movie.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="833" data-original-width="1480" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhe09HDWAWAJe5t9wTP4Lpd6XwyvHvYhcv43iBFaD68Nu2E2BmqJzNhDI9t87JD44YGkzRwxqJaBqwxaPDRqK-2Fo_89HetbGdJdiFhjZMC2mxBkTiX5PgP_uG8Zu1mQI2ZNuEk5kZFSfbhZg7z1EGd_dqBO4SXPBDtxgDAyR5Ako_3gl4hKwmzVcW8H9BJ/s320/231214135232-03-american-fiction-movie.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">On Sunday, February 25th, I went to the local movie theater and saw <i>American Fiction</i>. I have to rate it similarly to <i>The Holdovers</i>, but it is a very different type of film. The first comparison I could draw is to <i>Sorry to Bother You. </i>Both are satires about similar issues, but obviously, that one "jumps the shark," and this one stays within the realm of the plausible. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">It's surprising that this is adapted from <i>Erasure</i>, a book published in 2001. (I was also drawn to consider <i><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-sellout-paul-beatty-2015.html" target="_blank">The Sellout</a> </i>in the course of watching this, and how that book is not comparable to the two primary "texts" this film depicts.) The film is unmistakably important for our times, because it poses questions about identity and representation, which have been hot-button issues for years on end, and demand deeper inquiry. They will need to pick a "clip" for the Oscars from Jeffrey Wright's performance, and I hope they pick the brief scene he has with Issa Rae, where he confronts her and calls her out on what he sees her work as doing. That scene, like certain scenes between Cooper and Mulligan in <i>Maestro</i>, is borderline iconic. It's beautifully written and acted. And the way such issues are percolating in our culture and driving divisiveness, this film should likely inspire thoughtful debate and conversation. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">It's unfortunate that it took more than 20 years for this book to be adapted, and that I haven't read it. (I haven't read <i>Killers of the Flower Moon</i>, either, but the movie is making more people read the book, and that is the side-perk of giving such films recognition.) At a certain point, Wright says that he doesn't even really believe in race, and while that may have been more common in 2001, it feels quaint today, with more performative virtue-signaling in social media, and the rejection of teaching Critical Race Theory in certain sectors of this country. I was going to say Sterling K. Brown deserved a nomination for supporting actor, and I see that he got it. Tracee Ellis Ross is also very good in her abbreviated role. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">This is a thorny film, but that is only half the story. At the end of the day, like <i>The Holdovers</i>, it is a moving meditation on family, showing how Wright and Brown navigate the uncertain territory of middle age, caring for their mother when she needs them most, while she is unable to give them the validation and love that they crave. It makes a bigger "statement" than <i>The Holdovers</i>, but it is also heartwarming in unexpected ways. </div></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><u><br /></u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">That being said, for further reading and an alternative take that goes much deeper, <i>see</i> <a href="https://defector.com/american-fiction-and-the-wet-eyes-of-the-sentimentalist?fbclid=IwAR2KcmVJ9kslpldHrqHar2gWniIlGlnSYqhjjxGEAY0TpPMqw8-EmM3i-M0" target="_blank">this</a>, which made me feel sort of terrible for thinking the movie was pretty good. Apparently, the book is braver, and better. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><u>Past Lives</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><u><br /></u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAejT-7KsAayX73z_1SrcOw0ZoVLBwu0Ji45KsmRQd7ze26GUK_Bm2WytnIB3QMZwbWJqQf_J4qHnASv-SxHt-Ata2yLnj47bTkWbDLFsBGCerDm3jLA3ecb8HpS4DrRTF6KST-fDCuA_j7XVZen3UcqK4mGY4uhu9YuK_zOc-K2uDd0oXse2-l2lGHksB/s3840/MV5BNDI3YTU1ZDEtNTc4OC00NTIxLTgzZmMtNjhkMGMzZTk0MmRiXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTUzMTg2ODkz._V1_.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2063" data-original-width="3840" height="172" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAejT-7KsAayX73z_1SrcOw0ZoVLBwu0Ji45KsmRQd7ze26GUK_Bm2WytnIB3QMZwbWJqQf_J4qHnASv-SxHt-Ata2yLnj47bTkWbDLFsBGCerDm3jLA3ecb8HpS4DrRTF6KST-fDCuA_j7XVZen3UcqK4mGY4uhu9YuK_zOc-K2uDd0oXse2-l2lGHksB/s320/MV5BNDI3YTU1ZDEtNTc4OC00NTIxLTgzZmMtNjhkMGMzZTk0MmRiXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTUzMTg2ODkz._V1_.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">On March 1, 2024, I watched <i>Past Lives </i>on Paramount+. To this point, it is the most narrowly focused of the nominees, and somewhat similar to <i>The Holdovers</i>, isn't deeply invested in any message, other than the metaphysical trope of <i>in-jun </i>and 8,000 lifetimes. I could be cynical, and point to the ten nominees, and the previously controversial <a href="https://www.oscars.org/awards/representation-and-inclusion-standards" target="_blank">standards</a> for eligibility, but the film is worthy of recognition. (<i>Drive My Car </i>was better than <i>Parasite </i>and<i> Everything Everywhere All at Once </i>and I implore you to watch it after the Oscars if you haven't.) <i>Past Lives </i>overtakes <i>The Holdovers </i>as the "smallest" and "gentlest" nominee. It is rated PG-13, and I do not understand why it is not PG except for the filmmakers to signal this is not a movie for kids. There is hardly any cursing in it, no graphic material, no violence, and the conflict it depicts is inherently veiled. "Fiction is about trouble," some writing instructors may intone, and the trouble here, which has an element of <i>EEAO </i>about it, is that our lives have too many possibilities, and sometimes we have to leave behind parts of it for reasons beyond our control. The leaving may all well be good and necessary, and as one character says near the beginning, "When you leave something behind, you gain something, too." And maybe what we gain is a newfound freedom to start again and try to shape our lives into a way we wish them to be. And maybe once we have done that--even if we are happy--we may have imagined more perfect futures before we have understood the realities of adulthood.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">I don't want to say too much about the plot of the film, but it is about as simple of a plot as you can have in a movie. What struck me about it is its spareness. There is no concrete "subplot," not even a tangential conflict over whether or not the married couple wants to have kids. It is just squarely focused on this single issue, the notion of how things might have gone differently if say, we didn't need to leave, or if we had brushed against a certain person in the subway (or perhaps at a party in a dorm, or in History class, or at a music festival, the laundromat, the grocery store, etc.). The plot in one line: childhood sweethearts reconnect 12 years later over Facebook/Skype, and 12 years later again in NYC. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">In the way <i>The Holdovers </i>is a great holiday film, this is a great NYC film, vaguely reminding me of one of the earlier <a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2009/03/visitor-dir-thomas-mccarthy.html" target="_blank">random film reviews</a> on this blog, and more obviously, <i>Annie Hall </i>and <i>When Harry Met Sally</i>. And it is a very romantic, bittersweet film which makes me feel more teary-eyed in retrospect than it did in the moment. At first blush I would have rated it as lesser than the other films seen to this point, but the mood it inhabits is suffused with such deep humanity that practically no one could <i>not</i> identify with some element in it. There is a good chance it will make you cry, and ponder the trajectory of your life, and perhaps it may inspire an upheaval, whether foolishly or practically. I won't spoil which direction the film goes. This is just the most "human" and "basic" story told by any of the nominees, that transcends race, nationality, language and tangibility in general--we just know one main character is a writer, and the other main character is an engineer. To paraphrase Flannery O'Connor: every writer has material, whether or not they believe it, for they have gone through childhood. And so too, after moving into adulthood--when we have continued to pursue certain childhood dreams, and made good on them, we wonder if our feelings from our most innocent times end up feeling the most intense and genuine. Maybe I am trying too hard to wax poetic to give closure to this capsule assessment, but if you've seen the movie, you may understand why. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">* </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Last year, there was some brief mention of budget and box office, and just for the sake of fun and comparison, let us consider the nominees this year.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><i>Oppenheimer</i><br />Budget: $100,000,000<br />Box Office: $953,800,000</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><i>Barbie</i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Budget: $145,000,000<br />Box Office: $1,446,000,000</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><i>Maestro</i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Budget: $80,000,000<br />Box Office: $820,567</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><i>Killers of the Flower Moon</i><br />Budget: $200,000,000<br />Box Office: $156,000,000</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><i>The Holdovers</i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Budget: $200,000 (!)</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Box Office: $41,400,000</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><i>American Fiction</i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Budget: $16,000,000 (reported estimates differ)</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Box Office: $21,900,000</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><i>Past Lives</i><br />Budget: $12,000,000<br />Box Office: $26,600,000</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><i>Anatomy of a Fall</i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Budget: $6,600,000</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Box Office: $29,600,000</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><i>Poor Things </i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Budget: $35,000,000</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Box Office: $101,900,000</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><i>The Zone of Interest</i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Budget: $15,000,000</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Box Office: $16,400,000 </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">I'm not sure why any of this matters. Perhaps I want to ask, has a box office <i>bomb </i>ever won Best Picture? It must have happened. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">In any case, <i>Maestro </i>is a massive failure, but those numbers don't tell the whole story because it was most definitely the most widely-streamed of the nominees, in accordance with its rollout. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Why did <i>Killers of the Flower Moon </i>have such a massive budget? It's very long, but how did it cost twice as much as <i>Oppenheimer</i>, which is also very long? Should we consider the "efficiency" of the film if we are really to call it "the best?" We may never know the former, and we can debate the latter, but regardless, to this point, I still think <i>Killers </i>is the best. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">*</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><u>Poor Things</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><u><br /></u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">On the morning of March 4, 2024, sometime between 9 and 10 AM, I twisted a nerve in my back and threw it out; at 7:40 PM, I arrived 10 minutes after the showtime for <i>Poor Things</i>. This theater doesn't show 10 minutes of previews, but I don't think I missed more than a few of the opening minutes to the film. Suffice to say, I will watch again at some point.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">My enjoyment of the film was hampered by my condition, which made laughing painful. I did not laugh hard because I knew it would trigger a spasm. It would be accurate to say I laughed until it hurt.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Even so, <i>Poor Things </i>is not a hard comedy, and while humor is persistent throughout, Mark Ruffalo most often brought the pain. The film is nominated in 11 different categories, including Emma Stone for Best Actress and Ruffalo for Supporting Actor. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Emma Stone will not win, unfortunately. She did win the Golden Globe for Best Actress in a Comedy, but that category in the Oscars is a <i>fait accompli</i>. She was also nominated for a Golden Globe for her performance in <i>The Curse</i>, which she did not win but also proves, 2023 is the year that she ascended into nearly the highest echelon in Hollywood. (Many more people will see <i>Poor Things </i>than <i>The Curse</i>, but the latter is even more bizarre than the former, and both are excellent and worth seeing.) She has already won Best Actress for <i>La La Land, </i>and I do not think this loss will bother her. Like Michelle Williams and Cate Blanchett last year, she deserves to win for this, but there is only one statue to give, and ties are all but impossible.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Ruffalo is not likely to win, either, but his performance stands apart from his career to this point. While he has always been a respected actor, and this is his 4th nomination for a supporting role, it is arguably the best work he has done. It is a comedic performance, and while playing Bruce Banner/The Hulk brought (brings?) its fair share of humor, this is far more subtle. I don't even know who he is supposed to be. I thought he was a magician or something.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">I digress. <i>Poor Things </i>is a great film. I have seen a few of Yorgos Lanthimos's films in the past, to varying degrees of confusion and boredom, and think this is the best he has done (I liked <i>The Lobster</i> a lot, but this is unmistakably more epic). I missed the opening minutes, but in the way of plot, this is a take on <i>Frankenstein. </i>The production design is noteworthy, and all of the technical elements are well-executed, but the screenplay and the acting elevate it to another level. The film may cause you to question how your experience of the world has been shaped by your parents, and society, and even "what it means to be human," in the same way that Shelley's <i>Frankenstein </i>was more philosophical inquiry than horror story. It is also oddly similar to <i>Barbie. </i>It is "fun"--but it is also provocative, and "pregnant with meaning." </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"> </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><u>Anatomy of a Fall (<i>Anatomie d'une chute</i>)</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><u><br /></u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0jVTm2lleR1TTQ8UZVcnEnkmAVvcC5WrTAHW6qLIGVmFWkh9bLFTBigUWaCVji77KaM_Ip1e56mM3fPcL3utzMBz_931T1TcnOSqGmld263STJIGXq4xl0ZULbn2CljmEWkrWeY8r2Ak4yPm70PO72XhfkHPbQi0fc4m6__-HIpuaU7A_3zoT0Tc4x2bu/s1480/231023-Frank-Anatomy-of-a-Fall-tease_yw2tqo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="833" data-original-width="1480" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0jVTm2lleR1TTQ8UZVcnEnkmAVvcC5WrTAHW6qLIGVmFWkh9bLFTBigUWaCVji77KaM_Ip1e56mM3fPcL3utzMBz_931T1TcnOSqGmld263STJIGXq4xl0ZULbn2CljmEWkrWeY8r2Ak4yPm70PO72XhfkHPbQi0fc4m6__-HIpuaU7A_3zoT0Tc4x2bu/s320/231023-Frank-Anatomy-of-a-Fall-tease_yw2tqo.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">On March 5, 2024, I began Part 1 of the Sandra Huller double-feature, renting <i>Anatomy of a Fall </i>on Amazon Prime, which will complete this project. Huller is nominated for Best Actress for this<i>, </i>and also plays a lead role in <i>The Zone of Interest</i>. She also played the lead role in the film I considered <a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2019/12/top-10-movies-of-decade.html" target="_blank">the best of the previous decade</a>. Perhaps not unlike Emma Stone, Huller "ascended" in 2023. (I will have to watch <i>Sybil </i>in the coming weeks, which is her previous collaboration with filmmakers Justine Triet and Arthur Harari, before this.)</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><i>Anatomy of a Fall </i>is basically a courtroom drama-thriller with some elevating elements. Huller is a German actress, and she plays a German writer (also named Sandra) that lives in France and prefers speaking English. It is not a spoiler to say she is eventually put on trial. It happens rather quickly, and the way the film moves through these various preliminary scenes rapidly, telegraphing what new developments have just come to pass, is one of the highlights. The opening itself ensures that you will never think of the 50 Cent song "P.I.M.P." the same, ever again. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">While making the film, Huller repeatedly asked whether or not her character was guilty, and the director refused to tell her. That ambiguity drives the film and imbues her performance with unsettling depth. It was also interesting as a former law student to see the differences in French trial procedure. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Perhaps the greatest strength of this film is how much remains unknown. We cannot truly know what is in another's heart, we only know what is in our own. One could watch the movie with two completely different interpretations, and Huller's performance holds true in either case. It would be interesting to know if she had her own personal belief about the guilt of the character, but I doubt she would publicly pronounce it. So I guess that's what make this a little different from usual courtroom drama-thrillers, because most of the time, the audience knows the truth, and here, we are just as good as a jury. (While I do want to avoid spoilers, I would be curious to talk to someone that saw the ending, because I am wondering if my own thoughts are shared.)</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><u>The Zone of Interest</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><u><br /></u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9ZA3rJTq0NeLZaDsiSrGtGYTwvA3XSWiXf5Glv3_puH9gmpgVKhlpLzzBEDAIoh0F8TZ1eogOhGytGLuOkkqH6ZqNNujfwLtBVzUolY-gaUukuXsIijHS5sI0UttKhSwa-2kEg87ryIpV9kJJ1HbM4Wlwomd3P4tIpFlK3A-OaGxEShvt6oeAjSOD-ji_/s1200/1_j84aBn-0oX666xzZstZKWg.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="1200" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9ZA3rJTq0NeLZaDsiSrGtGYTwvA3XSWiXf5Glv3_puH9gmpgVKhlpLzzBEDAIoh0F8TZ1eogOhGytGLuOkkqH6ZqNNujfwLtBVzUolY-gaUukuXsIijHS5sI0UttKhSwa-2kEg87ryIpV9kJJ1HbM4Wlwomd3P4tIpFlK3A-OaGxEShvt6oeAjSOD-ji_/s320/1_j84aBn-0oX666xzZstZKWg.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />On March 7, I completed this project and Part II of the Sandra Huller double-feature, and I needed to buy <i>The Zone of Interest </i>on Amazon. So I can watch it again whenever, but I am not sure if I would unless a friend requested to see it. It's a very strange film and probably the most "artsy" of the nominees. Jonathan Glazer is an interesting filmmaker. When I was growing up and thinking about being a film director, he had recently come out with <i>Sexy Beast </i>after a notable career directing music videos. <i>Sexy Beast </i>is great and hilarious and totally different from this. He may have made other films, but after that, he was most notable for <i>Under the Skin</i>, which is the weirdest of all, but which more than a few people considered one of the best movies of the previous decade. It employed a similar color palette to a few discrete scenes in <i>The Zone of Interest</i>, one of which is captured in the still above.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">It's about a German family--a Nazi family, but a family nonetheless--and the way they manage a happy domesticity in a beautiful home neighboring the front gates of Auschwitz. Many people comment that there are no images of the Holocaust, but that's not exactly true. Because a great deal of the material juxtaposes the cruel inhumanity of the father in his work as a Nazi officer with the gentle devotion he shows to his family (despite one odd scene which I think calls that into question). </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Glazer is a "slow" filmmaker, seemingly making one movie per decade (though did do the fairly mainstream <i>Birth </i>in 2004, and a short film, <i>The Fall</i>, in 2019) and may now be comparable to the often-great Terrence Malick. This movie is similarly slow and meditative, and extremely uncomfortable at times, and appalling. Huller brings humanity to her character, even after she jokes with a friend (or was it her mother?) that someone refers to her as the "Queen of Auschwitz." She fights for her family and there is some semblance of a happy ending, which obviously is conflicting and not really satisfying. This is intercut with a flash-forward near the end that lends a greater weight and gravity to the film, underscoring the horror of reality as it once was.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">In a way, this is a "token" nomination, in the way that <i>All Quiet on the Western Front </i>was last year, and <i>1917 </i>and <i>Dunkirk </i>were before: the war film nominee. There is not always a Holocaust film nominee, but they are fairly frequent--off the top of my head, obviously, <i>Schindler's List</i>, and also <i>Life is Beautiful</i>, <i>The Pianist,</i> <i>Jojo Rabbit--</i>and there are <a href="https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-xpm-2012-feb-19-la-ca-oscars-holocaust-films-20120219-story.html" target="_blank">many more</a>, and I forgot <i>Inglorious Basterds</i>. All of these films are powerful in different ways, and sadly, still relevant and necessary ("genocide" continues, and we continue to debate what constitutes it). There is no film adaptation of <i>The Banality of Evil </i>(though I did just find out, there is a documentary, titled <i>Hannah Arendt</i>) and while that would be undoubtedly rake in Oscar nominations, for now there is just this, which portrays a different variant of banality. This is not a pleasurable watch, or comfort viewing, probably for anyone, except perhaps for the deplorables justifying neo-Nazism, who might get some sick enjoyment out of it. For everyone else, it's a lesson that bears repeating, and might make the audience search themselves, and think about what they would do if they lived in Germany in the 1940's, whether we might be an "innocent bystander" or resist. It is much easier to resist when the real threat of persecution, imprisonment, exile or execution is a not an issue.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">*</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">So then, that wraps up our coverage of the Best Picture nominees. As for predictions:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><i>Oppenheimer </i>for Best Picture (<i>Killers of the Flower Moon </i>deserves it though)</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Christopher Nolan for Best Director <br />Cillian Murphy for Best Actor <br />Lily Gladstone for Best Actress<br />Robert Downey, Jr. for Best Supporting Actor<br />Da'Vine Joy Randolph for Best Supporting Actress</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">I can't say much else about the rest of the nominations, and if you are doing an Oscar Ballot competition like my family does every year, those other nominations mark the winner. So I'm sorry I can't be very useful to you, but I don't want to steer you wrong. I am reasonably sure that the above six categories will go this way, though there is always the potential for a surprise.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><i>Fin</i>.</div></div><p></p>JKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16199023801433187878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3851264164198134050.post-35003862098000729992024-01-29T10:44:00.001-05:002024-01-31T11:12:12.949-05:00Comedy Book: How Comedy Conquered Culture--and the Magic That Makes It Work - Jesse David Fox (2023)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8uklF8MWisulYMAOBxxyq0lAQ9QoFriPJAT3JTNiDK7zdvXpRGcPe7IRyWHN4ytWDO61U1ydpLDGQIBxH_MYHGBOL6d7GqpErP7wQubT5So6ZM5b0l74n_0sRnwXoKofA4h-yz9iXz2qC84dd-vu0lPoWnyEv0un-CdFemAnz7YKzLEQ6F7keQQ8alOPl/s4624/20240126_123730.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="4624" data-original-width="3468" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8uklF8MWisulYMAOBxxyq0lAQ9QoFriPJAT3JTNiDK7zdvXpRGcPe7IRyWHN4ytWDO61U1ydpLDGQIBxH_MYHGBOL6d7GqpErP7wQubT5So6ZM5b0l74n_0sRnwXoKofA4h-yz9iXz2qC84dd-vu0lPoWnyEv0un-CdFemAnz7YKzLEQ6F7keQQ8alOPl/s320/20240126_123730.jpg" width="240" /></a></div><p>My first thought-best thought after reading <i>Comedy Book</i> following <i><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2024/01/doppelganger-naomi-klein-2023.html" target="_blank">Doppelganger</a> </i>and <i><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2023/11/the-perfection-trap-thomas-curran-2023.html" target="_blank">The Perfection Trap</a>: </i>it was not as good as either, but offered the most enjoyable reading experience of the three. Should Fox consider that statement, query whether <i>le plaisir du texte</i> is greater than <i>sturm und drang</i>. I am likely using these pretentious-sounding phrases incorrectly. The world may be broken, but comedy is flourishing. </p><p>What can we take from a book? A different way of seeing and understanding the world, maybe. All three of these books made me think, but this one felt most familiar. All of these books are non-fiction, and all of the authors have a very urgent point they are trying to make. </p><p>Actually, I read <i><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2023/12/sure-ill-join-your-cult-maria-bamford.html" target="_blank">Sure, I'll Join Your Cult</a> </i>more recently than <i>The Perfection Trap</i>, but yeah they are all non-fiction. However, Maria Bamford did not have a thesis supported by evidence marshalled from primary and secondary sources, like these other three (other than her own experience, examining the nature of cults and cult-like behavior). <i>Doppelganger </i>and <i>The Perfection Trap </i>also discussed cults of various guises, as does <i>Comedy Book</i>. All four of these books are connected. This was more amusing and entertaining and enjoyable than <i>Perfection </i>or <i>Doppelganger</i>, but in the Fox v. Bamford match-up, I am sure both would concede to the other. The primary connecting tissue between all four is one word: compassion.</p><p>A year ago, I was taking a stand-up comedy class on Zoom. There was no required text. Sometimes our instructor would send us clips from YouTube, and hold up certain comedians as masters of the craft of joke-writing and joke-telling. Fox has written a book that could function as a class on stand-up, or serve as a key text in such a creatively-centered course. <i>Bird by Bird </i>is to creative writing classes as <i>Comedy Book </i>should be to stand-up comedy classes. Of course, there are far more of the former than the latter, but if this book is any indication, we can expect the latter to grow (and perhaps expect the former to fade accordingly with attention spans). </p><p>*</p><p>The very urgent point that Fox wants to make here is that comedy, like Rodney Dangerfield, doesn't get any respect [as an art form]. The first place my mind jumps is to <i>Annie Hall</i>. This is still the only Comedy to win Best Picture (<i>Birdman </i>and <i>Everything Everywhere All at Once </i>both have their share of comedic elements, but neither fit snugly into the genre.) Many people say comedic acting is much harder than dramatic acting. Fox makes the point that <i>Annie Hall </i>(along with <i>M*A*S*H</i>, <i>Tootsie</i>, and <i>The Graduate</i>) are "great, well-made comedic films, but they aren't laugh riots." (56) They aren't "hard comedies." </p><p>From there the discussion shifts to the filmography of Adam Sandler, and it's not exactly Fox's point that Sandler's "lowbrow" or "gross-out" comedies deserve more critical acclaim--rather, intent matters, and Sandler knows audiences connect with this type of humor that has become his calling card. Even as he does more serious roles for other auteurs, he cannot be considered an auteur himself, because he is not P.T. Anderson, the Safdie Brothers or Noah Baumbach. I believe that Fox means to push against this notion--that we can and should consider Adam Sandler an auteur in his own right, even if the films are admittedly execrable. </p><p>He drives this point home by discussing what some consider Sandler's worst movie, <i>Jack and Jill</i>. I had heard enough about this movie that I wanted to watch it, and I got about halfway or two-thirds through it before growing bored and disinterested. That said it is really absurd and I did laugh a fair amount earlier on. (This may have been after the <i><a href="https://www.grownups3script.com/grown-ups-3/" target="_blank">Grown-Ups 3</a> </i>script was circulated, and I still believe this would make an incredible movie.) Fox and I are probably pretty close in age and so I think <i>Billy Madison </i>holds a special place in both of our hearts (to my mind, actually a good film and borderline-classic "hard comedy"), but it feels like this bothers him a little too much, that critics feel bad about movies that rely on poop jokes. </p><p>But later, he mentions how <i>Blended </i>provided him with "a profound personal realization about the sacrifices my own parents made blending my family," "not in spite of some of the dumbest jokes of Sandler's career, but, in my opinion, because of them, as they told the overthinking part of my brain to take ninety minutes off, so I could <i>feel </i>something." (66) He then quotes Ernest Becker from <i>The Denial of Death </i>for the second time (first time: "[Man is] a god who shits.") to reference Otto Rank, a colleague of Freud's that worked with Henry Miller and Anais Nin who believed that the only cure for neurosis was the "need for legitimate foolishness." (66)</p><p>The point is fairly made. Even the films appealing to lowest-common-denominator "lowbrow" audiences present a value proposition beyond their bankability. Sandler has a deal with Netflix that gave him a ton of money and creative control and he chooses to make these rather silly movies, and some people seem to have a problem with that, and Fox thinks such critics are missing the point. Sandler is living the dream, and Fox gets it, and he deserves it after paying his dues, and there's nothing wrong with watching movies that don't necessarily make us think (though not all of us think they're really that funny, either). </p><p><i>*</i></p><p>Early on in the book, Fox makes his point, and the rest of it reads something like a very long rant about comedy, with some occasional flourishes bordering on profundity. The book references many comedians while examining particular facets of comedy. To perhaps better structure this review:</p><p>Jerry Seinfeld<br />Chris Rock (on "bombing")<br />Bernie Mac<br />Janeane Garafalo<br />Adam Sandler<br /><i>The Simpsons<br /></i>Gilbert Gottfried (on jokes that are "too soon")<br /><i>SNL </i>(post 9/11, and generally)<br />Jon Stewart (and other outgrowths of <i>The Daily Show</i>)<br />Bert Kreischer<br />Louis C.K.<br />Maria Bamford<br />Margaret Cho<br />Tig Notaro<br />John Early<br />Kate Berlant<br />Jo Firestone<br />Bo Burnham<br />Kristen Schaal<br />Hannah Gadsby<br />Jerrod Carmichael<br />Drew Michael<br />Anthony Jeselnik<br />Lisa Lampanelli<br />Dave Chappelle<br />Ricky Gervais<br />Bill Burr<br /><i>The Office </i>(on memes)<br /><i>I Think You Should Leave </i>(on memes)<br />Ali Wong<br />Lil Rel Howery<br />Bowen Yang <br />Matt Rogers<br />Mike Birbiglia<br />John Mulaney<br />Marc Maron<i> </i></p><p>If you like any of these comics, you are likely to find something of value in <i>Comedy Book</i>. If it is not already clear, however, Fox works by topics associated with stand-up, and some of the chapter titles include "Funny," "The Line," "Truth," "Laughter," (not required for comedy!) and "Community." Some of these chapters are better than others, and Fox is at his best when he is dissecting the brilliance of someone he admires. </p><p>A quick note on the writing style: it is conversational, and humorous (though more than a few times, lands in "dad-joke" territory, pseudo-intentionally) and a bit long-winded. This is probably better than the opposite. The book feels a little longer than it needs to be, but I appreciated the thoroughness and attention to detail. I am not a comedy fanatic by any stretch, but I knew most of the people referenced above, and some of them quite well. There were some surprising tidbits (like how Maria Bamford did an overnight Zoom stand-up show, sleeping with the camera on), and the occasional <i>petit madeleine truc </i>(like the SNL cold open after Trump was elected, or the Pete Buttigieg "High Hopes" viral video thing--to make up a sophisticated-sounding phrase that may not exist) and we can be reasonably certain that Fox has left no stone unturned, so to speak. You cannot sum up the entire history and trajectory of comedy in a book, but this comes close. I can take "long-winded" when the material feels comprehensive.</p><p>*</p><p>As I said though, even when I felt the topics had been analyzed to death already, I still enjoyed reading Fox's rants, because his passion is so strong that it drove me to care more. I can't help but include one quote for very odd, personal reasons. </p><p>"It was like I was Sandra Bullock in <i>Gravity</i>, doing routine repairs on the outside of my spaceship, when metal shards from a blown-up satellite came flying through, cutting up the craft, detaching my tether, leaving me flipping and flipping through space, floating away from my ship and Earth." (20-21)</p><p>Fox used the metaphor to describe his emotional state following the death of his mother, to highlight how comedy helped him cope with that tragedy (he was only 7), and it was rather moving. Recently <a href="https://x.com/JoeyVotto/status/1740522128942805438?s=20" target="_blank">Joey Votto used it</a> to describe his emotional state after changing his mind on retirement, after his team declined the option to sign him to a 1 year contract. He called out to George Clooney to save him. </p><p>A lot of people in the arts don't care about sports or consider them irrelevant, but George Carlin made one of his most famous bits about football and baseball, and athletes are entertainers and often rather funny--so Joey Votto matters, too, because he gets that. And maybe he didn't do too well last year (he owns that, and knows he can do better, knows he is not done), maybe the Reds don't want to do him the honor of a final farewell (it would be a redux of 2023), but I really hope the Cubs will step up and be his George Clooney. It is, in fact, one of my 12 wishes for 2024. Votto is a national treasure and will always be one of the most famous Reds in history. He loves hitting at Wrigley Field and it would be a beautiful way to end his career, with a World Series ring, beating the team that didn't want to stick with him for a <i>deja vu</i> trip around the sun. He wouldn't be asking for a lot, just a small contract for a year and the opportunity to play. This is an unfortunate pipe dream, but for the moment, we can fantasize about the beauty that could be. (This tangent wouldn't be allowed in a book, but I have to do what I can for the sake of the enterprise.)</p><p>*</p><p>So you probably have a good idea of what this book is like by now, but before we wrap, it is best to consider the nexus between this book and <i>Doppelganger</i>, and to include a short note about the material on Dave Chappelle, because it articulated a point that many have made, but few so distinctly. </p><p>I may have written about this before, but here are my top 3 most notable experiences at comedy clubs:</p><p>(1) The Comedy Cellar - August/September 2001 - Outside the club, I saw Carson Daly (Chris Rock was also with him, and I believe Fred Durst, too) and dissed him, drunkenly, foolishly, and he graciously admitted he knew he stood for "everything that [was] wrong with the teen pop generation." </p><p>(2) Boston Comedy Club - February or March 2002 - I go with a pseudo-platonic friend to a showcase featuring a person that lived across the street from our dorm (Janeane Garafalo did too, but this was a person named Jordan who had a bit about Mike Tyson having a match-up in the ring with a wild animal, shortly after he announced that he would eat Lennox Lewis's children). There is a two-drink minimum and we are not yet 19. I am put on the spot and asked if she is my girlfriend. I say she is not (I leave out that she wanted to be, once, and that she had a boyfriend now) and the comic generally makes fun of me, like I am dorky or whatever, and then adds that tonight they are going to get me laid. It was extremely uncomfortable, but there was a prophetic element buried in there, too.</p><p>(3) The Comedy Store - Sometime in early 2008 - My friend, a manager for a famous jazz musician, is in town for a tour stop and taking a few of the back-up musicians from Africa out for a good time, and we all go for a night of comedy, and are frequently mocked for the oddness of our group. My friend and I are considered the "Jewish handlers," because we were white and wore glasses, and then I am called Harry Potter, and it is only better because there is a women with a really crazy "emphysema laugh" in the audience that the host pivots towards for crowd work, and then later because Pauly Shore took the stage and apparently did not want to make me any more uncomfortable. </p><p>So yeah, it was kind of funny to read this from Fox:</p><p>"'Look at Harry Potter over here.' That's what I would get. I had not read <i>Harry Potter </i>or watched any of the movies, but I got what they were trying to say--I had brown hair and glasses. I should say they didn't just say 'Harry Potter.' No, that's not funny enough. 'R*****ed Harry Potter.' Now, that's funny. 'Gay Harry Potter.' Funnier! Honestly, as a group of four guys, it was a lot of gay stuff. It blurs, but I'm pretty sure Lisa Lampanelli called us the 'United Nations of f*****s.' I forgot this, but one of my fellow UN representatives remembers Lampanelli touching another's leg and making some sort of Black penis joke. He also told me he always thought her act was kinda racist. I had no idea. I had not asked my friend at the time. I'm sure I laughed. Maybe I thought this was funny, maybe it was the pressure of the crowd, maybe I was scared she'd notice and go after me next. I know I was not offended. Why would I be? I was not gay, but I also didn't know why I would be offended if I were. But, also, in general I didn't get offended. This is not a point of pride as much a proof of privilege. None of the slurs Lampanelli threw around--and she threw them <i>all</i> around--applied to me, and everyone else seemed to be laughing. I guess she'd call people 'kikes,' but by 2002 that wasn't a word that meant anything to me. Frankly, in retrospect, I was desensitized." (190-191)</p><p>Now, I was offended, because it made me feel like a loser, and maybe this segues into the <i>Doppelganger </i>thing, or the anti-woke thing, or the freedom of speech thing, or the punching down thing, because they all feel connected. </p><p>*</p><p>When I was about halfway through this book, one night I watched the newest specials by both Dave Chappelle and Ricky Gervais. Chappelle's was better, but Gervais's wasn't terrible. Both of them are lightning rods for obvious reasons. Perhaps its best to start with something Gervais says towards the end of his special:</p><p>"Here's the irony: I think I am woke, but I think that word has changed. I think if woke still means what it used to mean, that you're aware of your own privilege, you're trying to maximize equality, minimize oppression, be anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-homophobic....Yes, I'm definitely woke. If woke now means being a puritanical, authoritarian bully, who gets people fired for an honest opinion or even a fact, then no, I'm not woke. Fuck that." </p><p>Rather than pointing out specific examples of people getting fired after being "reported" by a Woke Person (because it is usually not just having an honest opinion or stating a fact that does it), I want to analyze this the way that Fox would. Because on the one hand, Gervais is right, and the authoritarian, bullying Woke Person is part of the "fractured left" that Naomi Klein bemoaned in <i>Doppelganger</i>. On the other hand, when he says "fuck that," it gets a big cheer that sounds too much like a rallying cry. It's a rallying cry against cancel culture, and the "anti-woke" comedians often complain about being cancelled despite the First Amendment (Fox notes more than once that they are on a stage and getting paid for saying these things), and on <i>WTF </i>Marc Maron will talk about how freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences of what you say, which really is how we live as civilians. It's a broad rallying cry against cancel culture, but cancellations are highly specific. </p><p>Fox does discuss Louis C.K. in some detail, but Aziz Ansari is consigned to a footnote as being one of the eighteen acts that has headlined Madison Square Garden (9). Talking about him or Al Franken is tricky (talking about <a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2017/08/al-franken-giant-of-senate-al-franken.html" target="_blank">their</a> <a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2015/10/modern-romance-aziz-ansari-with-eric.html" target="_blank">books</a> is not). There are likely other "woke" people that were cancelled and came off as hypocrites, but these two seem most prominent, and both were cancelled for acts with women that felt creepy, transactional and/or gross. (Let's ignore Bill Murray and James Franco for now--"me too," like sexuality, exists on a spectrum.) In any case, none of them happened just because of words. </p><p>Ansari was the only one to make a "mainstream" comeback, and I am surprised that Fox did not take a moment to talk about his comedy special <i>Right Now</i> but he does talk about John Mulaney's "comeback"* after going to rehab. Maybe there was no point to be made, and I don't know how most people feel about that special, but to me, it was fine, and he did the right thing, and he took his time away, and he did his penance, and he talked about it openly onstage (albeit briefly and vaguely)--he did it mostly the right way.</p><p>Most people, however, do not get the opportunity apart from their "apologies" posted to social media, which are often lambasted as "non-apologies" if they contain any whiff of self-defense. Being cancelled is incredibly scary, but there is a whole playbook for it now, PR-crisis mode, and anyone that chooses not to "play the game" runs the risk of committing career suicide, unless their intention is to drop out entirely. </p><p>Fox does address this to an extent with Kevin Hart and his rescinded invitation to host the Oscars (actually just for one joke itself), and Louis C.K. did immediately respond with a mostly appropriate apology in <i>The New York Times</i> (I am not going to hunt it down and analyze it, but that's how I recall it). He didn't later try to get a big special to win everyone back, but instead made his own platform, and you can find him if you want to find him. (Trump has taken a page out of the same book, but you will still find him even if you don't want to.) </p><p>It's hard to treat everyone perfectly equally (some people get away with everything), and some cancellations are deserved and some aren't, and while I pretty much agree with Gervais's statement, I don't think I would cheer for it, or even clap. It's simplistic, neat and tidy. Plenty of people say "gender is a fact," and not all of the authoritarian bullying Woke People think they should all lose their jobs, but they will certainly try to convince them that they are wrong, or write them off. (And yes you can lose your job for any reason, employment is almost always at-will unless you are unionized, and First Amendment Retaliation claims are only cognizable for governmental/public employees.) These people can petition Netflix to remove certain jokes, but they don't bend to them (though the Academy did). The truth is generally found in the details. </p><p>*</p><p>Dave Chappelle has said he is "Team TERF," and so perhaps its best to end here, because after his previous special, many people at Netflix protested and their boss told them he heard them, but he wouldn't take it down, and they could leave if they felt that strongly about it. (I think that's what happened, right?) Chappelle cancelled his own show after he realized he was getting laughs that made him uncomfortable, when he perceived a segment of the audience had been laughing at him rather than with him. I don't know how many more specials he has under contract with Netflix, and think what you will about him, but I do not think he can or should be cancelled. </p><p>As a critic, I prefer not to take sides, but it is inevitable, and I do not think Dave Chappelle is socially irresponsible. I do think he could be less "lazy," though his most recent special showcases his joke-book, and I do not want to accuse him of that. He could pander more, I guess, but if there is one thing comics should never do, it is pander. If he panders, his audience will think he's a sellout, and he will lose the juice that comes with being "bad boy." He doesn't feel he has to "repent" for anything, and I did find it curious that Fox left out the "epilogue" part to one of his specials where he spoke at length about his relationship with the trans community and his trans friend that essentially gave him permission to do the jokes. These are really thorny topics and I'm feeling the urge to use the phrase Gordian Knot.</p><p>I do think plenty of us growing up in the 80's and 90's dealt with "punching down" humor as a matter of course and reflection of reality, and this may be why many comics of that time period and earlier find censorship of such comedy to be "woke BS." We all had to put up with it, we all have internalized homophobia, deal with it! Yet we don't grow by thinking that way. But if we do grow, our comedy may turn into a Ted Talk. </p><p>This book is about what comedy is for, and comedy is for many things, but most directly, trauma-coping. Comedy can do many other things, as can literature. We can learn from a comedian's set the same way we can learn from a book, and we might become better human beings for having experienced them. There are ways to do both--<i>Nanette </i>being the prime example. But Chappelle can't pivot like that. Hannah Gadsby broke through with that trope. Chappelle broke through the way most comics of his generation did, and he has no reason to do the type of <i>mea culpa</i> that Ansari did. He could only do that if he was cancelled in a major way, and his audience is such that it would never happen, because he is not actually a bad person, he just sometimes tells jokes that offend a lot of people. (That being said, he could make some kind of statement, and most of his fans would continue to follow him, and he does not need to worry about money.)</p><p>*</p><p>In writing this review, I think I am coming up against the problem that Fox must have had in writing it: the tendency to rant and fight with oneself about taking sides. This was the quote:</p><p>"Though the direction of the joke is against North Carolina's bathroom bill, how it is received will vary based on each audience member's prior thoughts and feelings. A trans person or a total ally will have different opinions about the joke itself, but their stance on trans issues would very likely not be impacted at all. Audience members who obliquely support the trans community but feel some trepidation or confusion around the topic might find relief from their worry about this issue, in a way that moves them in the direction of unqualified support. Conversely, for audience members who aren't outright bigoted but are confused, skeptical, or generally weirded out by transgender people, Chappelle's dehumanizing fascination with the biology of the trans community can resonate and reverse any soft allegiances they were forming. For the unrepentant transphobe, Chappelle, just like the satirists of Chapter 5, is giving the audience a vocabulary to talk about trans people--he is giving them ammunition. It's hard to prove anyone ever heard a joke and then went out and committed a hate crime, but people repeat jokes they like. It deems certain speech allowable, and worse, it encourages people who are less funny, who are more oblivious to context, to try to walk the same line, and that will result in vulnerable people feeling bad and more vulnerable." (227)</p><p>Basically, to Fox and many younger comedians and audiences, Chappelle is a master of the craft, and a dinosaur. Bigotry is hack. New comedy will find a way to be funny without punching down. Query whether "punching down," now, is actually punching back. </p><p>I personally do not like to punch back. I will take the punch, and walk away, and I know I will be the bigger person for doing that. But I guess now, before you decide to go talk on stage for a living, you really ought to do a lot of work on yourself, and make sure that your heart is in the right place, and make sure that no one will get the wrong idea. That may be impossible. They will always get the wrong idea. It's how you deal with the blowback, how you "respond, rather than react," that will dictate your fate. Just generally speaking as a human being, it is better policy to love than to hate, and we can reflect the ugliness of reality in our art, but we can also imagine different realities and re-think the idea of "targets" in general. </p><p>I'll die on this hill with respect to comedy: everyone should just make fun of themselves. Self-deprecation is life. </p><p><i>Comedy Book</i>: B+<br />Review of <i>Comedy Book: </i>D+<i> </i> </p><p><br /></p><p>*I watched <i>Baby J </i>last night, and to be honest, it is probably better than <i>Right Now</i>. My only issue with it is that he only really talked about the rehab experience for the entire time. The reference to divorce and lack of further elaboration feels like a missed opportunity to do a super special, back-to-back, but I am sure this was the more emotionally responsible choice to make. </p>JKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16199023801433187878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3851264164198134050.post-5336717036644836952024-01-12T14:29:00.003-05:002024-01-13T12:09:19.845-05:00Doppelganger - Naomi Klein (2023)<div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZAPV9OhgkcREo3HqTKIF07docgJl0RNqMJBvC2CZggAxlIv5yD-_Xp5D1wfj6iMjK7SdjubLn9fd8oOgO3TPGyLUbRu6lXt34D3ij-hXdnecXvLz5a1wrfF7lZ2LsnOL0AOUsxjhA1BZGoy8hwivLmE-Ed3dYlXnpsgGEywypcTs16rbPs3hsa8_rnnQq/s4624/20240112_134531.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="4624" data-original-width="3468" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZAPV9OhgkcREo3HqTKIF07docgJl0RNqMJBvC2CZggAxlIv5yD-_Xp5D1wfj6iMjK7SdjubLn9fd8oOgO3TPGyLUbRu6lXt34D3ij-hXdnecXvLz5a1wrfF7lZ2LsnOL0AOUsxjhA1BZGoy8hwivLmE-Ed3dYlXnpsgGEywypcTs16rbPs3hsa8_rnnQq/s320/20240112_134531.jpg" width="240" /></a></div><i><br /></i></div><i>Doppelganger </i>is a book that starts in a very small place--Naomi Klein's personal experience of being confused with Naomi Wolf too many times--and ends rather ambitiously, with a take-down of the entire structure of global society. I liked this book a lot and it is probably one of the best books of 2023 (fiction or non-fiction) but sometimes I felt Klein went on a bit too long and became a bit too strident. However, by the very end--especially after the epilogue--I was moved, and felt that "stridency" was necessary. <div><br /></div><div>I have a friend that identifies as a "liberal, not a libtard." This is a book about language, too, and examining these differences matters, Klein has taught me. I think by "libtard," (a term I'd rather not use, but am parroting for the sake of simplicity) he means the fractured left, the loudest voices shaming and cancelling people for their failures at various purity tests. I would almost say "for not being woke enough," but that word has become weaponized. I never liked the word when people first started saying it back in 2016 or 2017 or so, because it smacks of anti-intellectualism on top of being a grammatical nightmare, as if "conscientious" was too difficult to spell (or wasted too many characters for Twitter). It's been weaponized in particular by Ron DeSantis, and a multitude of comedians and other "content creators" seeking to expand their audience. Naomi Wolf is just one of them. </div><div><br /></div><div>I was touched to see Klein write about Wolf's blog, DailyClout, because of the numbers:</div><div><br /></div><div>"I checked the traffic: in April 2021, the month she started regularly appearing on Bannon's podcast, DailyClout broke 100,000 unique visits--up from a mere 851 one year earlier." (86) [Earlier, Klein notes one month saw "a mere thirteen visitors."]</div><div><br /></div><div>Miracles can happen when we are willing to accept <a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2008/12/faust-johann-wolfgang-von-goethe.html" target="_blank">Faust</a>ian bargains, it seems. </div><div><br /></div><div>Flying Houses has 264,726 views as of this morning. While "all time" stats only go back until January 2011, I cannot find one month with less than 500 visitors. And so I question whether it is possible that DailyClout had less. I am not a very popular person and reviews of old books are not hot topics and total earnings for this blog since April 1, 2008 amount to $38.17 (yet unpaid). Things could be worse, I guess. </div><div><br /></div><div>[FWIW, all of the usual items remain inscrutably popular, with the <i><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2009/05/beautiful-and-damned-f-scott-fitzgerald.html" target="_blank">Beautiful and Damned</a> </i>review towering over all others with 6.04K views (query how the blog itself can have 264,000 views if the most popular post only has 6,000 of those, and the #2 entry--a review of Deerhunter's <i><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2008/11/deerhunter-microcastle-weird-era.html" target="_blank">Microcastle</a></i>--has 2.44K--I don't trust these numbers).]</div><div><br /></div><div>For a moment, Klein does address a phenomena of which I am guilty: </div><div><br /></div><div>"I was horrified the first time I noticed a colleague self-cite, embedding quotes from his earlier work in a column--'as I wrote here [link] and here [link].' Why was he quoting himself? Quoting is what we do to bring in the voices of others, to expand the frame, not to narrow it further. Now self-citing happens all the time: 'As I wrote here'....'See my earlier tweet'.....'Just bumping this up.' We have to do it, or so many of us believe--we are caught in a roaring river of voices that seems to wash away all that came before. If we don't remind people of what we have said and done, surely we will soon be floating downstream to the sea with all the other cultural detritus." (70)</div><div><br /></div><div>Yes, we are all too well aware of our superfluousness, our disposability, and the inaudible murmur that we emit from the back alleys of Blogspot. Sometimes we need to lift ourselves up and remember what we have accomplished and what we have said before, to note what has changed and what has not. </div><div><br /></div><div>Klein need not grapple with such fears. She has already made her mark on the world as an investigative journalist and activist, and her books (she puts particular emphasis on <i>No Logo </i>and <i>The Shock Doctrine</i>) are not in danger of falling out-of-print. <i>Doppelganger </i>is likely her greatest success to date, and because it is such a huge book in terms of ideas and sheer righteousness, one imagines greater successes to come (though we might predict it will take the shape of an even bigger statement on the Climate Change, which she has spent the majority of her career analyzing). Yet even though she "made it" as a writer, she acknowledges, she still does grapple with these fears of being "outshouted," ignored and forgotten. </div><div><br /></div><div>*</div><div><br /></div><div>Wolf "made it" as a writer, too, with the publication of her debut <i>The Beauty Myth, </i>when she was 29 (which also gave her the same rival as a previous <a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2021/01/sontag-benjamin-moser-2019.html" target="_blank">subject</a>). Klein also put out her debut, <i>No Logo</i>, at age 29, albeit 8 years later. The differences do not stop there:</div><div><br /></div><div>"The logical leaps were bad enough. What made it worse for me was that, with Wolf's new focus on abuses of corporate and political power during states of emergency, something she touched on only briefly in <i>The End of America</i>, I felt like I was reading a parody of <i>The Shock Doctrine</i>, one with all the facts and evidence carefully removed, and coming to cartoonishly broad conclusions I would never support. And while I was not yet confused with my doppelganger all that often, I knew that some people would credit me with Wolf's theories. It was an out-of-body feeling. I went back and took a closer look at the articles about her evening-wear arrest [during the Occupy Wall Street protests], and a line in <i>The Guardian </i>jumped out at me: 'Her partner, the film producer Avram Ludwig, was also arrested.'<br />I read the sentence to my partner, the film director and producer Avram Lewis (who goes by Avi).<br />'What the actual fuck?' he asked.</div><div>'I know,' I said. 'It's like a goddamned conspiracy.' </div><div>Then we both just burst out laughing." (20-21)</div><div><br /></div><div>Klein is playing a bit here, because she doesn't write about Avi's films (perhaps because of her collaborative aspect in them), but his political campaign for a position in Parliament representing West Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. What makes <i>Doppelganger </i>much more interesting than the usual book of social criticism is Klein's willingness to make herself a major part of the story. (This is often seen as one of the worst things a documentary can do, but if it's in a book, it can be a great thing.) This comes to the fore in her chapter on autism, detailing her experiences raising a neuroatypical child, one of the several unusual tangents the book takes, which feels like veering off course until she wraps everything up and reveals the basic idea at the bottom of all human discord: Manifest Destiny (and later, "killing the brutes"). </div><div><br /></div><div>*</div><div><br /></div><div>This is likely a highly controversial and potentially divisive stance, but I have to imagine that most readers will be fans of Klein's and not Wolf's ("hate-watching" could be a thing, but "hate-reading" is far less common, and the Wall Street Journal did not review this book so I cannot see how the commenters feel about this idea that colonialism is at the heart of our deepest societal ills). The point will not be misconstrued. Exponential growth and expansion are hallmarks of the capitalist framework, and we have been conditioned to see this as a good thing to aspire towards, and while we are told to love our neighbors, the unspoken underlying truth is that we care most about the protection of our own families, and everyone else takes lesser priority. </div><div><br /></div><div>"The trouble is, we live in a society that encourages and rewards the uncaring parts of ourselves, while making it hard to care for others outside our immediate family (and often within it) in any sustained way. So, [Sally] Weintrobe [a psychoanalyst who specializes in the climate crisis] argues, if we want more people to make better choices--not to shop for useless stuff as a source of solace, not to spread disinformation for clicks and clout, not to see other people's vulnerability and need as a threat to our own interests--we need better structures and systems." (336-337)</div><div><br /></div><div>*</div><div><br /></div><div>Unmistakably, <i>Doppelganger </i>posits the Covid-19 pandemic as the moment when trust in our structures and systems crumbled along party lines. We all had our own unique Covid Experience, but Klein captures the feeling I had about 46 months ago. This was new, and it felt like 9/11, except without the unparalleled death and destruction and horror in the space of a single morning, and spread out across the planet. There was a precedent in the Spanish Flu in 1918, and we saw eerie call-backs to that era, with old photographs of families in masks and old newspaper items about "social distancing." Most conspicuously, we got money, "fake money," and the stimulus propelled the economy through most of 2021 until it arguably created outsized inflation and the raising of the federal interest rate. </div><div><br /></div><div>"It seems so distant now, but there were a few months in 2020--a good half a year--when there had been a widespread belief that the pandemic might be a catalyst for a great many of the structural changes our societies had been collectively procrastinating and avoiding. Many of us even let ourselves dream that the emptiness of our highways, the rest the skies were receiving from planes, and all of the talk about missing nothing more than one another would actually lead to a meaningful change in how we decided to live when the pandemic finally eased. These were the weeks when so many of us shared and quoted and posted Arundhati Roy's essay 'The Pandemic is a Portal,' imagining that a global calamity might take us somewhere not just different but better." (149)</div><div><a href="goog_1914638392"><br /></a></div><div>I never read this <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/10d8f5e8-74eb-11ea-95fe-fcd274e920ca" target="_blank">essay</a> at the time, but I have now, and it's hard to imagine the disparity between what we experienced here in the U.S. and the extraordinary impact the virus had on India and its people living under already deplorable conditions. It was as if their pain was magnified. For hospital staff and other essential workers here, that was also the case. If there was ever a time for a raise for the cashier at the check-out lane, this was it, and I don't believe many got that (though one recalls, this was a watershed moment for debate on what truly constitutes a "living wage," particularly in the hospitality industry). </div><div><br /></div><div>For the great masses beyond those essential workers here, the pandemic was a reprieve. And while too many Wall Street Journal commenters would berate me for the fact, I happened to be a contingent worker, and more often than not took the "boosted" unemployment income that had been implemented. </div><div><br /></div><div>I had been waiting my entire life for something like this. It was a return to childhood. The drudgery of life had been apparent to me since I was 10. It is an endless cycle of tasks and accomplishments and events and exams and tests and established consistencies and challenges and pressure to achieve something "meaningful." You have to keep working to survive, and the rent is high, and everything is more expensive in the places that have the best opportunities. </div><div><br /></div><div>Covid came, and someone in government waved a magic wand and gave us what they deemed "enough" money to live (and it was a living wage, and probably more than that), if we were lucky enough to be unemployed. For about 18 months, the tables turned, and us have-nots were envied for our freedom. We could stay up til 3 AM and sleep til Noon. We could play video games all day and no one would really care. If we were bold, travel was suddenly cheap. Of course, it also allowed us to give in to our basest instincts. We had to learn self-control, and how to peacefully co-exist with our housemates and families in a more claustrophobic atmosphere. Mostly though, it was a <i>break</i>. While some people might have accused me of being a lazy worker, experience knows that is not so. I simply worked too many s***ty jobs over the previous 15 years, relentlessly. Any time off in that span could not be fully enjoyed, because it was almost never Paid Time Off. And so here, finally, I had PTO, and a lot of it. </div><div><br /></div><div>We could do anything, except not <i>en masse</i>. I loved it. It was occasionally terrifying, but for the most part, I felt safe (I did not get Covid myself until May of 2022; I got it again about a year later; it seems like a lot of us are getting it now). But by September 2021, when the UI "party" ended, it was scary, but it was time. And I motivated myself to get into a real job and prove myself as a capable person in this world, and I got lucky. If it weren't for the pandemic, I'm not sure where I would be.</div><div><br /></div><div>So it was a portal for me, at least, and maybe a few others--but not for our society. We backslid into the established ways of treating one another. The crazy people came out quickly.</div><div><br /></div><div>*</div><div><br /></div><div>Now, I know, they think I am crazy, they think we are all crazy, they think we are "sheeple," they think we are idiots for getting vaccinated. Naomi Wolf is one of them. This book is about them. The problem here, is that I am using "us" and "them." This divisiveness is potentially giving way to a 2nd Civil War. Nobody wants to say that, but that's the undertone. Even Nikki Haley was recently asked about what caused the 1st Civil War, and did not want to upset anyone by talking about slavery--but her answer was likely meant to apply to the present moment: "How government was going to run, the freedoms and what people could, and couldn't do." Sure, it was about people having slaves or not being able to have slaves, and "freedoms," in 1860, but which ones today are truly at stake? Klein acknowledges the absurdity of "freedom protests" from masking and vaccination mandates. Ron DeSantis is running his entire platform on his handling of Covid-19, and Trump and Haley and other conservative candidates want to get these voters that seem, well, stupid. </div><div><br /></div><div>But aren't we the stupid ones? They're right, in a way. Epstein did have Clinton to his island (and Clinton doesn't seem credible--and the fact that Naomi Wolf had a role in his White House is another example of her fascinating trajectory). Biden is potentially losing his mental faculties (though they are blind to Trump's own unraveling). Homeless drug addicts are multiplying in cities with "liberal" mayors (and migrants welcomed here stoke further contempt for nanny-states, symbolizing cities in decline, of which San Francisco is the poster child). </div><div><br /></div><div>What's refreshing about Klein is that, as an "anti-capitalist," she doesn't endorse the Democratic party, either. She wanted Bernie. Now, I wanted Elizabeth Warren (and could anything better represent the 'fractured left' than that refusal of a handshake between them after that one debate?), but after reading this book, I better understand the appeal of Bernie and the power behind his campaign--it wasn't about us:</div><div><br /></div><div>"Though rare, I have seen this happen. I have been in factories taken over by their workers and squares occupied by the people and cities in the grips of revolutionary fervor--moments when everyone you meet is your political comrade and lifelong friend rolled into one. And it was there, too, in that U.S. presidential campaign that united millions with three that began as a slogan and became a kind of social justice prayer: 'Not me. <i>Us</i>.' The campaign's pivotal moment took place at a rally in Queens, New York, in October 2019. That's when Sanders, in front of a crowd of twenty-five thousand people, did something he hadn't done before. He exhorted everyone there to look to someone in their midst, someone they did not know, 'maybe somebody who doesn't look kinda like you, maybe somebody who might be of a different religion than you, maybe they come from a different country....My question now to you is are you willing to fight for that person who you don't even know as much as you're willing to fight for yourself?' </div><div>Would they fight to end student debt, even if they had no debt? Would they fight for the rights of immigrants, even if they were citizens themselves? Would they fight for the rights of people who hadn't been born yet to live a life safe from climate breakdown? In the road of the crowd, people were more than moved--they were altered. Altered by the power represented by the idea of standing up and fighting beyond the narrowest conception of self and identity. </div><div>The trouble is, a presidential campaign isn't capable of making good on a promise like that. By definition, an electoral campaign has a finite life span, and it ends when the candidate wins or loses. When Bernie lost and that end arrived, the unselfing we felt so powerfully on the campaign trail seemed to end right along with it. Shut in our homes by the first wave of strict lockdowns, severed from the movement that had held us together, so many of us who had been overcome by the power of 'us' felt as if we had just been summarily dropped into a deep sea of 'me.'" (333)</div><div><br /></div><div>I should have ended that excerpt a paragraph early and added, "Would they fight for the right of people to party?" but I liked the next one too much because it captured that distinct moment so poignantly. It's perhaps worth asking, though, because with a new election season well underway, it is important to derive counterpoints from predictable arguments: inevitably, San Francisco will be referenced in the coming months as the leading example of a failing city overrun by homelessness and drug addiction (Klein writes about similar problems in her near-hometown of Vancouver, BC). Candidates will be asked how they have managed that in their home constituencies, and how they would on a federal level. What has been done in Reno, NV <i>could be</i> a step in the right direction, the type of intervention that is most effective in curtailing housing insecurity, unemployment, addiction and mental illness. There is a menu of social issues on a growing list of topics for debate, and this is one of the most complex, apart from how to address climate change. </div><div><br /></div><div>Immigration and abortion are also political flashpoints, because you want to vote for a candidate that aligns with your values. Student debt....should we really get into it? That was an odd issue for the intense emotions it unleashed. If I ever want to get depressed and question my life choices, I read a WSJ story on student debt relief and read the comments. Nobody that paid off their loans wants younger people today to get a free pass. (Nobody also talks about how to appease such individuals, whom I believe could be "massaged into" a tax credit.) "My tax dollars shouldn't bail you out," they say. </div><div><br /></div><div>And yet who receives a tax bill? For property, maybe, or for certain corporate matters--but people don't get tax bills for yearly individual filings. We get W-2s. And we see how much we owe based on our income. It's 20%, or 25% (maybe more in a higher bracket). People seem to think raising taxes is the inevitable measure necessary for the forgiveness of student debt. They are jumping to conclusions and catastrophizing (they ask where we will find the money for it, and recoil in horror at the thought of cutting back on Defense spending). We don't even know what our taxes are going towards now anyways. Another great idea that no one seems to float is the <i>reporting </i>of<i> </i>what percentages or amounts of our taxes paid have been attributed to which programs, which departments, which initiatives, so that we could more effectively vote for the interests we hold most dear. Don't bet on that happening. It can be dangerous to give the people too much information. It is prone to misinterpretation. We have more information than ever on the Internet, and we are also misled down rabbit holes, more than ever, by conspiracy theorists looking for angles, views, likes, donations, and clout. </div><div><br /></div><div>*</div><div><br /></div><div>While <i>Doppelganger </i>is teeming with fascinating tangents, one other merits mention before we close out this review, and it is the lengthy screed on antisemitism, which has permeated global culture for thousands of years, and is experiencing something of a comeback. <i>Doppelganger </i>was published on 9/12/23. Four weeks later, she probably wished she hadn't made her deadline. </div><div><br /></div><div>We could go back and provide a roadmap of all of the examples from history she analyzes, or the pages she devotes to exploring the utopian ideals of Red Vienna, post-World War I and pre-World War II, but for the present moment, her statements on Zionism and the issues building towards terrible events that were yet unknown, felt quite prophetic indeed.</div><div><br /></div><div>The sub-chapter "Erez from Erez," within the larger chapter of "The Unshakable Ethnic Double," is something I would excerpt in full, but I have to set some kind of limit, maybe three paragraphs (as above). In any case, this may be a misleading episode to represent the current state of affairs, because it took place in 2009, but regardless...</div><div><br /></div><div>"With the aid of many beers, the three of us deconstructed the levels of gaslighting that Erez from Erez appeared to have orchestrated. No, we did not buy that the Israeli military was about to open a ground war in Gaza to rescue three Jews who were not lost. Nor did we believe we had been in imminent danger from Hamas. They had questioned Avi in a makeshift checkpoint inside a shipping container for about fifteen minutes, mainly to find out why he had an Israeli first name if he was Canadian (his mother's youthful labor Zionism). But they were satisfied with his press credentials--and it was the Israelis who had left us on the Gazan side for hours before allowing us through the checkpoint.</div><div>It seemed clear that they wanted us to sweat, to wonder if we were being abandoned behind "enemy" lines. And then they wanted to send a very clear message: that whoever we thought we were, and whatever we thought we were doing, here, on these blood-soaked lands, we were nothing but our ethnic doubles, nothing but our Jewishness. That Jewishness would get us kidnapped or killed by Hamas in Gaza, never mind my foolish support for Palestinian rights, and then it would only be the Israeli army that would ride to our rescue, its soldiers risking their lives to save ours, even though they hold us in utter contempt. Because, like Hamas, they don't care about who we think we are as individuals; they care about our Jewish doubles. So, when Hamas attacked us as Jews, Israel would be there to save us as Jews." (314)</div><div><br /></div><div>I heard a lot about Israel and Palestine all throughout my life, and it was something that would come up in the news every few years or so, and every time I would throw my hands up and say I didn't understand it, and not look into it further. This time it was different. And it hurts my brain to think about the ways we are supposed to feel and the way we actually feel, and the safest way to protest is to protest killing in any sort of guise. Having read the entirety of <i>Doppelganger</i>, I trust that Klein is not losing the thread. I have to think she saw all of this coming. </div><div><br /></div><div>*</div><div><br /></div><div><i>Doppelganger </i>simply goes too many places to neatly summarize in any review. I could write something twice as long (there should be an entire section of this review devoted to the word "genocide") but I would just say to read the book itself. We all know that liberals and democrats are basically done, because they can't get anything done, and conservatives have banded together, formed a more unified ideology, agreed on most issues, strategized and packed the Court with their appointees (three young enough to spend several more decades on the bench) and remained persistently aggressive and passionate and engaged about their beliefs. It's clear that Klein is tired of the weak and half-hearted activism, i.e. "virtue signaling" and nothing further, that has branded the liberals as ineffectual lemmings. Her journey down the rabbit hole does bring some surprising suggestions:</div><div><br /></div><div>"Though I hesitate to suggest it, this is a place [Greta's 'blah-blah-blah speeches on climate change] where we could stand to learn a little from Steve Bannon. From his bloody-minded approach to strategy and building winning coalitions despite differences. From his transformation of listeners and watchers into highly organized doers. From his focus on 'Action! Action Action!'" (157)</div><div><br /></div><div>Is James Carville the doppelganger to Steven Bannon? I cannot tell but I do not see him as the leader we need, or deserve. If anyone besides Trump is responsible for Trump, Bannon is at the very top. And though Trump is gone, kind of, for now at least (maybe), Bannon remains a key organizer of several subsets of conservatives rallied around the idea of MAGA. I think it's still clear that the closest thing liberals have gotten to Bannon is Bernie (and he's not doing his own show every week for two hours, riling up his compatriots). (Ralph Nader + Bernie was a missed opportunity, but maybe that would have been Too Soon.)</div><div><br /></div><div>So this year is important. It's unfortunate there won't be serious democratic contenders (Biden will not step down) to have the kind of debate we had four years ago, but Biden has been "buying" votes from the radical wing of the party and is likely to appear as progressive as possible (without alienating his core centrists). For now it's more interesting to watch DeSantis vs. Haley. For the record, the only thing I really care about is his relationship with Disney, and I appreciate that both Trump and Haley have called him out as being "destroyed" by Disney. Even they respect the right of corporations to have free speech, and to stand against what they see as hate and intolerance. "Desantislies.com," but the conservatives lie in general all the time, and many of the problems they seek to correct are fake ones meant to rile up and attract voters. </div><div><br /></div><div>It's a tall task to "explicate" all of the problems of our current world, but Klein does a damn good job of connecting seemingly disparate events with one another. In <i>Doppelganger</i>, she draws out these connections that maybe we have felt at various moments, but haven't been able to articulate. I can't explain it better than that, but if you read it, I think you'll get it, and I'm sure she could put it better but also wouldn't want to toot her own horn, or go for Too Much Clout.</div><div><br /></div><div>Like I said, though, this is a depressing book, and I didn't want to say it was one of the Best Books, until the Epilogue. I won't spoil the Epilogue but it was definitely the most powerful part of the book for me (also, those other spare moments when Klein praises Wolf). Wolf did not participate in this book, but perhaps she knew, it would be better that way. Now, the ball is in Wolf's court. Perhaps a third act to her career is around the corner, and the publication of her comeback volume, <i>The Antagonist</i>, will bring us all to a new moment of unity. I like to think of myself as an optimist, but I am not holding my breath. </div><div><br /></div><div>Grade: A</div>JKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16199023801433187878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3851264164198134050.post-3041700257250963092023-12-01T18:17:00.001-05:002023-12-01T18:27:10.750-05:00Sure, I'll Join Your Cult - Maria Bamford (2023)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiD7rZwfr4MpB2UzaNqEmC8dpkFYLR4HRdLrwwHj8pZtXrcW5F6PsW_RIdSxxFLq2n_FVnYmsY5JXGPaBy23FxwaQ5-C43cxxiwwh6Rr_AEqQtelU4F5fNmec9fKFQw_xVU0zCo-OI1jFx-rKEFHd4Y_QEoCj4FkljqPv0NlUHMUOyROjvAASWVSh-eFJOj/s4624/20231201_172146.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="4624" data-original-width="3468" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiD7rZwfr4MpB2UzaNqEmC8dpkFYLR4HRdLrwwHj8pZtXrcW5F6PsW_RIdSxxFLq2n_FVnYmsY5JXGPaBy23FxwaQ5-C43cxxiwwh6Rr_AEqQtelU4F5fNmec9fKFQw_xVU0zCo-OI1jFx-rKEFHd4Y_QEoCj4FkljqPv0NlUHMUOyROjvAASWVSh-eFJOj/s320/20231201_172146.jpg" width="240" /></a></div><p>Oeuvre rule: I am tangentially aware of Maria Bamford. I tried watching <i>Lady Dynamite </i>on Netflix, and as must be the case with so many other neophytes, "didn't really get what she was going for." I will need to attempt to watch again, after having read this book, because it all went down a lot smoother for me. </p><p>It's actually quite appropriate that we review this following <i><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2023/11/the-perfection-trap-thomas-curran-2023.html" target="_blank">The Perfection Trap</a></i>, because Maria Bamford is a perfect example of the dangers of parentally-prescribed perfectionism. And also, the enormous success that can follow.</p><p>Throughout the book, which is probably the best memoir I've read by a comedian so far (dethroning <i><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2016/09/bossypants-tina-fey-2011.html" target="_blank">Bossypants</a></i>), she continually reminds the reader of her laziness and sheer lack of work ethic. She worked many terrible jobs, as many of us do in the service of our greater artistic dream, especially when in Los Angeles, and she was not passionate about anything except being on stage, because it was there that she felt most herself.</p><p>She does not remind the reader that she held impossibly high standards for herself and pushed herself to the breaking point to live up to everyone else's idea of what a successful comedian and beautiful person should be. She does, however, reach a breaking point, likely due to her burgeoning fame and escalating obligations as a performer. And she does emerge as a gloriously imperfect and messy and beautiful human being. </p><p>The book is unabashedly silly (<i>see </i>the recipes that end each chapter). While I am not a deep Maria Bamford "head," I have no doubt that she talks in life just the same as she writes on the page. The book is very funny; only occasionally does it <i>not</i> turn every sentence into a joke. Despite the constant "jokiness," there is so much heart in this book that it feels like the most genuine memoir almost anyone could ever hope to write. </p><p>I heard Marc Maron say on <i>WTF </i>that she is the best stand-up comic in decades (just today, that was repeated, and the guest agreed, she is the best in his lifetime along with Richard Pryor). That designation feels something akin to "inside baseball," or perhaps even a red herring, because she is fully aware that she is NOT FOR EVERYONE and she does not attempt to deliver your standard hour of stand-up. Granted, I have not seen her perform. This is the impression I get from the book and the other podcast interviews I have heard with her and various impressions in visual and social media that have imprinted on me. Clearly, she knows the form well, and probably could do a more "standard" hour, at a very high level, but she prefers to subvert that, and turn her comedy into something along the lines of <i>Nanette </i>or <i>Swimming to Cambodia</i>. She hasn't released films of that stature, but this is such a good memoir (I forget that it's hard to put it over <i><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2021/07/it-never-ends-tom-scharpling-2021.html" target="_blank">It Never Ends</a>,</i> but Tom Scharpling is not a stand-up comedian) that it feels like the next logical step in her career. I believe that she is capable of making a great film, now that she has written a great book. Yes, it belongs on the Best Books List, along with <i>It Never Ends</i>.</p><p>*</p><p>The key to this book (and my heart) is radical honesty. TMI. Oversharing. I've done it in the past and learned to be wary of its results, and so I have deployed it when least likely to backfire (only lately!). I am still not perfect about recognizing if and when "loose lips [will] sink ships," but I give just about everyone a pass with this--I appreciate the effort. I appreciate when someone is willing to be vulnerable. I appreciate when they let go of their fears that I am going to judge them. It's a vote of confidence in the compassion of the audience. It's also <i>useful </i>to know the specifics. While we learn more and better from making our own mistakes, we can still learn from the stories that others share about their own struggles. </p><p>Bamford frames her memoir as an exploration of the cult of various 12-step groups. I am not sure if the memoir has 12 chapters but I am going to check now. And I see that I'm wrong. But there are 23 chapters and an appendix, so it's almost "symmetrical." I digress.</p><p>She begins with the Cult of Family, and a chapter each on her mother, father and sister. Her relationship with her mother is vaguely reminiscent of the relationship at the heart of <i><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2022/02/crying-in-h-mart-michelle-zauner-2021.html" target="_blank">Crying in H-Mart</a></i>, though culturally dissimilar. From her, she inherited body dysmorphia, and the ultimately the medication that worked best. While her mother seemed unintentionally hilarious, it appears she inherited her father's sense of humor, and I can only say he reminds me a little of <a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2022/01/youre-on-airplane-parker-posey-2018.html" target="_blank">Parker Posey's</a> dad:</p><p>"My dad has always prompted us to call him 'the Best Dad in the Whole World.' He calls my sister 'the Best Oldest Daughter in the Whole World.' I'm 'the Best Youngest Daughter in the Whole World.' It's reciprocal propaganda, but it's true, he is a good guy. He's always been active in our community: trying to help out with mentoring local kids, teaching English to immigrants arriving in Duluth, working with men just out of prison for domestic violence crimes. He sends me cards and cookies, he taught me to drive, he taught me how to change a tire nine times (it didn't take) and chop wood. He attended every play, every concert. All that is true. It is also true that on this trip [to Yellowstone] in the sixty minutes we were away from my mother, he broke a federal law and may have committed a misdemeanor for child endangerment." (57)</p><p>Near the beginning of the next section, she acknowledges, "The editors had some real problems with this chapter about my sister because they thought my descriptions of our relationship are too banal, too typical of sisters, not dramatic enough. That is exactly what is so bizarre about it! It is that these tiny-tiny-tiny things that go on between us feel like tsunamis of 'compare and despair.' Examples:</p><p>1. My sister always makes food for everybody. She makes a bunch of homemade food and puts it out like it's no big deal. IT IS A FUCKING BIG DEAL. Recently, she invited us on a picnic, didn't ask me to bring anything (I didn't), and yet she brought 2 (TWO) different kinds of delectable handmade sandwiches, organic cherries, salad, a cold VARIETY of drinks, AND cookies. She hauled it all to an idyllic river setting she found outside Duluth and laid it out on a blanket. At no time did she stop and say, 'HEY! YOU GUYS! CHECK OUT ALL OF THIS STUFF I JUST DID FOR YOU ASSHOLES!'<br />(I have ONLY ONCE made my family dinner, though I am constantly swaggering about my self-serving good deeds. If I have done anything, you will know about it and I will have photographic proof. In my defense, I have picked up the check for family dinners and then tried to write it off as a business expense.)" (66-67)</p><p>After exploring these family dynamics, she moves onto her own personal upbringing, which includes learning violin under the Suzuki method and developing eating disorders. Living with a person that plays "twinkle twinkle little star" over and over made me realize that this was about the same thing, and I felt compelled to photograph a couple pages and send them those excerpts by text. The book should be read by anyone that has studied Suzuki violin for that chapter alone. </p><p>*</p><p>From there we move into the early 90's and Bamford's first tentative steps into the entertainment industry. Her first gig is basically cosplaying a character from Star Trek <i>Deep Space Nine</i>. It is perhaps worth nothing that I read the few pages detailing this while dining alone at the Black Spire Outpost at Star Wars Galaxy's Edge in Disneyworld's Hollywood Studios theme park. It was ridiculously apropos, but if you have not been there or do not know anything about it, I don't want to explain further.</p><p>And 12 pages later, in one of my favorite chapters, about Debtors Anonymous and PRGs (Pressure Relief Groups), she lists 6 suggestions she was given in 1995. Rather than excerpting the entire thing, i will just paraphrase:</p><p>1-Call everyone you know to see if you can rent a room from them.<br />2-Pray for the willingness to earn $2,000/month to pay for rent, food, health care, clothing and debt repayment.<br />3-Get a job, any job.<br />4-Take the CBEST (California Basic Educational Skills Test) to be certified as a substitute teacher.<br />5-Type out form letters for creditors, tell them not to contact by phone.<br />6-Go to Disneyland.</p><p>"I did everything they told me to except for number 6, because I am not going to Disneyland." (141)</p><p>She does not elaborate further but this was my least favorite part of the book. For one, she should elaborate further. Why wouldn't you go to Disneyland if you were in L.A.? Of course, it's expensive, and doesn't make sense for a person struggling with debt, totally, but it was 1995 and Disney had not yet instituted Genie+ and it was more affordable. You can justify a trip to Disneyland because it is the happiest place on earth. She <i>had </i>to go to Disneyland, at some point, and if she hasn't, I highly recommend she does. I recommend Disneyworld over Disneyland but it is cool to live in L.A. and be able to do Disneyland without shelling out for a Disney resort and staying 5-7 nights (or however long one needs to do everything there at all four parks). I stayed 4 nights at a Disney official hotel, but not a Disney resort, and spent $2,200 on the entire trip. I wanted to write an entire blog post about this trip. I am not going to turn this review into that. I am just simply going to note that Maria Bamford made a mistake by not doing #6. Because while there are many awful things about Disney, anyone that has been there cannot deny, it is as validating an experience as there is, and sometimes provides the perfect respite from the unrelenting hell that is reality for many of us. </p><p>*</p><p>The material on Debtors Anonymous is (dare-I-say) groundbreaking. I have also learned to record all of my expenditures on a daily basis. I have been OCD about this for almost 12 years. Many people will consider this too tedious, and the process of budgeting too onerous. And that very well may be fine for them. But I know, having been in somewhat dire financial circumstances, that when it reaches a critical point, this can be a very useful practice. And having attempted to write some kind of book, detailing my efforts, I am familiar with the issue Bamford ran up against:</p><p>"In addition to revealing the financial details of my book deal, I also wanted to include a profit-and-loss statement regarding my business. I argued with my editor AND my manager about this. MANY TIMES. PERSONALLY, <i>I LOVE THIS KIND OF INFO, BUT NO ONE ELSE IS INTERESTED, ESPECIALLY THE EDITORS</i>. If you don't care, as you were. AS YOU WERE." (149)</p><p>The next 5 pages consist of a spreadsheet that details earnings and expenses from shows in Ping Pong, AK and Jai-Ho, Belarus, and a P&L statement for the month of September 2022. The only item I question is $1,129 for life insurance. I suppose the numbers go up exponentially when one is a known quantity in the entertainment industry and/or has over $3 MM in assets, but I hope this includes health insurance premiums. I know the SAG provides for some of this, but I don't think it covers everything at 100%. In any case, I don't want to pay $1,100 a month for life insurance, but I guess if I felt like I had to, it's not a bad problem to have. </p><p>*</p><p>The next group she joined was SLAA: Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous. In this chapter, the TMI and oversharing is probably something the editors loved. Bamford herself would likely appreciate this, because earlier in the chapter about her sister, she writes:</p><p>"I have only skimmed her books before feeling overwhelmed. As with all books, I pass swiftly over the text, pausing only for prurient details. From what I've been able to take in, her books are really beautiful, AND there's a great scene in one memoir where she is naked on the floor trying to have some private time to shove a hemorrhoid application up her bum and her four kids break the door down. But a lot of her writing features an experience of spirituality that I do not have, and so I tab through, alighting only upon anything foul." (68)</p><p>While this is also a great chapter, I will leave it to the reader to seek out the book and skim and pause as they see fit. The next chapter may be more interesting to address.</p><p>* </p><p>Because it deals with her time as a Target spokesperson, which is basically when she starts getting <i>paid</i>. I did not distinctly remember the commercials, but from the one photo she includes, there was a vague recollection. It was her "big break," back in 2008 and 2009, and it is fascinating to read about the effect that it had on her emotionally--for example, when she is introduced at a stand-up gig as a "sellout." Added to that, negative news about Target and its union-busting is relayed to her, which further adds to conflicted feelings. In the middle of this is another chapter about the tragic death of a pet and her own role in it. By this point the book is building towards its denouement. In 2011, she writes a column for <i>The New York Times </i>and talks on the phone to the Ethicist there. An executive at Target finds the column, realizes it is her (she is asked and she lies and says it was not her) and she is not asked to return to the Christmas ad-campaign. </p><p>She then decides to invite everyone she has ever emailed to her Christmas party. By this point she owns a 900 square foot home and estimates that somewhere between 150 and 500 guests came through the party. She gets into what seems to be a relatively serious relationship and then has a pretty abrupt break-up. Meanwhile she is still a successful comedian booking gigs, and she has to go to Chicago for the next shows, and she realizes she needs to try a different medication (Lamictal, which ended up being the one that worked for me) and then checks in for a series of hospitalizations, which goes on for about 20 pages and arguably makes up the strongest part of the book.</p><p>*</p><p>There is a very brief chapter about one cult that did not work for her, and like many other things in this book, greatly touched me. This is essentially a review of <i>Ten Days to Self-Esteem </i>by David Burns. One of the limited books that I reviewed with an "(incomplete)" is <i><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2017/01/feeling-good-new-mood-therapy-david-m.html" target="_blank">Feeling Good: the New Mood Therapy</a> </i>by David Burns. It also is too long, and has too many exercises about avoiding "should" statements and turning negative thoughts into positive ones. I am sure that this works for a lot of people and that they will swear by it. It did not work for her, and it did not work for me. This chapter is a <i>truc </i>but clearly, it would be wrong to leave it out of the review, for it is another example of the kinship I feel with her. </p><p>*</p><p>The book goes on to detail her time doing <i>Lady Dynamite </i>and finally, Couples Anonymous, which she does with her partner Scott. It is similarly unsparing and relatable. I think it is inevitable that any couple is going to fight. Lately I have drawn a distinction: arguments are OK (they can even be important and good) but fighting is bad. Fighting is still going to happen, though, and part of a successful partnership is being able to accept that the other person isn't perfect, and that you aren't perfect, and that you won't always see eye-to-eye on everything, and that the partnership only survives if you can tolerate the bad times and find strength and growth in forgiveness. (Reciprocating in that is also key, I think.) The way all of this is borne out in the text is another one of the more beautiful parts of the book. </p><p>*</p><p>Chapter 23, "Obligatory Suicide Disclaimer," is the brilliant ending and amounts to a personal essay on suicide and the judgment that underlies it. While absolutely not condoning the act, she expresses total empathy for those that have done it. Yes, it is a selfish act, and staying alive for loved ones can be a powerful motivator, but it does not help anything to chastise a person that has attempted it, or may be thinking about attempting it. There are better ways to express empathy and compassion. Primarily, that is through listening. And if you are suffering, that is through talking. And if you are going through unimaginable pain and you cannot tolerate it any longer, she does not consider you a bad person that is condemned to Hell for eternity for taking your own life. The essay, however, should bring comfort to anyone and everyone, and perhaps even save lives:</p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">"<b>Please don't hurt yourself or anyone else. Do something else instead. Even if it's harmful! Suicide is a one-off. You can do meth at least twice without consequences! (I don't know if that's true.) Knock yourself out with a forty-ounce keg of Baileys Irish Cream and a Dairy Queen Blizzard. You do not want to miss any additions to the Dairy Queen product line! Did you know they have a FUDGE-STUFFED COOKIE now? Postmate that mess while you wait for your response team (your friend Tookie). If you cannot access these luxuries, go to the pantry. Get a jar of Skippy equivalent and finish it IN HOUSE while asking a volunteer to stand on your lower back. And use this time to try things you never thought you'd do: basic training, plural marriage, improv street comedy." </b>(256)</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">There is not much more I can say that hasn't already been said above. She fulfilled her contract with this book, and wrote a beautiful one that I could appreciate more deeply than almost any other memoir I've read (and there are quite a few on this blog: </span><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2016/01/just-kids-patti-smith-2010.html" style="font-family: inherit;" target="_blank">Patti Smith</a><span style="font-family: inherit;">, </span><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2015/03/girl-in-band-kim-gordon-2015.html" style="font-family: inherit;" target="_blank">Kim Gordon</a><span style="font-family: inherit;">, </span><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2016/02/hunger-makes-me-modern-girl-memoir.html" style="font-family: inherit;" target="_blank">Carrie Brownstein</a><span style="font-family: inherit;">, </span><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2008/10/black-postcards-dean-wareham.html" style="font-family: inherit;" target="_blank">Dean Wareham</a><span style="font-family: inherit;">, </span><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2009/07/one-l-scott-turow.html" style="font-family: inherit;" target="_blank">Scott Turow</a><span style="font-family: inherit;">, </span><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2011/12/manic-memoir-terri-cheney.html" style="font-family: inherit;" target="_blank">Terri Cheney</a><span style="font-family: inherit;">, </span><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2012/12/five-chiefs-supreme-court-memoir.html" style="font-family: inherit;" target="_blank">Justice Stevens</a><span style="font-family: inherit;">, </span><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2013/07/my-beloved-world-sonia-sotomayor.html" style="font-family: inherit;" target="_blank">Justice Sotomayor</a><span style="font-family: inherit;">, </span><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2014/01/lawyer-boy-case-study-on-growing-up.html" style="font-family: inherit;" target="_blank">Rick Lax</a><span style="font-family: inherit;">, </span><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2015/06/what-i-talk-about-when-i-talk-about.html" style="font-family: inherit;" target="_blank">Haruki Murakami</a><span style="font-family: inherit;">, </span><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2016/06/autobiography-morrissey-2013.html" style="font-family: inherit;" target="_blank">Morrissey</a><span style="font-family: inherit;">, </span><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2016/09/bossypants-tina-fey-2011.html" style="font-family: inherit;" target="_blank">Tina Fey</a><span style="font-family: inherit;">, </span><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-girl-with-lower-back-tattoo-amy.html" style="font-family: inherit;" target="_blank">Amy Schumer</a><span style="font-family: inherit;">, </span><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2017/03/in-all-night-cafe-memoir-of-belle-and.html" style="font-family: inherit;" target="_blank">Stuart David</a><span style="font-family: inherit;">, </span><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2014/09/a-fighting-chance-elizabeth-warren-2014.html" style="font-family: inherit;" target="_blank">Elizabeth Warren</a><span style="font-family: inherit;">, </span><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2017/08/al-franken-giant-of-senate-al-franken.html" style="font-family: inherit;" target="_blank">Al Franken</a><span style="font-family: inherit;">, </span><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2017/12/avid-reader-robert-gottlieb-2016.html" style="font-family: inherit;" target="_blank">Robert Gottlieb</a><span style="font-family: inherit;">, </span><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-rise-fall-and-rise-brix-smith-start.html" style="font-family: inherit;" target="_blank">Brix Smith</a><span style="font-family: inherit;">, </span><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2018/06/unwifeable-mandy-stadtmiller-2018.html" style="font-family: inherit;" target="_blank">Mandy Stadtmiller</a><span style="font-family: inherit;">, </span><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2018/09/kitchen-confidential-anthony-bourdain.html" style="font-family: inherit;" target="_blank">Anthony Bourdain,</a><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2019/08/educated-tara-westover-2018.html" style="font-family: inherit;" target="_blank">Tara Westover</a><span style="font-family: inherit;">, </span><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2019/12/the-line-becomes-river-francisco-cantu.html" style="font-family: inherit;" target="_blank">Francisco Cantu</a><span style="font-family: inherit;">, </span><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-night-of-gun-david-carr-2008.html" style="font-family: inherit;" target="_blank">David Carr</a><span style="font-family: inherit;">, </span><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2020/08/maybe-you-should-talk-to-someone-lori.html" style="font-family: inherit;" target="_blank">Lori Gottlieb</a><span style="font-family: inherit;">, </span><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2021/03/apropos-of-nothing-woody-allen-2020.html" style="font-family: inherit;" target="_blank">Woody Allen</a><span style="font-family: inherit;">, </span><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2021/07/it-never-ends-tom-scharpling-2021.html" style="font-family: inherit;" target="_blank">Tom Scharpling</a><span style="font-family: inherit;">, </span><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2022/01/silver-screen-fiend-learning-about-life.html" style="font-family: inherit;" target="_blank">Patton Oswalt</a><span style="font-family: inherit;">, </span><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2022/01/youre-on-airplane-parker-posey-2018.html" style="font-family: inherit;" target="_blank">Parker Posey</a><span style="font-family: inherit;">, </span><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2022/02/crying-in-h-mart-michelle-zauner-2021.html" style="font-family: inherit;" target="_blank">Michelle Zauner</a>)<span style="font-family: inherit;">. A few of those were pretty great, and I'm not going to agonize over whether this is really better than </span><i style="font-family: inherit;">Just Kids</i><span style="font-family: inherit;"> or </span><i style="font-family: inherit;">Kitchen Confidential </i><span style="font-family: inherit;">or </span><i style="font-family: inherit;">The Night of the Gun</i><span style="font-family: inherit;">--because it is not a SERIOUS book. Suffice to say I loved it, and highly recommend it, especially to anyone that has faced the </span>vicissitudes<span style="font-family: inherit;"> of mental illness while wading into the cesspool of the industrial entertainment complex. You will find a friend in Maria. </span></p><p>Grade: A</p>JKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16199023801433187878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3851264164198134050.post-52854508510970748072023-11-10T12:01:00.009-05:002023-11-15T08:45:34.018-05:00The Perfection Trap - Thomas Curran (2023)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_hN5foitGwqlYakLPBDqXsl07DPUwGxgAnw_13XMywEaT2WkA5K3seArSjNDxEOTilMdNyVv_6Atl9CfnpVbZHbJeoJF3XhlRKGTfY9ppUc-j-efDxqxM_FN7vZsHju8Pbnn9ceFPknB5xS5K6OQ4ypisda4ZxiR8RqVbP9sBlY3zgmtiz5Ghw6joznzg/s4624/20231110_154724.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="4624" data-original-width="3468" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_hN5foitGwqlYakLPBDqXsl07DPUwGxgAnw_13XMywEaT2WkA5K3seArSjNDxEOTilMdNyVv_6Atl9CfnpVbZHbJeoJF3XhlRKGTfY9ppUc-j-efDxqxM_FN7vZsHju8Pbnn9ceFPknB5xS5K6OQ4ypisda4ZxiR8RqVbP9sBlY3zgmtiz5Ghw6joznzg/s320/20231110_154724.jpg" width="240" /></a></div><p>Flying Houses has never been perfect. From the very first day it emerged and infinitesimally impacted the marketplace of ideas that was the internet on April 1, 2008, flaws have abounded. I have been criticized as a terrible writer, and I acknowledge that much of the content here is, in fact, terrible (<i>see</i> <a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2008/04/vampire-weekend-st.html" target="_blank">the review of Vampire Weekend's debut album</a>, <a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2009/01/merge-records-anniversary-box-sex.html" target="_blank">random shilling for Merge Records</a>, <a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2010/01/atlas-sound-icy-demons-shapers-lincoln.html" target="_blank">petty concert reviews that I still kind of like</a>, <a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2010/04/opening-day-2010-braves-16-cubs-5.html" target="_blank">random opening day coverage</a>, <a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2010/07/pitchfork-music-festival-july-16-18.html" target="_blank">second draft posts</a>, <a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2010/08/think-tank-for-human-beings-in-general.html" target="_blank">reviews of extremely obscure one-off zines</a>, <a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2011/07/ernest-hemingway-life-story-carlos.html" target="_blank">posts inspiring "Christ on wood" anonymous comments</a>, <a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2012/02/negligent-infliction-of-emotional_06.html" target="_blank">all of those exasperating law school columns</a>,<a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2012/03/case-no-2433504-knorps-71808-los.html" target="_blank"> transcripts of unemployment benefits hearings</a>, <a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2013/03/disrobed-new-battle-plan-to-break-lefts.html" target="_blank">misbegotten hate-reads</a>, <a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2015/10/chicago-marathon-october-11-2015.html" target="_blank">self-congratulatory stuff in general</a>, <a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2022/05/the-examined-life-how-we-lose-and-find.html" target="_blank">begging for shout-out fails</a>, <a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2008/07/failure-inc.html" target="_blank">story-fails</a>, and most recently, <a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2023/03/aliss-at-fire-jon-fosse-transl-damion.html" target="_blank">outrageously slow reading</a>).</p><p>Over the past half-decade or so, there is an increasing suggestion in the culture that we should be kinder to ourselves, practice sufficient self-care, and treat ourselves more often. I have often pushed back against this notion, and I have said people should be harder on themselves and push themselves to do better and live up to the standards that I set for myself. After reading <i>The Perfection Trap</i>, let's just say I've been convinced that this particular attitude of mine is part of the problem. Now, I know: we are all good enough just as we are, and trying to force other people to strive is counterproductive. We are all the masters of our own destinies and the authors of our own stories and we are all gloriously complex and messy and flawed and imperfect and beautiful human beings. </p><p>***</p><p>I first became aware of <i>The Perfection Trap </i>after reading a review of it in <i>The Wall Street Journal</i>. That is a notoriously conservative outlet, but readers of it know, while the op-eds and the comments on items are abrasively partisan, the actual journalism, arts criticism, and "lifestyle stories" appear to diverge (rebel?) from such viewpoints. Oh, to be sure, the reviews panning <i>Killers of the Flower Moon </i>and <i>Barbie </i>waded into Anti-Woke territory, but alongside those, you have a kind and thoughtful celebration of Mitski's recent album. </p><p>The review of this book struck me because I saw myself in it. I too, struggled with the interview question, "What is your greatest weakness?" What an annoying question! (Only "What kind of animal would you be?" is worse.) The best answer, most seem to acknowledge, is "I am a perfectionist." Yet that is a stock answer that they hear all the time, so it's a sign you lack the confidence to say something more honest and meaningful. But who could fault you for that? It's a job interview. You want to be seen as the perfect candidate.</p><p>My greatest weakness, now? Protesting too much. Not actual protesting--I could just be more concise. I actively choose to provide too much information, and I have grown more sensitive to context and the appetites and attention-spans of various audiences. But I still wish I was more concise and this is becoming a new guiding principle for me, one I will adopt in 2024 ;)</p><p>It's a good, succinct review, and it ends like this:</p><p>"'The Perfection Trap' is a strange and imperfect book. It's not every day that someone in his early 30s who has worked as a sports psychologist takes on the entire global economy. The charts in it are abysmal, like PowerPoint slides that escaped an institutional bureaucracy. The author's injunction to accept yourself in all your unique and imperfect glory is too pat. Perfectionism is too deeplyembodied (sic) in our lives. And apart from political action, he offers no clear path forward. But maybe those things aren't his job. As an explanation of how destructive illusion of perfectionism arises and as a critique of the economy that creates it, <i>this is an important book </i>[emphasis, mine]. One day, Mr. Curran hopes, we may rediscover the truth of the old Italian saying: 'Enough is plenty.'" </p><p>***</p><p>Kudos to WSJ for publishing the line, "this is an important book," when the book says this:</p><p>"Certainly, the conservatives are primarily responsible for this rear-guard action [meeting brave, young environmentalists with "round-the-clock doorstepping, after-dark dumpster diving, and hysterical, off-the-chain screeching in terror until they either stop fighting or are removed from public view completely," i.e. comments on AOC or Greta tweets]. With their allegiance to the rich and powerful, and ever-swelling financial clout, they can use the disproportionate control they have over mainstream channels of communication to frame the terms of debate, shut out 'progressive' voices, and move politics to the right, and further to the right, and even further to the right.<br /><br />"But it's time we recognize that our current situation represents a failure of the establishment liberals, too. Because most of them, it's sad to say, are complicit in the policing of what's acceptable economics under the surreptitious guise of 'civility,' 'grown-up politics,' and 'compromise.' Which is arguably worse than conservative screeching, because these sensible, Ivy League suits have actually read the reports. They've taken the terrifying projections at face value. And they've been told in no uncertain terms by extremely smart and well-educated scientists--people they like and respect--that transition to an economy prioritizing the conservation of existing resources over indefinite expansion will be essential if we're to avoid global temperatures breaching a no-way-back inflection point. </p><p>"Even so, they won't listen. Why? Because in an economy, political climate, and mediascape contaminated to the core by money, that's hostile to anything but the most tepid of window-dressing reforms, and that swiftly, and often viciously, excommunicates those asking difficult questions, it's just easier, isn't it, to pull the blinds shut, and hope against hope that if the Adults in the Room can't see the giant meteor approaching, then surely it won't come hurtling our way after all. Left or right, Labour or Conservative, Democrat or Republican; when it comes to the economy, it's the same machine. Your choice come polling day is simply what voltage you'd prefer to operate at." (235-236)</p><p>***</p><p>Yes, Mr. Curran has a vested interest in saying the world won't listen, because, secretly, this book is an imperfect love letter to the Smiths and Morrissey. </p><p>Heaven knows we are miserable now that everyone thinks we should try to make ourselves perfect. Some perfectionists are bigger than others, and perfectionism begins at home, and what she posted is another way of saying I smoke because I'm hoping for an early death, because social media makes me want to kill myself. Both Morrissey and Curran, it seems, share humble origins, and Morrissey's performative depression appears to have an antecedent in the stereotypes hurled at Generation Z (which this critic has been rather guilty of, rather often, in the past). (And we don't talk about Morrissey post-2018 or so.)</p><p>Accept yourself, he says, because everyone wants something they can't have, and what we already have is more than enough (at least, most of us do, from a certain angle). But you just haven't earned it yet, baby, and maybe you never will, when the "reward point" is necessarily not fixed--unless reaching the end of this book counts.</p><p>Because I wanted to give this a tepid 3-star review, and the stunning Part Four epilogue/postscript moved it up to 4. It doesn't get 5 because it's imperfect, and it celebrates this. Not every single chapter references a song by the Smiths or the Moz. Curran reveals his vulnerabilities, opens up to confess one of his greatest humiliations and the attendant panic attacks it spurred. Sometimes the book has a very clinical tone, and other times it flirts with totally "unprofessional" prose, and I love that. It wouldn't be right to give this book 5 stars, or to call it one of the Best Books--it's enough to say, this book is important, and really, everyone should read it. And that's not something I say about most books.</p><p>I wanted to give it a tepid 3-star review because, to be honest, I grew a little bored with it, say, between pages 150-200. Curran is preaching to the choir, and all of us already get it: this crazy economic machine is destroying lives and ravaging our mental health and there is no way to stop it. </p><p>The boldest directives he offers are to experiment with a 4-day workweek, experiment with job-sharing (which I still don't functionally understand--we work with a partner and take 50% of our old salary?) and institute basic income--the boldest of liberal fantasies. That WSJ calls this book important is a reminder that miracles can happen. AOC and Ted Cruz can agree that Robin Hood and Citadel are more manipulative and nefarious than the retail investors that squeezed the hedge funds, and that such market-makers are bad actors that need to be punished and regulated. Few things in this life have made me happier than witnessing that moment.</p><p>***</p><p>Curran squints into the light that never goes out: relentless striving imposed on us from the moment we exit the womb. At certain stretches, he leans on "harmful social media advertising cliches," but the rhetoric is anything but empty. One example:</p><p>"Jean Twenge thinks this link between social media and mental distress is mostly due to smartphones. She makes her case on the back of many data sets, including her own, which show that youth depression and suicide began skyrocketing around 2008. Incidentally, 2008 was also the year socially prescribed perfectionism skyrocketed, too. And when you add these trends to the release of Apple's first iPhone in 2007, there is indeed a compelling correlation. <br /><br />"That correlation certainly passes a few smell tests. After all, smartphones give us absolutely no respite from the noise of social media. They link us up all day, every day, and penetrate social comparison into parts of life that were hitherto untouched. With them by our sides, apps like Instagram and TikTok are right there first thing in the morning and last thing at night. We idly scroll through profiles on the sofa and in the bath, during the commute and at the gym. In what used to be meditative moments, where we could breathe and think, now we swipe and compare.</p><p>"Smartphone made social media ubiquitous, and that ubiquity, according to Twenge, is what makes it so damaging." (135-136)</p><p>The zombification of the masses, basically, is the cliche, but it kind of is the single most depressing feature of our era. And Curran doesn't just keep repeating it. Because of his offering, at the end, a way out (kind of--a way out of perfectionism, not a way out of phone addiction), the entire book lifts itself into a different category. That WSJ review referred to it as a "manifesto," and indeed, it becomes just that, and a powerful one. He converted me into an anti-perfectionist, and for the time being at least, I feel encouraged to think differently about how to best accomplish various tasks (not "overdoing" it, considering the idea that we can sometimes make things worse by trying to make them more perfect) and better manage personal relationships (or at least try). </p><p>***</p><p>Finally, this book is, for lack of a better term, cute. Or maybe precious. Regardless, when Curran discusses perfectionism in the context of educational meritocracy, he wears his class-based insecurities on his sleeve, so to speak, and while this is not traditional in a pseudo-academic volume, it's part of what makes the book surprising and engaging. These aren't purely theoretical concepts; "experience knows it is not so" (or rather, here, knows it <i>is</i> so). </p><p>I say cute for two reasons and the first is in his portrait of Karen Horney, whom he identifies as the first sociologist/psychologist to identify the prevalence of socially-prescribed perfectionism in early 20th century. The way he talks about Karen Horney is the way I sometimes think about great writers of the past that are no longer with us, and so I could appreciate that mix of admiration and consolation that he conveys:</p><p>"Our perfect self, Horney says, is a complete armory of should: 'should be able to endure everything, to understand everything, to like everybody, to be always productive--to mention only a few inner dictates.' And these dictates are inescapable, she calls them 'the tyrannies of should.' </p><p>"Reading these words, I realized: this woman was a genius. Because that's it, isn't it? I <i>should </i>be cooler, fitter, stronger, happier [bands influenced by the Smiths do not escape easter-egging], more productive, not eating too much, [adding 'regular exercise at the gym, three days a week' would be too much] making time to rest, seeing friends, drinking in moderation, hustling and grinding and saying yes to every possible opportunity, practicing self-care, cooking up a storm, raising smart and respectful kids. These are urgent (and often contradictory) directives that we regularly fire at ourselves. And society fires them, too. They're scattered all over the gallery walls of Instagram, dripping from episodes of the Kardashians, and plastered across posters and billboards. There's no other action we can take to bring these pressures into some sort of unity than to chase perfection. For if not by perfection, then how else will we be someone who society recognizes and accepts?" (105)</p><p>"Karen Horney died of cancer at the age of sixty-seven, having lived a tumultuous, courageous and at times troubled life. Despite this, she never wavered from searching for the truth about the neuroses that afflicted her and her patients, and the cultural conditioning that gave rise to them. If you feel seen by Karen Horney, then you, like me, will find in her a close friend. Just like friends are supposed to do, she'll help you feel less confused about your perfectionism, less alone with your feelings of never enough. Her lesson for us is that none of this is our doing. The culprit is culture." (106)</p><p>Later, Curran reflects on an ex-girlfriend's Facebook profile to highlight the tyranny of performative perfectionism, and lands here:<br /><br />"Whenever I visit Sarah's profile, and the great many like it, I think about Essena O'Neill [a former IG influencer who later documented her mental health struggles on Twitter]. And then I remember Karen Horney. I wonder what she would have made of social media. Because no doubt about it, she'd have had plenty to say. I imagine her sitting low in her favorite chair, smoking a cigarette, nursing a large glass of red wine, and cracking a wry smile. You could draw a straight line from her observations of cultural contradictions in the 1950s to the present moment. It's as if she could see social media coming. As if, somehow, she knew this was how a nascent, aggressive consumer culture would eventually shake itself out." (143)</p><p>I wanted to excerpt another passage about Helicopter Parents and the management of educational meritocracy in Norway and Finland, because it demonstrates the literary flourish that Curran sometimes deploys, and shines a light on other countries and societies that "get it," but this review is becoming too imperfect. Suffice to end near the end, with one short paragraph that made me go "awwww":</p><p>"Democracy is what keeps me from losing all faith in the possibility of change. And on a crystal-clear day, if I creak my neck out really far, if I squint as hard as I possibly can into the distance, I can just about make out what looks like a path. And on that path, I can see a long queue of smart, thoughtful, compassionate, generous, and thoroughly decent human beings just like yourself, walking toward the last corridor of hope. Hope that we can live in a place where we don't have to feel insecure. Where we don't need to be perfect just to get by. Where abundance is enjoyed, by everyone. Where enough really is plenty. </p><p>For your presence on this earth, and for reading this book, I am eternally grateful." (237-238)</p><p>From anyone else, this might sound disingenuous. But coming from Curran, after we have gone on this journey with him, there is no reason to doubt he means it. And to me, that is among the most beautiful of sentiments.</p><p>Grade: A- </p>JKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16199023801433187878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3851264164198134050.post-64889192808314729622023-10-11T14:26:00.000-04:002023-10-11T14:26:59.336-04:00Chicago Cubs 2023 Year in Review<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtAwdh5nfqzQqGGF4N-Xvgla3IU2EPycNV55lU0K1iYIP7kJA3tfWRU9hRuOkrU1Ey50_893B8HIk1u9aTaNRzAERaZhKPHoIrV1PaOE266ogHfIpgmP17xF8kAyyEB6eh13HGlR915QSuID3bL_VC8A68WMJTxUmARxRLCeKyrQXvC396MnJRGtOxTO0w/s1210/Cubs-celebrate-GettyImages-1586329270.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="1210" height="159" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtAwdh5nfqzQqGGF4N-Xvgla3IU2EPycNV55lU0K1iYIP7kJA3tfWRU9hRuOkrU1Ey50_893B8HIk1u9aTaNRzAERaZhKPHoIrV1PaOE266ogHfIpgmP17xF8kAyyEB6eh13HGlR915QSuID3bL_VC8A68WMJTxUmARxRLCeKyrQXvC396MnJRGtOxTO0w/s320/Cubs-celebrate-GettyImages-1586329270.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>The reboot is not complete. It may be complete in 2024, but that largely depends on how this offseason plays out, which is likely to be controversial. The moves over the past two paid off. In 2022, we had 74 wins, and in 2023, we had 83 wins. That is only a 9 game improvement, and we will need an improvement of that magnitude to make the playoffs comfortably next year. They played better than an 83 win team, and this September collapse is not nearly as heartbreaking as we imagine the iteration in 1969 must have been. We played surprisingly well, given expectations, and for a period, it seemed that the clearest comparison was to the 2015 team. Falling out of contention, most directly at the hands of the Arizona franchise, hurt badly, but it exposed the weaknesses of this team and provided a playbook and to-do list for the offseason. Most importantly, it was the most fun team to watch since 2017, and that includes the 2020 division-winning campaign. <div><br /></div><div>The Marlins beat us that year, and the Marlins beat us this year, though not at the end of the season when it showed. They just performed marginally better than we did between September 12-September 29. A friend and I got tickets to the 9/30 game in Milwaukee on 9/11 and our faith in our team was misplaced. </div><div><br /></div><div>But there were more bright spots than lamentations this year, we know what we need this offseason, and there is a more positive prognosis for 2024 than we might have expected (though back in late 2021/early 2022, "realistic" competitiveness was anticipated for 2023). It feels wrong to say anything less than the playoffs in 2024 will be a disappointment--the season is long and unpredictable--but there is no question that our expectations will be higher. I wouldn't count on the Cardinals playing as poorly next year as they did this year, and that will make the division that much more difficult for us, as yes, the Reds ended the season a game behind us, too. We should run down the pieces on this team from from studs to duds. I don't want to call anyone a "dud" because it takes an incredible amount of skill and talent to make it to the MLB level--but we need to see some improvement from a few, or trade them, or keep them out of dangerous situations. </div><div><br /></div><div>Justin Steele: A</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihsG_CqOwZRFltAq3l8GiE2c3aFVXDETuSnwcj989KTVjrL17SmKKcJRqxESrtc26qYxhpb2wEYAItFF7EsokkaUEYTZxnub3QS8QVyC1gb6kNRohbJQeXGgmeT-lWqdB8mGuGAynR2LzUWw2K00t5_PNiJnsmamdUN5KGjg4MH6UHQAEBy99BSD9dKVBs/s1200/justin-steele.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1200" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihsG_CqOwZRFltAq3l8GiE2c3aFVXDETuSnwcj989KTVjrL17SmKKcJRqxESrtc26qYxhpb2wEYAItFF7EsokkaUEYTZxnub3QS8QVyC1gb6kNRohbJQeXGgmeT-lWqdB8mGuGAynR2LzUWw2K00t5_PNiJnsmamdUN5KGjg4MH6UHQAEBy99BSD9dKVBs/s320/justin-steele.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div>No one pegged Steele for a Cy Young contender, but then again, that had also been the case for Kyle Hendricks (in 2016, at least). As the wins piled up, and as Marcus Stroman lost his touch in the 2nd half, Steele emerged as the ace of the rotation. After the turnaround post-trade deadline, when the playoffs looked like a fait accompli, and the first signs of collapse were showing, Steele maintained his composure for every start and prevented the team from falling too far behind--except twice. And while those 2 "uncharacteristic" performances hurt, badly, it's a tall order to expect someone like this to be perfect and flawless. It's not like he came out of nowhere--strong performances in 2021 and 2022 indicated this type of growth was possible--but until he gets a $300 million contract, it's unfair to expect him to be Gerrit Cole. He was great, just for who he was, and I loved watching him pitch. We absolutely need to keep him a Cub for as long as possible, just as we have with Hendricks. I still don't understand contracts after all this time, but Steele made $740K in 2023, which is indisputably the greatest bargain in the MLB in 2023. He is arbitration-eligible in 2025. Do we need to re-sign him, or is he automatically re-signed, with an adjusted salary? I need a quick primer on this. If I had to say what he deserves next year, it's at least $10 million. Another year or two like this, and it should jump to $20, or $25 million, if not more. The sky is the limit for him, though it will be difficult to eclipse this year's performance. </div><div><br /></div><div>Marcus Stroman: A-</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgp4-xIlGaMeC3qS6BTNKv5KU_NQVE7Jz1WHZFuAa8mAo90V5udOVKFAPi9mBwepUP-coSrUUvivdsq5dafwtsk6gbcomiykav-HRIjiARFsCH3eIVQd8wXaq5Zsj8ebIaNq63HQslStT7WktIoJaGWR3QVwTqNjar5jLdm6-0wSqqoAX13vvHre5szjzym/s1210/marcus-stroman-happy.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="1210" height="159" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgp4-xIlGaMeC3qS6BTNKv5KU_NQVE7Jz1WHZFuAa8mAo90V5udOVKFAPi9mBwepUP-coSrUUvivdsq5dafwtsk6gbcomiykav-HRIjiARFsCH3eIVQd8wXaq5Zsj8ebIaNq63HQslStT7WktIoJaGWR3QVwTqNjar5jLdm6-0wSqqoAX13vvHre5szjzym/s320/marcus-stroman-happy.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div>For comparison, Marcus Stroman earned $25 million over each of the last two years, and no one said that was too much. No one could criticize that contract especially around the All-Star break, when Stroman was also in the Cy Young conversation. He started off the year as good as any other ace on any other team in the league, if not better. The investment was good, but a playoff run didn't seem likely. Then something happened to Stroman. After a string of less-than-stellar starts, he and his trainers realized he was injured. He went down when we needed him the most, and a couple other pitchers stepped up and rose to the occasion. It's questionable whether someone should get their grade "dinged" due to injury. On the one hand, it's not really fair, no one is invulnerable, and pitchers are particularly susceptible given the intensity of throwing 90+ pitches. On the other hand, players like Cal Ripken Jr. existed, and players like Dansby Swanson still exist. I don't fault Stroman, we know he wants to play, and I hope we re-sign him, but not nearly as many people are talking about needing to re-sign him as one other very obvious player. </div><div><br /></div><div>Cody Bellinger: A</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfwPfeVfUatsl76i2LXrXxembmmhdTbTX0gCnO8gkZsN-cK6vjpUmJTQcbXa2-BvW800Rp4KcvIk7FLZsrFqwRk0ENJZCiudKJqSwkZRZCquIfHMqhmGW3jafupdBjFvBfQtoWM0RJHSUDW64HGEWk-3evjxiwXk655jPNPo1WXDUQePBbXCDZA_9hy7Be/s1600/Cody-Bellinger-staring-off-into-the-distance.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="904" data-original-width="1600" height="181" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfwPfeVfUatsl76i2LXrXxembmmhdTbTX0gCnO8gkZsN-cK6vjpUmJTQcbXa2-BvW800Rp4KcvIk7FLZsrFqwRk0ENJZCiudKJqSwkZRZCquIfHMqhmGW3jafupdBjFvBfQtoWM0RJHSUDW64HGEWk-3evjxiwXk655jPNPo1WXDUQePBbXCDZA_9hy7Be/s320/Cody-Bellinger-staring-off-into-the-distance.png" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div>It feels like he's been around forever, as he has just completed his 7th season and can be considered a veteran of the MLB, but Cody is still just 28, and entering the prime of his career. After a torrid three-season stretch from 2017-2019, which included being named Rookie of the Year and MVP, Cody fell off a cliff over the next three seasons in what might be best described as "long COVID." His highest batting average was .239, and hit 41 home runs over those three years, just 2 more than in his rookie year alone. He looked like a bust. People said he needed a change of scenery. Enter Chicago, who took a chance and gave him a $17.5 million 1-year-deal. The bet paid off. While Bellinger was not quite as dominant as those first three seasons, he recorded his highest batting average (just .002 higher than in 2019, but still) and fully "resurged." He was truly a key component to the Cubs' improvement this year. Like several others on the team, he caught fire after the All-Star break, and while he wasn't named to that team, his 2nd half performance positioned him as one of the more feared hitters in the league. Few people expect Cody to re-sign here. He seems like a hired gun. There may be a growing suspicion about massive long-term deals, and I wouldn't offer him a 10-year contract for $300 million. I would, however, offer a 3-year contract for $75-80 million. It's likely others will be willing to pay more, but the Cubs should try to compete. Cody may not be a "once in a generation" player like say, Acuna Jr. or Ohtani, but he is not easily replaceable. He's young enough that, if those three seasons truly were an aberration, he could put together a career worth of the Hall of Fame. Anytime you have a potential HOF-er on your team, you should do everything in your power to keep them, and if the Cubs do not keep Bellinger, they will need to bring in another heavy hitter from the outside. I like to think the Cubs are the best team to play for in the MLB, for numerous reasons, and while Cody seemed to like playing here fine, it was disappointing that in interviews shortly after the season, he spoke in the past tense, and did not even give a hint that he hoped to return. One hopes that was just a political instruction of his agent S. Boras Corp. </div><div><br /></div><div>There are, however, at least two positions that we don't have to worry about for a few more years.</div><div><br /></div><div>Nico Hoerner: A- </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVBtziGJg-d1Tf_ATj6f9XMThberAG0lOx84odCQ_mYp_QyQMZxHHtQpjBzuUVqljSaLCzYD9DgPBUSDAEnK4OJ7docwH8pnIqKCiZARgdK-2P9Uzlida1Ik1S7ifapIkobRXqQsh0C2pbvtL4oQuVWCAYUFiA9S8wszi2vQpTtjwRMOqc9sKaP02rYPL9/s1200/hoerner_rounding_bases_kyle_ross.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="628" data-original-width="1200" height="167" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVBtziGJg-d1Tf_ATj6f9XMThberAG0lOx84odCQ_mYp_QyQMZxHHtQpjBzuUVqljSaLCzYD9DgPBUSDAEnK4OJ7docwH8pnIqKCiZARgdK-2P9Uzlida1Ik1S7ifapIkobRXqQsh0C2pbvtL4oQuVWCAYUFiA9S8wszi2vQpTtjwRMOqc9sKaP02rYPL9/s320/hoerner_rounding_bases_kyle_ross.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div>Nico will be our 2nd baseman for at least three more years, barring disaster. He went down with an injury during the final series of the season, but he played in 150 games this year, good for his personal record--so far. He played more this year than he ever had before, and while he hit for slightly better power last year, he set several other personal records and this was basically his best season yet. The thing about Nico is that he keeps getting better. He plays hard, tags well, fields well, runs well (his dramatic increase in stolen bases is perhaps his greatest advance), hits for solid contact and generally makes things happen, while exhibiting selflessness and turning into one of the younger veteran leaders in the clubhouse. He is not Marcus Semien or Ozzie Albies, and he has yet to make an All-Star team, but I'll make a bold prediction and say that it will happen in 2024. While not a superstar, he is good enough to be an everyday 2nd baseman for a World Series contending team. He also got a new teammate this year that is his perfect foil, and who will only make one another better. </div><div><br /></div><div>Dansby Swanson: A-</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjF7HpMl2IN3EIdwKpyTkXmS-ssh-4C5oxY1gyyH0CvCA0p4iCqyosjFRnFasCFSo91kT_FhnPgkfiWdvzY10DY65CkolMvNpl0Jg1RNceBss3dh3paY-lkfCCENNgLNJCLRKwU0QkJyxKi0_Ww-fYZ37yq5PNyfdacj2n03zcTh0aonEFi4yO-bpkgarPY/s1210/dansby-swanson-wrigley-Photo-by-Michael-ReavesGetty-Images-GettyImages-1478818762.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="1210" height="159" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjF7HpMl2IN3EIdwKpyTkXmS-ssh-4C5oxY1gyyH0CvCA0p4iCqyosjFRnFasCFSo91kT_FhnPgkfiWdvzY10DY65CkolMvNpl0Jg1RNceBss3dh3paY-lkfCCENNgLNJCLRKwU0QkJyxKi0_Ww-fYZ37yq5PNyfdacj2n03zcTh0aonEFi4yO-bpkgarPY/s320/dansby-swanson-wrigley-Photo-by-Michael-ReavesGetty-Images-GettyImages-1478818762.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">A few noteworthy larger contracts stick out since 2015. Jon Lester and Jason Heyward were the biggest investments in 2015 and 2016. Yu Darvish was the biggest investment post-2016, pre-2021 (2018). Dansby Swanson is now that guy. There are higher expectations on these guys. Lester goes down as one of the greatest free-agent signings in Cubs history, and Heyward is something of the opposite (though <a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2022/10/chicago-cubs-2022-year-in-review.html" target="_blank">see previous year's review</a>, which acknowledges his own intangible role in the 2016 Championship). Darvish looked like a bad deal after the first year or two--but so did Craig Kimbrel, one of the more "affordable" investments that was not quite as daunting. Darvish soon returned to form and once again pitched like one of the premier starters in the MLB, only to be traded in the great fire sale of 2021, when this "reboot" officially began. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Dansby was praised by nearly every outlet, and sometimes mentioned as "living up to his contract," which felt like an indirect jab at Heyward. Just for fun, why not compare the two, even though they don't play the same position. It's interesting if you look at their age-29 seasons (this year for Dansby; 2019 for J-Hey). Both played 147 games. Dansby had 22 HRs and Heyward had 21, but also 49 fewer plate appearances. Dansby's OPS (we can get into stats another time) was .744 and Heyward's was .772 (and .848 in 2020, and .803 this year on the Dodgers, where the Cubs paid his salary after releasing him a year before the end of said hefty contract). Of course, those were the best years of Heyward's contract, and he wasn't over .744 any other years (though almost in 2018, with .731). I'm not sure what point I'm trying to make, except that Heyward got a worse rap than he deserved, at least in comparison with the high praise Dansby received all year long. They are different positions and you expect more production from an outfielder than a SS (Dansby had 80 RBIs this year; Heyward's best was 62 RBIs in 2019; we might consider RBIs a more reliable metric of value than OPS).</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Don't get me wrong: I love Dansby. I'm on my third Cubs jersey-shirt--my first was Soriano, in the late 'aughts, second was Arrieta in 2015, and now Dansby in 2023. He's old school and plays solid baseball and like Nico, he's absolutely good enough to be the starting everyday shortstop for a World Series contender. He did that in Atlanta already. Unlike Nico, he made the All-Star team this year. Arguably, he ended the year on something of a "down note," but he recognized this and made no excuses for himself. When he talks in interviews, sometimes you get the sense of an athlete talking in athlete terms, not really saying much--but more often than not, he seems more real, and it's always refreshing to get more candid thoughts from someone so integral to the overall functioning of the team. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">He did just fine this year, but I'd hope to see him hit about .30 higher in batting average. We have him until 2029, and we have the best double-play combo in the MLB until 2026, so we are good here, for a while at least.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Seiya Suzuki: A-</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjx29cp8o54K7Y1YmDdg5XQbwcSLy8foRb5sKm-t9gz93YDTLdyEbCUdqKE7Ccw1_uclNIJdr5-6DaRQ-k5UFKT5Z41NQ7ilpvdFVbDn-r3vL3yOqbJ2Z3ku4GaJZXplylxkaln0jk2m6lkLyWzpG2-3HfH6mxROuOc3f_NRCa8sfY8b9YPV4sq6xXuuwAC/s640/seiyasuzuki.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="428" data-original-width="640" height="214" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjx29cp8o54K7Y1YmDdg5XQbwcSLy8foRb5sKm-t9gz93YDTLdyEbCUdqKE7Ccw1_uclNIJdr5-6DaRQ-k5UFKT5Z41NQ7ilpvdFVbDn-r3vL3yOqbJ2Z3ku4GaJZXplylxkaln0jk2m6lkLyWzpG2-3HfH6mxROuOc3f_NRCa8sfY8b9YPV4sq6xXuuwAC/s320/seiyasuzuki.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />He had about 120 more plate appearances, but he had 6 more HRs, 43 more hits, 28 more RBIs, and added 23 points to his batting average. Suffice to say, Year 2 was better than Year 1 for Seiya, and Year 1 wasn't all that bad. Seiya's 2023 is a story in the three parts: Part 1 - resume Year 1 performance and add a small slump allocation; Part 2 - sit out for a week or two, mentally reset, and rejoin the everyday lineup to enjoy his greatest successes in the MLB yet, go on an absolute tear for 2 months and hoist the team on your shoulders (with Bellinger alongside supporting as well) and convince the front office to make additions rather than deletions; Part 3 - suffer a humiliating "curse moment" and not let it destroy your morale for the remainder of the season, even though it basically did end postseason fantasies. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">What's most encouraging about this team, and this fanbase, is that nobody blamed Seiya. Yes, he's a major league ballplayer and is expected to make routine plays, but also, this is the MLB, and s*** happens. Seiya's performance leading up to that moment had been nothing short of heroic. If Bellinger had done the same, the reaction would have been similar: utter shock and dismay, followed by compassion (and we certainly would never want to make him feel run out of town). It did appear on that day that Seiya was on the verge of tears after recognizing the turn the game had taken. Everyone was on the verge of tears, frankly. He did what he could after that to redeem himself, but even though we couldn't take one game from that final Braves series, the Diamondbacks had already dealt us the death blow. We look back on 2023 and see the 1-6 record against Arizona as the definitive team match-up that sent us packing (even now, as of this writing, Kershaw & the Dodgers now know how it feels to be spanked by them--they feel like the hottest team in baseball, though it appears the Marlins eclipsed them at the end).</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Like Nico and Dansby, Seiya is *good enough* for a World Series team, and we have him until 2026 and at some point over these next three seasons, we should have a good window to compete more credibly for the postseason. Seiya has also "invited" Shohei to join the Cubs. If that happens, Seiya may not win an MVP, but he will be the "shadow" MVP. We will manage our expectations but nobody will pretend they aren't paying attention to him and the Mets, Yankees, and whoever else is linked. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Yan Gomes: A-</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRlQNmDyglQA9QPxbaEqw36evH0U3Q6wAwKxTvdIxI8HOGjqvnPZZgqdNGwG5ma4UGxIspsLf8rezo02XXVKblt_-i13J-MQ60V-tLDzPdXh64ToB6WNgfoPptep8fouxmmk7tIifDNYsRAjtSPS0C-L2_cCYH1Sqop9Sec6hFAXMN18qkOWZax_rIbJ1E/s2560/gomes-1239990272-1-scaled.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1707" data-original-width="2560" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRlQNmDyglQA9QPxbaEqw36evH0U3Q6wAwKxTvdIxI8HOGjqvnPZZgqdNGwG5ma4UGxIspsLf8rezo02XXVKblt_-i13J-MQ60V-tLDzPdXh64ToB6WNgfoPptep8fouxmmk7tIifDNYsRAjtSPS0C-L2_cCYH1Sqop9Sec6hFAXMN18qkOWZax_rIbJ1E/s320/gomes-1239990272-1-scaled.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Gomes is an interesting case. First, he admirably filled the gaping hole that Willson Contreras's departure left on the team. He successfully transitioned from a back-up role into a primary catcher role. His game-calling skills were never called into question. Nobody complained about his defense and he made a fancy play or two. Most importantly, he emerged as the greatest clutch hitter on the team, and an underrated hidden weapon. Second, however, it is unclear whether he can replicate this season's performance, as he plays the most physically damaging position in the game and may be expected to play the primary role as a 37-year-old. Given that our back-up is now Miguel Amaya, who has never become the superstar that he was once projected to be, Gomes has the confidence of Ross, and we anticipate he will at least have the opportunity to prove that age has not caught up with him. Certainly, he did nothing this year but prove himself as an integral part of the offense, and a veteran leader in the field and clubhouse more generally. Ross loves Gomes and there will probably be more of the same next year--no one is talking about a major catcher to acquire. It just remains to be seen how long he can keep it going. One would imagine that an alternative back-up catcher to Amaya may emerge (apart from Tucker Barnhart), and it remains an open question whether Amaya will prove next year that he is ready for (or capable of) the primary role. Gomes hit 53 points better than Amaya, and bested him in nearly every category, while playing in 116 games--more than twice as many as Amaya's 53. Gomes has a 2024 team option and I don't think anyone would argue with exercising that. Assuming his 2024 performance could match what he did this year, this would also be *good enough* for a World Series catcher in 2024, though saying things would remain the same in 2025 is not as easy. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Kyle Hendricks: A-</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitLXjERsxU4XLxGHYPs2xZymo8s8c9a5tC9MWV25nKyKxUoKlGtAjouch_rf3sCKSSVos50npMLyg4pRCvoysymiNNl8b7rYX2ahOz7HoMO7-XE2vV0G97r7ACR4KC_Y7X0_OAxiG94lGVFoFKmCWNtbOaI6KC2iTLtbL62ZpVXXjMeFlco0P7ODL7o5xA/s1200/hendricks2023.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="1200" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitLXjERsxU4XLxGHYPs2xZymo8s8c9a5tC9MWV25nKyKxUoKlGtAjouch_rf3sCKSSVos50npMLyg4pRCvoysymiNNl8b7rYX2ahOz7HoMO7-XE2vV0G97r7ACR4KC_Y7X0_OAxiG94lGVFoFKmCWNtbOaI6KC2iTLtbL62ZpVXXjMeFlco0P7ODL7o5xA/s320/hendricks2023.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">We should not worry as much about this with Kyle Hendricks. We should not think about letting him fade away elsewhere. As the last standing member of the 2016 Championship team (along with Ross to an extent), we need to keep the connection going. Hendricks should remain a Cub until he is ready to retire. He is a legend in this town and it wouldn't feel right seeing him anywhere else. 2022 was his worst season yet in the majors, dealing with an injury. He missed the earlier part of the year in continuing recovery, but this wasn't a big deal because he almost always has historically started the year on a "rusty" note. Upon his return, he exhibited that--for a game or two. Then he returned to "pure Kyle" form, with his pinpoint control, strike-throwing, ground-ball creating, and lack of pulse. At the end of the year, when Stroman went down, he stepped up. Him and Steele effectively became the #1 and the #2 for the rotation, and while the situation was dire, we stayed in the mix until Stroman returned. Kyle was not perfect, but he was *good enough* to lock a rotation spot for 2024, either in the #2 or #3 position. Perhaps it will be the year he finally makes the All-Star team. I wouldn't bet on it, but no one considers Kyle's presence in the 5-pitcher rotation as a "weakness." When he's dealing, he's as good as any other pitcher in either league. Maybe it seems like I'm giving everyone A-'s, but I'm going from the highs to the lows.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Christopher Morel: A-</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiu5PU654Lrh0zVMLhy7myXArOlGJUzXWC3ja3qEQiUpDiYHENq-1nwLLd7BYxPguPfx36jnUmLrPQLr9Xv67oVOd5zZORUcMp8vkrOWZuLo_jKmFmiP-dwpp6FtLTyiPIHmslZuJC6i3fA9cCXnWu0KZb2NKhvDisu0DnfYY9bV3A29fFwbKP_DRuTEJZY/s1920/morel2023.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="1920" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiu5PU654Lrh0zVMLhy7myXArOlGJUzXWC3ja3qEQiUpDiYHENq-1nwLLd7BYxPguPfx36jnUmLrPQLr9Xv67oVOd5zZORUcMp8vkrOWZuLo_jKmFmiP-dwpp6FtLTyiPIHmslZuJC6i3fA9cCXnWu0KZb2NKhvDisu0DnfYY9bV3A29fFwbKP_DRuTEJZY/s320/morel2023.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Morel was the best story of the 2022 season, but most people still didn't know who he was. Now, while he is not quite a household name, everyone is on notice that he is the most explosive presence on the Cubs since we let Javier Baez go in 2021. Absolutely, he is *good enough* for a near-everyday spot on a World Series team. He has been referenced as a valuable bargaining chip, and his versatility and rousing personality would be welcomed on any team, but query whether we can afford to lose him. His value, right now, is still manageable. The Cubs should sign him to a similar contract that the Braves have for Albies or Acuna Jr. Maybe for 3-4 years. They could still lock him up for a discount, I think. (He is under team control for several years in any case.) Let him go, and you risk seeing him turn into Jorge Soler or Kyle Schwarber and questioning whether we could have been in postseason competition for every single year since 2016. He basically became the biggest power hitter on the team (both he and Bellinger had 27 HRs, but Morel did that in 23 fewer games), a clutch player (picture above taken from walk-off HR vs. the White Sox, one of the major highlights of the season) and the kind of personality every championship team needs to come back from slumps and middling performances. On that last gasp of a game versus the Braves, Morel hit a triple near the end and showed the kind of emotion that had been sorely lacking as the team grappled with elimination. He gave us a prayer, and we couldn't push him across. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">He had 4 more plate appearances in 2023 than 2022, so they're very comparable on that score, as they are with most categories--except for 10 more HRs and 23 more RBIs. Perhaps he needs to work on some things, but I noticed he seem to take better at-bats as the season deepened, and if he can boost his batting average a little bit, there's no reason he wouldn't make the All-Star team. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Ian Happ: A- </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlnWPhhOs_rsrdMHTlczRrNI_Qg6ZFug38LKBaHMXWtmCcERaI0FYL0CVqTHLW36OrIrCy23HqPeTnHJ5_wTYEVx_JbqiGwY7DVdqk2OnIr5YAz4NVJQf3KFM5KHxkJ1lSJNw8rDQyJVGyiDIR2tpXWT8uOouZb3-1PFiW1I0X5DbyyB_thLfamheP2VJl/s1200/happ2023.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1200" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlnWPhhOs_rsrdMHTlczRrNI_Qg6ZFug38LKBaHMXWtmCcERaI0FYL0CVqTHLW36OrIrCy23HqPeTnHJ5_wTYEVx_JbqiGwY7DVdqk2OnIr5YAz4NVJQf3KFM5KHxkJ1lSJNw8rDQyJVGyiDIR2tpXWT8uOouZb3-1PFiW1I0X5DbyyB_thLfamheP2VJl/s320/happ2023.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Happ was extended for 3 years early on this season, so we will have him for the next three seasons, too, and it's looking more like 2024-2026 is the new "window" for competition. Is he *good enough* to be the starting everyday left fielder for a World Series champion? I think so, yes, but I do not think he should be batting third in the line-up, as David Ross slotted him rather often near the end of the season. A few times, it paid off, and Happ did hit a timely home run or two at the very end there. And while he was an All-Star in 2022 and not an All-Star in 2023, his numbers this year were an improvement. Again, he was a <i>rock </i>playing 158 games for the 2nd year in a row, and in 50 additional plate appearances, he drew 41 more walks. Sure, his batting average dropped from .271 to .248, but a .360 OBP isn't too shabby. His defense is quality. People talked a lot more about Seiya's dropped ball because it came at a more crucial moment than Happ's missed ball early on in the next game (almost seeming like he did that to be a good teammate in camaraderie), but he is a "plus defender." Apart from the Diamondbacks poisoning the Cubs at the end, we were not playing "clean games" and various baserunning and fielding errors exacerbated struggles at the plate. I'd imagine the organization is putting a premium on this, with the emergence of Pete Crow-Armstrong (hereinafter, "PCA") as a defender extraordinaire. Happ is also the most prominent switch-hitter on the team. He may not strike deep fear in the opposing pitchers, and remains something of a hidden weapon, even though he has been around long enough to say he was part of the "first competitive window." Look for Happ to make another case for himself as an All-Star in 2024. The dramatic increase in walks this year is a clear sign that, if he remains consistent, he deserves that designation. I do think that he deserves to be near the top of the order for that. (I originally gave him a B+ but I figured if Dansby got an A-, Happ deserves that, too, because they were quite comparable, with Happ having slightly better offensive numbers.)</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Mike Tauchman: B</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTPMEpzD_yOajA2Qym4cJLg5LeHMG_HEldKogOqP3iaElGMxzxXKjLQNZQKej9G4qV-yyUPOUVmZBM6rGge8fhTlqASV1YhTYxUdePDDj2PZtLijGBIiNvwVO9xNHeA-7rIM3KqBF-xqiQksFn-Fx0zAop127W40hwobwNxhCGPevVuGSKRBlSD9NzssHA/s1600/Mike-Tauchman-HR-celebration-against-Nationals-Wrigley.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="904" data-original-width="1600" height="181" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTPMEpzD_yOajA2Qym4cJLg5LeHMG_HEldKogOqP3iaElGMxzxXKjLQNZQKej9G4qV-yyUPOUVmZBM6rGge8fhTlqASV1YhTYxUdePDDj2PZtLijGBIiNvwVO9xNHeA-7rIM3KqBF-xqiQksFn-Fx0zAop127W40hwobwNxhCGPevVuGSKRBlSD9NzssHA/s320/Mike-Tauchman-HR-celebration-against-Nationals-Wrigley.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">I hadn't heard of Mike Tauchman the first time I saw him at the plate (along with several other Cubs players and relievers this year), but anecdotal experience reminds that, he started playing semi-regularly in the 2nd half of the season and quickly established himself as a difference-maker, responsible for at least two or three wins (one notable walk-off HR and one notable game-saving HR theft). His defense impressed but it appeared that PCA eclipsed him in terms of Ross's confidence, at the end. Despite these clutch moments, I did not feel especially hopeful when he would come up in a crucial situation, same as I might for say, Suzuki or Bellinger or Gomes. Tauchman is a fine utility player and suitable for platooning and sharing duties, but I do not see him as an everyday starting player for a World Series champion. Perhaps he could be, in the 9th slot. He hit leadoff very often. Though he was sometimes good, let's be totally honest here: we need someone that was as good as Dexter to qualify as a bona fide leadoff hitter. This was Tauchman's best season yet, and while there is a place for him on this team, he should be monitored and played according to the ebbs and flows of the season. He seemed like a rather streaky player. For those periods when gets hot, he's a valuable hidden weapon. But we need a true leadoff hitter, still. We can put Happ, or Nico, or Morel, (or Tauchman) in the leadoff spot, but some consistency in that part of the lineup (like say, the Braves or Dodgers have, even though Betts and Acuna Jr. are more in the vein of Soriano as a leadoff hitter) will go a long way towards proving we have a solid Championship formula. Tauchman's contract status makes it appear that he will be relatively easy to retain for a modest salary, so it probably makes sense to do that. Give him credit for those true "WAR" moments. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Jameson Taillon: C+</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaMIptBwTQrp50yHUWVyd0rfkuaFtM87YGvqZOqUvzO4BYmGiqnZBNAH8CLF4dcm16MwAGZdJyoI2xvU7vVwYXNOFldhiKrdTbH83ypsKcCoskSSKJbtYo3YO5-cMK98TIrZi6Mb5ZwF3JUBOL6M_giFkj178TBxFeZPOZ8KuuLvDEJs2R1kYsbFHTqzZR/s2560/taillon.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1707" data-original-width="2560" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaMIptBwTQrp50yHUWVyd0rfkuaFtM87YGvqZOqUvzO4BYmGiqnZBNAH8CLF4dcm16MwAGZdJyoI2xvU7vVwYXNOFldhiKrdTbH83ypsKcCoskSSKJbtYo3YO5-cMK98TIrZi6Mb5ZwF3JUBOL6M_giFkj178TBxFeZPOZ8KuuLvDEJs2R1kYsbFHTqzZR/s320/taillon.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Taillon came to the Cubs this year after a very strong year for the Yankees that saw him go 14-5 with a 3.91 ERA in 177 innings pitched, which any Championship contender would take for spots #3-5 in the rotation. He got off to a slow start and multiple publications in NY took note and took the opportunity to call him "crappy" and claim that the Yankees dodged a bullet by letting him to go to the Cubs for 4 years and $68 million. And, yeah, he did end up going 8-10 with a 4.84 ERA in 154 IP, but he showed significant turnaround towards the end of the season. He would still struggle occasionally, but he seemed to "figure it out" and return to excellent form, at times. Several of his starts at the end were near-heroic, and then squandered by an overwhelmed bullpen. He did not make excuses for himself, and despite these encouraging signs, viewed the overall performance this season as a letdown. With the current state of the bullpen, Taillon does not look bad at all--there's no reason to think that he can't return to excellent form on a more consistent basis, and at the very least, deserves a spot in the rotation, even if he and Drew Smyly are basically treated interchangeably (both flirted with no-hitters in one of their starts, both occasionally entered long relief roles). Whether it's as a #4 or #5 starter or long reliever, he'll be on the team. He could be a trade piece, but I do not see his 2023 performance as an abject failure. It was middling, but I prefer to view the improvement as an encouraging sign. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Drew Smyly: C</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjn5Ntoi5PGfVtSF3CopfrryA9hhiQvdEBUzRpRgc54p0NtsqU17Q00wpuWWCvjsJ2P_-pIm5wszoNetoDtEdYvE2tSUE7ItNHVcLGOskVGirwDGdrySPkka2Hc4v3v3X1lFNlGGuy6fPvvPYesPR54CdIg34RPmDSvcFmnMlm1v50qt0tm5tfraXlqF-c2/s2000/smyly.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1333" data-original-width="2000" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjn5Ntoi5PGfVtSF3CopfrryA9hhiQvdEBUzRpRgc54p0NtsqU17Q00wpuWWCvjsJ2P_-pIm5wszoNetoDtEdYvE2tSUE7ItNHVcLGOskVGirwDGdrySPkka2Hc4v3v3X1lFNlGGuy6fPvvPYesPR54CdIg34RPmDSvcFmnMlm1v50qt0tm5tfraXlqF-c2/s320/smyly.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Never forget April 21, 2023, when Smyly nearly threw a perfect game in a 13-0 victory over the Dodgers. Many did forget that by the end of the year. But at the beginning, for a minute, it seemed our rotation was on fire. Smyly joined the team in 2022 after a strong year for the 2021 World Series champion Braves, as a tried and tested veteran. He started the same number of games (22 or 23) over the past three years, but his numbers arguably looked better last year. By the end of the season, both the rotation and the bullpen were in shambles, and sometimes Smyly saved us and sometimes he set us back even further. The word is inconsistent, and why it is not unfair to put him and Taillon in almost the exact same category: they have shown flashes of brilliance, but have been unable to maintain. It is, admittedly, a very difficult thing to do at the MLB level, in highly-competitive pennant-race games. The team needed a strong long reliever, and Smyly filled that role *mostly* admirably. He's a few years older than Taillon, but cost about half as much. He has a mutual team/player option for a 2024 contract, and if we can get him to stay for $10-11 million, that might be worthwhile. It wouldn't be the most shocking thing in the world if he "figured it out" for an entire year in 2024, the way he did for the Braves in 2021, and the way Taillon did for the Yankees in 2022. It's worth the gamble, and at the very least, he remains useful.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Jordan Wicks: A- (B+ due to small sample size)</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiG4D0EF35-hCXw7mQBut0aV7G96_6BYxr4LVDUY1UWFPwffjZ-giQ3E7n0td8Isri-sdN2866iOGglvX-3o2vrPYP8JV6UAcJA0gC0yH088XZSckxzXpXITehOfjw8oDz5Fe0wMfvXkTedNVllWVx36rMME_ObmUo3yAMLLiML74Q7BxwBmCtnwABNBct9/s1400/wicks.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="933" data-original-width="1400" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiG4D0EF35-hCXw7mQBut0aV7G96_6BYxr4LVDUY1UWFPwffjZ-giQ3E7n0td8Isri-sdN2866iOGglvX-3o2vrPYP8JV6UAcJA0gC0yH088XZSckxzXpXITehOfjw8oDz5Fe0wMfvXkTedNVllWVx36rMME_ObmUo3yAMLLiML74Q7BxwBmCtnwABNBct9/s320/wicks.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">We are wary of rating Wicks too highly (a la Frank Schwindel--never forget Frank the Tank), because he only started 7 games, at the end after Stroman went down, but he went 4-1 and looked like a total stud. Yes, his ERA landed at 4.41 ERA---but I think that was due to 1 or 2 bad starts, and that in all the others, he pitched about as well as anyone. He stepped up in a big way when he needed him to. He handled the pressure of the pennant race as a rookie that got thrown into it at the last minute, in an emergency situation. He probably deserves an A-, but nobody seems to be getting quite as excited about him. The clearest comparison I can make is to Alec Mills, who also wore glasses and threw a no-hitter in 2019; the B+ accounts for "fluke-potential," which every rookie success must overcome. Wicks did not throw a no-hitter, but in his debut, he retired something like 15 batters in a row, which drew a comparison to Mark Prior. No one is saying he is Mark Prior, but if he is, take it. Prior may not have lasted, but for those few years when he was a stud, he was a stud that anyone would have wanted. This team drew comparison to the 2004 team, failing at the very end after hopes of another postseason birth. 2005 wasn't too bad either, but we are hoping that 2024 will have the better end result. Wicks deserves a spot in the rotation with his performance. Yes, I hope we bring in a new starting pitcher that will be a strong anchor in the rotation (or 2, if Stroman walks), and in that case, Wicks at least deserves at shot at the #5 slot. The only problem is that Rowan Wick is gone. We may actually, one day, get Brad Wieck back in the bullpen, but if we can't have an army of Wicks, two might be enough.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Javier Assad: A- (no qualifier)</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizLZHF2dS64AIzMlMwIsuHWgzR4Z6vOaaWY3AfiHx8OJbH6txt4f0XsWfrZFxPpTMAYPZ-TNW1AoAWL0QvZcBGl5LibE07tjgN7Ipcyl3EhnUO-HsSv9OUV7kGQvNB2dmBiJf7A_3o7HfYWTKtst-XRg9cVcLJTveCong5iVAHsuwWFH7NdvEzpR1UhMpP/s1210/javier-assad-Cubs-blue.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="1210" height="159" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizLZHF2dS64AIzMlMwIsuHWgzR4Z6vOaaWY3AfiHx8OJbH6txt4f0XsWfrZFxPpTMAYPZ-TNW1AoAWL0QvZcBGl5LibE07tjgN7Ipcyl3EhnUO-HsSv9OUV7kGQvNB2dmBiJf7A_3o7HfYWTKtst-XRg9cVcLJTveCong5iVAHsuwWFH7NdvEzpR1UhMpP/s320/javier-assad-Cubs-blue.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">It might be overblowing things a bit to give Assad a flat A, but he almost deserves that for how he stepped up, time after time, throughout the entire course of the season, and most crucially at the very end. There probably was no single decision that Ross made that upset me more than when he took Assad out on 9/2/23, when he had the opportunity for a complete game shutout and we ended up losing to the Reds 2-1 (this was before the wheels totally came off on the playoff push, but the first signs of trouble). He had 98 pitches, and Ross was arguably justified, and hindsight is 20/20 and no single game mistake is cause for termination, when the season is comprised of hundreds of such intangible moments. But the loss wasn't Assad's fault, and he was as good as he could be, for how he was used. Is he a starter or a long reliever? It's not totally clear. He's in a similar category to Smyly, though he unquestionably performed better than him or Taillon. He was the 3rd or 4th best pitcher on this team, depending on when Stroman was injured. At the very end of the year, when Stroman returned, he was the more reliable of the two. Assad is straight up, a no-brainer. Don't let him get away, because I think may get even better. He's only pitched for 2 years, but the encouraging rookie performance was not a fluke, and he he has earned our trust.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Those are most of the "major guys," and these posts become too long as they are, finding pictures of every single player and writing a personalized evaluation--one other guy deserves one:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Adbert Alzolay: B+</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDD4GEFai-tcaeeNjI7u3Np0m72G5ZwPIW3CX-QI7LO6pONyZJZFNTeYCPwkwF7Hz_y-k49EAeq9rIoAFeZ7jMuphbXBmtbisNlpiT6wNRWbxJB0zH1Rrv_DiAmad1llwbqfQ91pwhP87w5ndtc4Ntq6cVvmr98Twym1vfZPOBGZiGVywbYpgiSB0Tk3Sw/s840/alzolay.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="560" data-original-width="840" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDD4GEFai-tcaeeNjI7u3Np0m72G5ZwPIW3CX-QI7LO6pONyZJZFNTeYCPwkwF7Hz_y-k49EAeq9rIoAFeZ7jMuphbXBmtbisNlpiT6wNRWbxJB0zH1Rrv_DiAmad1llwbqfQ91pwhP87w5ndtc4Ntq6cVvmr98Twym1vfZPOBGZiGVywbYpgiSB0Tk3Sw/s320/alzolay.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The Cubs never quite figured out how to use Alzolay until this year. He has pitched in fits and starts since 2019, debuting with some hype and showing some flash, bouncing back and forth from the minors, experimented with as a starting pitcher in 2021, and finally emerging as the closer in 2023. There's no question that he was the most reliable person in the bullpen for the job. (The bullpen should be addressed separately, here.) And he contributed to the team in a bigger way than he ever had before. And he was very good in the role, though not perfect, and the only blown games came at the crucial moment, and he also went down at the crucial moment, forcing the Cubs to use Julian Merryweather and Mark Leiter Jr. and Daniel Palencia as closers, which worked as often as it did not. It appears that he blew 3 saves, which is not great, but his ERA of 2.67 was the best on the team (unless you count Shane Greene, who pitched 3 innings and gave up 2 hits and 2 walks and 0 runs, or Tucker Barnhart, the catcher, who oddly pitched 4 innings in 4 games, giving up one run for a 2.25 ERA). </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Adbert is the only player on the team besides Morel with an infectious personality. As previously noted, you shouldn't let these kinds of guys go lightly. The only issue is whether Adbert can cut it as a World Series champion closer. And that is a big ask. The team could swing big and bring in someone like say, Wade Davis or Craig Kimbrel, and no one will complain. Adbert would likely make an effective setup man, though I have a feeling he thrives on the emotion of the closing role. In any case, if the team is seriously competing, I find it hard to believe they wouldn't do something similar to what they did with Aroldis Chapman in 2016, "renting" a closer to take a little pressure off of Adbert (as they did with Rondon) and the rest of the bullpen. Whatever the case, there should be a place for him on this team, and hopefully for many years to come. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Honorable Mention: Jeimer Candelario: B+</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXLpHj4_fhOVSeQQ2_4gnCOGHW2Ou8OvqdYslNlGhLkd6yy3QqapjpYe4yC8enZZDjVfWDjARwId6wx568WM8vmMw9ecQhP1jK2LD6M_jtblCK7Kvpiz1iMSJW5SFtdKI8lf50xGVkbXwm-Ymm80joQZ1OfKnP7oHfNZ9BtdGYOaE5vaOYIxlcFmmUUOF2/s1200/candelario.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="675" data-original-width="1200" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXLpHj4_fhOVSeQQ2_4gnCOGHW2Ou8OvqdYslNlGhLkd6yy3QqapjpYe4yC8enZZDjVfWDjARwId6wx568WM8vmMw9ecQhP1jK2LD6M_jtblCK7Kvpiz1iMSJW5SFtdKI8lf50xGVkbXwm-Ymm80joQZ1OfKnP7oHfNZ9BtdGYOaE5vaOYIxlcFmmUUOF2/s320/candelario.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div><br /></div>In 2016, Jeimer Candelario, one of the many heavily-touted prospects on the Cubs at the time, made his MLB Debut. It wasn't impressive. He got 1 hit in 11 at-bats, good for a .091 batting average. He played 11 more games for us in 2017 and did marginally better, hitting .152, but then was shipped off to Detroit, where he remained until 2022 and appeared to play perfectly average baseball, except he could be called above-average in 2021 (and actually led the league in doubles). He started off the year on the Nationals, and he was doing alright, probably the best he has done apart from 2021, and the Cubs did not fold but instead added.....by bringing back Candelario in glorious fashion. Candelario's performance in the first couple weeks of that acquisition jumpstarted this team in a serious way. The team was never hotter. They looked unstoppable. They looked like the Braves in 2021. Then he went back down to earth, and also got injured as the team went into a tailspin. I am not sure if there is a place on this team for him in 2024 (I have basically said we should keep all of the players, which most certainly will not happen) but I hope we keep him. I'm not sure if he's *good enough* to be an everyday starting player for a World Series team, but if he could replicate his 2021 year, or even this year (which probably is his best season so far, split between two teams, in terms of power), it would probably suffice. I include him to highlight his contribution because I do think he was the biggest difference-maker after the trade deadline, apart from Jose Cuas who was less terrible than several of his peers in the bullpen.<div><br /></div><div>The Bullpen: C+ (overall)</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVjSTo50_y3RzzB-c6Ku6C4qhyYEG2V8HoUvV3fUSSb18DLRXSRplsHAISbcQI9mCkpBw4VhX0YBguK26PD-ZLRxgr3AMG6EjFwpEjNFtKe_v-EBvERbbkbQSurcn-KzdrKt7UHq80FYUd9h1FZGYOqFQaYhr5JmhVrZuF6bmUtWkGaf9PRd4zWSosnriG/s1210/jose-cuas-mound-ross-Photo-by-Dustin-BradfordGetty-Images-GettyImages-1659535002.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="1210" height="159" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVjSTo50_y3RzzB-c6Ku6C4qhyYEG2V8HoUvV3fUSSb18DLRXSRplsHAISbcQI9mCkpBw4VhX0YBguK26PD-ZLRxgr3AMG6EjFwpEjNFtKe_v-EBvERbbkbQSurcn-KzdrKt7UHq80FYUd9h1FZGYOqFQaYhr5JmhVrZuF6bmUtWkGaf9PRd4zWSosnriG/s320/jose-cuas-mound-ross-Photo-by-Dustin-BradfordGetty-Images-GettyImages-1659535002.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Why can't we go back to 2017, or even 2021, when we had a really sick bullpen? Why can't we have Ryan Tepera, Andrew Chafin and Craig Kimbrel in innings 7-8-9 when we really need them? Why can't we have "nice things?" Because this is the Cubs.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">There are several tiers of relievers in the bullpen, and few of them are reliable. At the top end, people that might get an A-, we have Julian Merryweather, and even he could not escape all blame in that final 2-week skid. He was about as trustworthy as anyone apart from Alzolay, and he throws hard, and he strikes a good number of guys out. He's a guy I'd keep in the bullpen. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">I'd say the same thing for Jose Cuas (B+). He was the other "difference-maker," brought over from the Royals after the trade deadline. He wasn't perfect, either, and I might give him a B+, but he seemed fairly reliable. Alzolay, naturally, falls into this top category. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Hayden Wesneski (C) is an interesting case because he also falls into that Taillon/Smyly/Assad situation--starter, long reliever, or reliever? That remains to be seen. He actually started 11 games. There were more positives than negatives, I think, but it certainly wasn't so positive that I think he must start the year at the major league level. He may bounce to AAA and back again, but he did show some potential. He might be middle tier, or higher.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Others in the middle tier could include Brad Boxberger (B-), who was a great pick-up from the Brewers, who has been a very successful reliever in the past, and who had some very encouraging performances, but also struggled somewhat, with injuries and otherwise. A healthy Boxberger <i>could </i>be a key component to the bullpen, the way he was in Milwaukee, as the setup man for Josh Hader. I think he is worth a small gamble for 2024 (mutual option). He's getting older, but pitchers can age gracefully in this game, and if we got 2021 or 2022 Brad Boxberger (A), we'd have one high quality bullpen staple.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Michael Fulmer (B+) arguably belongs in the "top-tier," and should be re-signed for 2024 as well. He could be considered somewhat trustworthy alongside Merryweather and Cuas. He didn't have a terrible year by any stretch, but he wasn't around (injured) when we were needing him the most. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">It's not fair to say Luke Little was unreliable, because of a very small sample size. I think the main thing to say about him is, like Canario, Ross did not give him enough opportunities, opting for others with more experience to often disappointing results. Little actually didn't suck at all. He actually led the team in ERA. He actually pitched 6.2 innings and gave up 0 runs. Hard to say he will be an integral part of the pitching staff, but still very young and promising.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Keegan Thompson (C-) is still kicking around. He was <i>very </i>encouraging over the past year or two, but something seemed to happen (I think injuries) and this season was a step in the wrong direction. I believe he will stay part of the organization and bounce to AAA and back again before being given another opportunity. His success in the past is enough to justify that. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">I don't have much recollection of Michael Rucker (B-) but he was used fairly often (he was likely injured near the end) and seems to fit in the middle tier, or possibly the top-tier. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Brandon Hughes is worth mentioning because it seems like he's always been a stud, and he only pitched briefly this year, performing poorly and then recognizing injury and being on the IL most of the year. If he comes back as the pitcher he was before, you can keep him as a key component to the bullpen.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">I don't ever like being mean, because as noted above, this is an incredibly difficult game to play at the highest of levels. But I would not mind if either Daniel Palencia (D+) or Mark Leiter Jr. (D+) were traded. They both have their qualities. Palencia apparently has electrifying stuff and throws 100 MPH, but I mostly saw him give up home runs. Same for MLJ. While he is retained for facing left-handed hitting, and did have some measure of success (clearly, Ross trusted him, putting him in 69 games, which tied for the most appearances with Merryweather), late in the year, it seemed like Cuas, Palencia and MLJ were pitching like, almost every single game, and it began to show. I am not a full-time sportswriter or statistician or highly-analytical fan, but I go by the feel of what I see, and yeah I watched a lot more in July, August and September than April, May and June, but MLJ just did not give me major confidence. I wouldn't mind if either got traded (and I know other teams would like both, and both do present value propositions), but I think they will get another chance, and hopefully they will be used in more specific situations, and not just because they're the only options left. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">***</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">There are some other notable players. Nick Madrigal (B+) probably deserves his own picture in this post and he played a lot this year and he probably played better than he ever has in his career, but I could say the same for his sub, Miles Mastrobuoni (B/B+ at the end). They should at least get awards for best names, best naming by parents. Can they play in 7 games of a World Series? Maybe. Madrigal certainly was touted in his prospect days as being a player of that caliber. He hasn't quite delivered on that promise, but he took a step in that direction. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Obviously, PCA and Alexander Canario are very exciting (even though PCA batted .000, as a lifetime little league .000 hitter with a ~.500 OBP, I am sympathetic). So is Jared Young, to say nothing of Matt Mervis. The sample sizes are too small. Add Canario's grand slam to the list of ridiculous offensive debuts (yes, technically his debut was with a strikeout on 9/6/23, but consider his first start on 9/19/23) his debut) with Nico Hoerner, Javier Baez, Jorge Soler, Kosuke Fukudome and Starlin Castro. And that leaves two final individuals to highlight.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">***</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Pour One Out for Patrick Wisdom (B-)<span> </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5TT2LGkjX5-5hgweh5Twacehz_rNE7gQN5CSr9NnV6hU2MQvgbw1RDwgm1jk1OuoitdfbiRbwa_vIhPHgHbM3SgbCz1aeSny5UzbSv6_qHntvxrmE4EX2qoFhVJ5q-e5cwTYOdM3w0gaH-nNqqgQFBRRr1wWfDLFWhl5vjcZV1001z0YSESiWunwJZkEK/s2048/wisdom2023.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1370" data-original-width="2048" height="214" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5TT2LGkjX5-5hgweh5Twacehz_rNE7gQN5CSr9NnV6hU2MQvgbw1RDwgm1jk1OuoitdfbiRbwa_vIhPHgHbM3SgbCz1aeSny5UzbSv6_qHntvxrmE4EX2qoFhVJ5q-e5cwTYOdM3w0gaH-nNqqgQFBRRr1wWfDLFWhl5vjcZV1001z0YSESiWunwJZkEK/s320/wisdom2023.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Wisdom earned $763,000 this year, and one imagines, less than that from 2018-2022. He is arbitration-eligible this year, which I believe means, the Cubs will either need to pay him a *reasonable* salary, or release him. Some peg this number at $4 million. Some think that he is not worth $4 million/year. As noted above, we cannot keep everyone. I'm not going to make any predictions, but if both happen, I'll miss Patrick Wisdom more than Cody Bellinger--not because of the confidence they provided as a fan, but because Wisdom represents something important about the team through those fallow years of 2021-2022. When the team ripped (almost) everything up and went back to the drawing board, a slightly-tweaked update on the strategy implemented in the previous fallow years of approximately 2012-2014, Kris Bryant was gone, but Patrick Wisdom materialized in his place. It's questionable whether Wisdom has more power than Bryant, but Bryant is certainly the better hitter. Wisdom strikes out a ton. Kris Bryant was the National League MVP in 2016 and the National League Rookie of the Year in 2015 and is a 4-time All-Star. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Wisdom has none of these accomplishments, and he was never seen as part of a "new core," like some of the names mentioned above (Happ, Hoerner, Swanson, Suzuki, Steele). But Wisdom is the only other player--apart from Morel and Alzolay--with an infectious personality. In 2021, when all was lost, it was him and Frank Schwindel that allowed fans to indulge in the delusion that, with a rag-tag team of replacement players, they could still occasionally compete with the best (2022 was not 2021, but see the Cubs dominance of the Phillies in 2022, for one example). He led the team in home runs the entire way--until this year. And despite being benched significantly more this season, he still led the team in home runs for a very long time (mid-August). Even when all hope was lost at the end of this season, Wisdom emerged as a pinch-hitting threat. It was demoralizing when Craig Counsell called for the batter ahead of Wisdom (Tauchman?) on 10/1/23, to be intentionally walked and load the bases for him because he knew they could strike him out. He had a chance to be a hero one last time, there. If he had hit a home run, would it have made a difference in what they decide to do with him in 2024? </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Some people seem to think Wisdom is "washed up," but I believe, with proper coaching this offseason, with better plate discipline, he is capable of a significant role on a championship team--so long as the strikeout liability is tempered. Look at Kyle Schwarber. Just look at Kyle Schwarber. Wisdom isn't Schwarber, but he's like a mini-Schwarber/Kris Bryant hybrid, and we can't have either of them back, it seems, so Wisdom is the next best thing. If Schwarber can be an everyday starting left fielder and leadoff hitter of a World Series contender, then there is no reason Wisdom can't do the same as a part-time player, and pinch-hit weapon. Of course, there may not be room for him on the roster, if we become totally stacked. He provides depth at multiple positions (even at catcher, at one point, like Schwarber as well) and his presence on the team, similar to the <i>other </i>2016-veteran Kyle, provides an intangible: continuity, presence, <i>gravitas</i>. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">All I'm saying is, he deserves $4 million next year, and whether it is provided by the Cubs or another team, it will be interesting to see if getting paid for his fair value leads to a corresponding increase in production. Unless they can bring back Javier Baez, Wisdom doesn't need to go. Certainly, you wouldn't want both on the team--but then again, remember Javy in 2018, remember MVP-era Javy, and recognize that miracles can happen.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">David Ross: B</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMJopD3w_zmShj9PxyhcHmzcJTY2nVO7eyjOIQyXLo6j9Md-2VpkNv5nGEBD9P4I1uRBDTuMuKyWsb9SZrd2nTdkmjPwL1HAPjKMnCLiYfgctPv4wyHkh3zufNZy-PVCI7GUIih6BkgRh-cj2xfQvxN5i0Ps9xZXWcswDKahY_wWRhbE9redOv6_aXdsXK/s2252/David-Ross-argues-with-umpire--scaled-e1688599093915.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1306" data-original-width="2252" height="186" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMJopD3w_zmShj9PxyhcHmzcJTY2nVO7eyjOIQyXLo6j9Md-2VpkNv5nGEBD9P4I1uRBDTuMuKyWsb9SZrd2nTdkmjPwL1HAPjKMnCLiYfgctPv4wyHkh3zufNZy-PVCI7GUIih6BkgRh-cj2xfQvxN5i0Ps9xZXWcswDKahY_wWRhbE9redOv6_aXdsXK/s320/David-Ross-argues-with-umpire--scaled-e1688599093915.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Ross inherited this team from Joe Maddon in 2020 and performed well enough to win National League Manager of the Year, though the Cubs themselves could not last more than two games against the Miami Marlins. I had no problem with the way he managed the bullpen that year. No problem at all seeing him trust Jeremy Jeffress to a 4-1 record with a 1.54 ERA. I absolutely had no problem with the way he managed the 2021 bullpen through one of the best scoreless streaks (38 innings) in MLB history. Even last year, when we had no hope, I had no problem with the way he managed the bullpen to lead the league in strikeouts (716). The man has a track record.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">We have to be fair and say that the team did not invest enough in the bullpen for the obvious reason that they did not expect to <i>fully </i>compete. In June and July, it looked like Bellinger and Stroman might be leaving the team for contenders, and that someone might even try to take Steele away. They got Boxberger and Merryweather, and they were solid choices, but they didn't put themselves in the market for a marquee closer (even last year, we got David Robertson). Alzolay did his part, and has been addressed above. We cannot blame Ross for the failures of the bullpen, but one of the things I like about him is that he accepts the blame, he does not blame the players. He wants to be blamed.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">He did, however, call out the Pirates as a bad team, which was not a good idea when they were about to play a very important series against the Marlins, where we needed to count on them to win and bail us out. The Pirates almost did in that first game anyways. Regardless, it did not make anyone in Pittsburgh a fan of Ross, nor harbor any positive feelings for the Cubs. Now it's fine to start fights with the Cardinals, or maybe even the Brewers, but you should have other teams that are at least, semi-allies. Teams that will want you to win, too. The Cubs are unique in this. Perhaps no one feels bad for them anymore after 2016, but I have to think, the nostalgia factor survives. People wants to see the Cubs win (except in St. Louis).</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Ross, I believe, will stay, though many are calling for his termination. The only other thing I don't like that much about Ross is the way he handles the media. He once noted that, "Twitter probably knows better than I do" about certain in-game decisions, and the comment was double-edged--sarcastic, but actually accurate. He became prickly whenever his bullpen decisions were questioned, which felt like projection. And yet, hindsight is 20/20, of course, and Ross knows enough about winning in this game that he deserves the chance to do it with the guys that he has fostered and developed over the past four seasons. One more chance, at least.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">For all of the heartbreak that this season carried with it, I probably had more fun following the team than any year before. I went to Toronto to see Steele beat the Blue Jays on 8/12/23, went to Milwaukee to see us win that pseudo-lame-duck game on 9/30/23, saw us come from behind to beat the White Sox at Guaranteed Rate on 7/26/23, and saw us beat the Brewers at Wrigley on 8/30/23. I watched too many <i>important </i>games from Murphy's Bleachers. I invested more in this team than any year before, and though it didn't end up being "worth it," sometimes the journey itself is the pleasure.</div></div>JKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16199023801433187878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3851264164198134050.post-85559905342975467172023-10-04T16:28:00.000-04:002023-10-04T16:28:11.876-04:00The Grand Inquisitor - Fyodor Dostoevsky (Transl. Constance Garnett; Introduction by Anne Fremantle) (1880; 1956; 1984; 2004)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxitByu2dYW5vuezgVYzFAoUbWDkvlhr0hLL7mqXALgXMGZysDOOVFwxOMlfQbMHS3sgwKCpnqniX5q3mkCu9IoZF01yJEsiliUeWG71rFZdxfBP407pD-3i5u84axcn6nrYLue7fJDw3Ktm3PAVaojhPSQ7TwdFR5k72PNALnUVqKz6h5XnXbaqKc0yur/s1985/grandinquisitor.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1985" data-original-width="1488" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxitByu2dYW5vuezgVYzFAoUbWDkvlhr0hLL7mqXALgXMGZysDOOVFwxOMlfQbMHS3sgwKCpnqniX5q3mkCu9IoZF01yJEsiliUeWG71rFZdxfBP407pD-3i5u84axcn6nrYLue7fJDw3Ktm3PAVaojhPSQ7TwdFR5k72PNALnUVqKz6h5XnXbaqKc0yur/s320/grandinquisitor.jpg" width="240" /></a></div><p>Dostoevsky is a blind spot for me. I haven't really read of much of anything he's written, and so I cannot speak as an authority on him. "The Grand Inquisitor" is a chapter from <i>The Brothers Karamazov </i>and this slim volume was assigned to me in a course on Tyranny, Totalitarianism and Terror, about 20 years ago. It is barely 20 pages long and ultimately serves as a parable. </p><p>I decided to read it ("again") because of the previous selection. Both books quite clearly portray Christ as a supernatural phenomenon while maintaining credence to the historical details. I felt this would be a fair venue for a type of short essay on Catholicism, faith and the cyclical nature of history. I also need to read Dostoevsky, period. Only in revisiting this did I decide on three big books that I hope to one day cover on this blog: <i>Moby Dick</i>, <i>War and Peace </i>and <i>The Brothers Karamazov. </i>These are due by about 2030.</p><p>This chapter of the novel consists of a dialogue between Ivan and Alyosha, which is mostly Ivan telling Alyosha the story with intermittent commentary and questioning. Ivan refers to it as a poem. It is not written in verse, but there are a few italics that appear to serve as gloss, and I am uncertain whether they occur in the original text. They are: (1) <i>The three temptations foreshadowed the whole subsequent history of mankind; </i>(2) <i>The first temptation: the problem of bread.; </i>(3) <i>The second temptation: the problem of conscience.; </i>(4) <i>The third temptation: the problem of unity.</i>; (5) <i>Summary: the Inquisitor's Utopia</i>.</p><p>Quite clearly, I think, these are glosses. They are not there for the benefit of Alyosha, but the modern-day students that need to write 1,000-word essays dissecting the translated text to "prove" some "original" thesis. In a way, these past 2 reviews (to say nothing of countless other reviews on this blog) may serve as a college essay. I claim no copyright over said ideas, but I always appreciate, of course, proper credit. </p><p>This will not, however, be a comparison of <i>Between Heaven and Hell </i>and "The Grand Inquisitor." One selection simply inspired the other. No question that this is the essential text, if one must pick between the two. It is, after all, a portion of one of the greatest novels in the history of the world, or so I have been told. People often put the Bible in similar territory, i.e. every true scholar must read the Bible, for it is also the greatest "novel" of all time, the greatest story ever told, etc. As far as biblical authority goes, and as far as any "updates" go, this stands alongside the monumental <i>Paradise Lost</i>, which, like the Bible, is also in verse (though <i>more </i>verse, if that makes sense; it is sometimes called an epic poem, which the Bible is often not). </p><p>The Spanish Inquisition lasted from 1478-1834, so it ended just 50 years before this tale was written. However, it appears to take place closer to the beginning:</p><p>"'" But Thou didst think too highly of men therein, for they are slaves, of course, though rebellious by nature. Look around and judge; fifteen centuries have passed, look upon them. Whom hast Thou raised up to Thyself? I swear, man is weaker and baser by nature than Thou hast believed him! Can he, can he do what Thou didst? By showing him so much respect, Thou didst, as it were, cease to feel for him, for Thou didst ask far too much from him--Thou who hast loved him more than Thyself! Respecting him less, Thou wouldst have asked less of him. That would have been more like love, for his burden would have been lighter."'" (12)</p><p>Thee/Thou/Prisoner/Jesus is set to be executed the next day, but not before he is admonished and interrogated by the Grand Inquisitor. No answers are provided. Instead, the Grand Inquisitor lays out the institution's <i>r'aison d'etre</i>: subjugate and enslave the masses, for they do not know what is best for them. Follow the example of "the wise spirit, the dread spirit of death and destruction," not Jesus. Give them happiness in slavery, rather than unhappiness in freedom. </p><p>Dostoevsky meant to criticize the rise of Russian socialism, which bent towards atheism, nihilism, and rationalism, and away from true Christian faith. Socialism is often decried in the culture today as one step removed from a communist state, and embraced by many that regard our present-day capitalist framework as a different type on enslavement. </p><p>Regardless, evangelism remains in vogue in conservative ideology. Morality is used as a cudgel for delegitimizing dissent and casting doubt on self-actualization. Women lose autonomy over their bodies and identity politics become a flashpoint. The Church stands impassive, and makes tentative steps towards a more inclusive stance. But that is inconvenient for the election of certain representatives, who see authoritarianism as the most efficient path towards unification and economic prosperity. </p><p>There is no question that the Church has diverged from the path that Jesus prescribed and led others to follow. Whether Jesus believed in proselytization remains a subject of debate, as with many other precepts from the Bible: they can be shifted according to the motivations of the speaker. It would seem clear to me, as a person that spent 10 years in a Catholic school, that he would not believe in it, that he would not force his way onto anyone, that he would simply live as he found best, and leave others to follow his example and decide for themselves. Indeed, the Grand Inquisitor bemoans Christ for failing to give bread to man, for allowing man to retain his conscience, and for failing to establish his own sovereignty. </p><p>In short, Jesus' teachings are inconvenient for the Inquisition, and since 15 centuries have passed, the people have forgotten, and the Church's interpretation of the teachings have become Gospel; to see Christ resurrected in the flesh, performing miracles again, potentially exposing the fraud inherent in the institution, is an intolerable risk for the Grand Inquisitor: it threatens to upend the enterprise. </p><p>There is some application of this parable to present day, and perhaps there always has been, yet it is felt most clearly in the totalitarian systems of government in the past. This is merely the background for one side of debate, the side that has an ulterior motive (query whether both sides have separate ulterior motives). Yet in a way, the Grand Inquisitor's ideology makes sense: it truly does seem that much of the time, the great masses are susceptible to suggestion, triggered by perceived wrongs that do not align with their values. They need to be effectively managed, and letting them think for themselves can destabilize the regime in power. </p><p>The ending of the parable, however, provides some measure of comfort: the prisoner offers no response but a kiss on the lips of the Grand Inquisitor, and he is allowed to escape into the night and avoid an auto-da-fe. The Inquisitor will hold to his views, while privately knowing that he has been further disproven. Perhaps one day, such Inquisitors will resign their posts, become "whistleblowers" of a type, and renounce their ways. The Inquisition did ultimately end, and the Soviet Union did ultimately come into being and did ultimately end, and the Church has been "Reformed," and continues to be further reformed, still. History ultimately bends towards humanity, but the truth is never apparent until the highest authority has acknowledged their errors, lies, cruelties, and general mismanagement. That generally means giving up power, and that only tends to happen when power is no longer theirs. Such renunciation, however, is less persuasive when offered from that perspective of diminished power. </p>JKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16199023801433187878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3851264164198134050.post-69361138770661243032023-08-02T14:53:00.004-04:002023-08-03T12:29:57.104-04:00Between Heaven and Hell - Peter Kreeft (1982; 2008)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCRaP7X65O4UQfOLeWenUvgzHNytRbrOjPdXJlu6cJk7j_6QmOI7HIgEfzhMoZBDAoCvB7x_TGh5Z_E4tMh3pSmt7V4saQtqzm69fcjAdvXy1Yik0xSN8ziL2W4VMhhWmjahFn8WWlwIRa89k5qOww3S176wwr5eiPOHj_GUqAR6BmLz6S8gCooFptsiY2/s2052/between%20heaven%20and%20hell.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2052" data-original-width="1539" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCRaP7X65O4UQfOLeWenUvgzHNytRbrOjPdXJlu6cJk7j_6QmOI7HIgEfzhMoZBDAoCvB7x_TGh5Z_E4tMh3pSmt7V4saQtqzm69fcjAdvXy1Yik0xSN8ziL2W4VMhhWmjahFn8WWlwIRa89k5qOww3S176wwr5eiPOHj_GUqAR6BmLz6S8gCooFptsiY2/s320/between%20heaven%20and%20hell.jpg" width="240" /></a></div><p>The world recently lost Sinead O'Connor (she was 56). Last night, I watched a documentary on her. I was ten years old in her heyday, and my experience of her largely centered around comparisons between our hairstyles: I often opted for buzz cuts at the time and people often chided me that I looked like her. I might have seen her rip up the photo of John Paul II on <i>SNL</i>, but the meaning of the action was lost on me at the time. </p><p>On the last day of last year, it was Pope Benedict XVI's turn (he was 95), and the documentary seems to indicate that both Popes played roles in covering up the rampant sex abuse in the Catholic Church. I always considered John Paul more respectable than Benedict, and the documentary does pause for a moment to acknowledge more specific actions by Benedict, but neither seem nearly infallible as our current Pope who, while not perfect, is certainly the most admirable in my lifetime thus far. </p><p>However, I still read Benedict's obituary in the Wall Street Journal. For better or worse, I waded into the comments, and certain elements of his philosophical views were discussed. For there are different shades to Christianity and Catholicism that may lead to vastly different views on what it means to live a Good Life. </p><p>One person mentioned <i>Between Heaven and Hell</i>, perhaps comparing Benedict's ideology with that of C.S. Lewis, in this book. I can't recall and I have nothing further to say on Benedict, but this is how I came to reserve this book at the library. </p><p>***</p><p>This book is 115 pages long and was renewed from the library 8 times. Like <i><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2023/03/aliss-at-fire-jon-fosse-transl-damion.html" target="_blank">Aliss at the Fire</a>, </i>that should be all you need to know about how compelling I found it. The conceit, or concept, however, was compelling enough that I wanted to check it out.</p><p>In essence, this book is a 3-person play. It might be more interesting to see it performed as a play, but then again I would probably find it maddening. For this is not a <i>story</i>, per se; rather, a dialogue between famous personages in a certain setting.</p><p>The setting is <i>purgatorio </i>and the date is November 22, 1963 and the players are John F. Kennedy, Aldous Huxley and C.S. Lewis.</p><p>That alone was compelling. Particularly since November 22 remains a date of many birthdays in my circle. I recently found out that my younger brother will turn 44 on 11/22/33 and I considered this some sort of numerological omen. This year will bring the 60th anniversary of that date, and so a review of this book seems timely. </p><p>We all know that President Kennedy was assassinated on 11/22/63. Many of us know that Aldous Huxley died that same day (a hero to just as many of us as Kennedy was). However, I did not know <i>how </i>Huxley died, and so one of the more titillating parts of the book arrived in the epilogue:</p><p>"The three deaths were as different as the three lives had been, and providentially perfect templates of the three philosophies of life that had motivated them. Kennedy was murdered by an assassin; for he who lives by politics may die by politics, as 'he who lives by the sword will die by the sword' (Matthew 26:52). Huxley died of an LSD overdose while experimenting with mystical experience; for he who lives by man-made mysticisms will die by man-made mysticisms. Lewis died of bone disease, a few years after he had taken the pain of his dying wife's bone cancer out of her body and into his, beside her bedside; for he who lives by the Way of Exchange will die by the Way of Exchange. Like Christ, he offered God his own life for hers, and on November 22, God accepted the offer." (122)</p><p>That excerpt lets the cat out of the bag: it is clear that Kreeft ascribes to the viewpoints expressed by C.S. Lewis in this text. Now then, I had no idea that C.S. Lewis also died on this same day (nor that he was also known as "Jack" by his friends), and I have very little knowledge of him in general. A friend had recommended <i>The Screwtape Letters </i>to me, many years ago, and that is something I've been meaning to get around to for years, and hopefully one day will. I see him like I see J.R.R. Tolkien (whom I also haven't read), but further towards philosophy than fantasy on the storytelling spectrum. </p><p>I'm not aware of Huxley's religious affiliation but it seems clear that Buddhism is his lodestar. It's worth noting that Huxley is far more incidental in this book than the other two. The primary dialogue in this book is between JFK and Lewis; there is a second dialogue between Huxley and Lewis that is quite a bit shorter, and probably also the best part of the book, though that isn't saying all that much (for me, personally). </p><p>*</p><p>One problem I had with this book was the epilogue, for it revealed the book to be Christian propaganda. Now I am raised Roman Catholic and went to Catholic School for 10 years and I am a lapsed Catholic but I greatly enjoyed seeing the Vatican and felt that there should be some kind of birthright trip in order to bolster participation in the Church and to redeem itself from its sordid history--for that sordid history is quite probably the most damning lie over the past 2,000 years of human progress. We believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, and we expect him to forgive us all our sins--so I guess that means we can do some of the most horrible things imaginable, go to confession, and get a clean slate, and we're all good? It's a convenient way out of personal accountability. It's a license to behave badly. Nobody is perfect, and believe me, I am not perfect, but this purported forgiveness of sins is problematic insofar as it can lead to a delusional sense of morality. Now of course, we do not encourage people to sin, we encourage them to love their neighbors as themselves, to love God and hold Jesus up as a role model and try to exhibit the goodness that he represents. But we fail and they all know we are going to fail and they all know they fail, quite inveterately. And they want money, lots of it. There's the aspirational part of the Catholic Church and there's the functional part of the Catholic Church and while there is a certain sense that they have acknowledged this "problem" and are taking steps to stop such crimes from happening in the future, some of the hypocrisies of the Church temper such encouraging feelings. Pope Francis, however, has been about as good a Pope as he can be, working within the political framework of the Institution. </p><p>Kreeft may not have had any idea that such things were happening in 1982, but most certainly should have in 2008. I believe this is conveniently ignored in the epilogue. Then again, this is not exactly a recommendation to convert to Catholicism because it is the One True Way (though it feels that way). </p><p>Really, Kreeft wanted to write a philosophical dialogue, much like Plato did for Socrates. Socrates did not author any works, nor did Jesus, and they are lumped together in this book as "sages" (along with Buddha, Confucius and perhaps Lao Tzu). Other people have to tell their story. Kreeft considers Plato to be singular: "It is surely an almost clumsily obvious piece of divine providence that the father of all philosophy, who wrote nothing of himself (like Jesus and like Buddha), should have history's greatest philosophical poet, Plato, as his biographer." (120)</p><p>In <i>Between Heaven and Hell</i>, C.S. Lewis plays the role of Socrates, and JFK/Huxley play the role of Glaucon, albeit more challenging "pupils." The dialogue itself is a Platonic dialogue for beginners on the purported divinity of Christ. There are dialectics in it, and it is not like reading a play. It is not really entertaining. It is somewhat informative. It is an educational tool. The pages have glosses on them that summarize the main point of that section of dialogue ["Jesus, the guru to the Jews?"; "Six crucial differences between Jesus and the gurus"; "(1) God as personal"; "(2) God as Creator"; "(3) God as knowable"; "(4) God as good, not 'beyond good and evil'"; "(5) What must I do to be saved?"; "(6) Hell."]<br /></p><p>I don't know what else to say about this book. Based on the above, you can decide for yourself if you want to read it. I don't really recommend it, unfortunately. If you haven't read <i>Brave New World</i>, please, do yourself a favor and read that instead. I also read <i>The Doors of Perception </i>and <i>Heaven and Hell </i>(ironic that the title for this book is so similar; its debt is owed to Lewis, not Huxley) and would recommend those over this. And you need to read <i>Republic </i>or perhaps other things by Plato to "get" this. In short, there are many other texts that one could read that will offer the same or similar revelations.</p><p>This is, however, the type of book that can be assigned in high school or college-level philosophy courses. It is useful in its own way. It's short enough that it can fit easily into any syllabus. And the famous people ostensibly add a layer of human interest to the proceedings. </p><p>But ultimately it is propaganda. Though Lewis's argument ultimately "wins" the debate at hand, the debate is fixed from the start. Credit Kreeft for examining Christianity through a philosophical lens and offering up his own Defense of Christianity, but know that he reveals himself to be a zealot in the epilogue and post-script. Fortunately, the players do not opine on the sin-status of homosexuality, but perhaps if written today, the issue would find its way into the text. </p><p>One excerpt to give a flavor, on knowing that miracles can't happen:</p><p>"<i>Lewis: </i>I might ask you what Professor Kirke asked Peter: How do you know that? Has science proved that miracles can't happen? But I've put that line of argument into another of my books, <i>Miracles</i>....No, I didn't think you had read it...and I'd rather follow out the psychological line of argument now. The point of my reference to Lucy was to show that like Lucy and like Buddha, Jesus says incredible things, and like Lucy and like Buddha, Jesus is a credible person. So we must either believe his unbelievable claim or disbelieve his believable personality, his personal credibility.</p><p><i>Kennedy: </i>Let's examine his personality, then, though I'm not sure where it will take us. I do know something about human nature, and human history, and great men of the past. I too wrote a book, you know, <i>Profiles in Courage</i>. No? You haven't read mine either? Well, we're even then. But go ahead with the argument.</p><p><i>Lewis: </i>Let us divide all people into four categories....</p><p><i>Kennedy: </i>Oh, oh. Here we go again. Black-or-white thinking.</p><p><i>Lewis: </i>But surely there <i>are </i>categories. The only question is whether they are appropriate, fitting to the real. </p><p><i>Kennedy: </i>I don't like divisions among people. </p><p><i>Lewis: </i>But all categories are divisions, classifications, outlines. </p><p><i>Kennedy: </i>Putting people into classes has done immense harm throughout human history. </p><p><i>Lewis: </i>Really dividing people, yes. But not mentally dividing them. For instance, to mentally distinguish male and female is good, and necessary (how confused we would be if we couldn't, or wouldn't, as some seem to nowadays). But to really divide them, to isolate them, is usually bad. In fact, to unite them most fruitfully, you must mentally divide them most clearly: <i>vive la difference</i>, and all that. (52-53)</p><p>That is one of the more entertaining sections of the book, so be aware that it is not always as intriguing. Miracle is an odd word. It can refer to a miracle performed by Jesus (turning water into wine) or an unbelievably good event. It is not a miracle that the Cubs won in 2016 but many people referred to it as such. It is a miracle when terminal illness is cured, and such situations have been known to occur (exceedingly rare and improbable as they are). There are miraculous survivals, and there are miraculous achievements, but a true Miracle--well, to witness one would be the greatest proof of divine forces at work in this world. </p><p>*</p><p>Once many years ago during sailing school, I had been put in an Optimist, which is a 1-person boat. The bay was rather rough that day, and while I agreed to take an Optimist, I was very scared. I didn't tell anyone and I kept it to myself and wanted to be brave and prove to myself that I could handle the rough conditions, that my boat wouldn't capsize, but I prayed in my head that something would prevent me from being forced into that situation. </p><p>Fortunately, someone soon offered me the alternative of getting into a Beatle-Cat instead. I accepted that offer, and crewed the boat with two other people, and saw a few other schoolmates in Optimists, bailing water out of their vessels. I felt that God had answered my prayers and saved me from a dangerous situation. </p><p>* </p><p>In hindsight, I was easily convinced. I was still technically in Catholic School at the time, and after going away to boarding school, alone, I did not attend nearly as many services. Many of my classmates were Jewish, and other religious viewpoints entered into my worldview. By the end of high school I defined myself as Agnostic (and I still do, from a certain angle).</p><p>Shortly before college, then, a certain incident of running into a certain person at a certain specific time, under rather improbable circumstances, a coincidental encounter of the highest kind, convinced me of proof of divinity in this world. People bandy about the phrase "butterfly effect" and we cannot know how real it is, but ultimately, that is the more accurate explanation for the reality of our existence. Cause and effect, intentional choices, accidents, conflicted decision-making---all affect how we move through this world and comprise the substance of our experience. Perhaps God put everything in place at the beginning, and let human beings do what they would, and that is about as far as I am willing to go. </p><p>In other words, Kreeft (and Lewis, really) did not convince me to embrace Catholicism wholeheartedly and without reservation. I wasn't looking for that from this book; I was looking for a modern philosophy book. And while this is a simplified and streamlined version of one, there are other texts that may impart wisdom that do not quite feel like a <i>fait accompli </i>from the start. As a "reboot" and variation of the Platonic dialogues from a more modern perspective, it is not a failure. </p><p>Grade: C+</p>JKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16199023801433187878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3851264164198134050.post-82285966951630685512023-06-26T12:23:00.003-04:002023-06-26T12:23:30.260-04:00The Shards - Bret Easton Ellis (2023)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVyV3nST_0o4cViiVbAf_wAiUhB5PN7WnEKujb_yshsgo_OqOJbRwoxAaZjd78Z0iUsD_E0wesB6eUcvFQeEPvOkImTOFAS7FraPhw88bUova9Lyf-nBYlJT4hwxEFWHyhAm853c8-njVu6BydbY-0wYpp0i3DpzHlYI9Ftwy1mK5Op56ipZUn5gltMrFV/s4624/shards.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="4624" data-original-width="3468" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVyV3nST_0o4cViiVbAf_wAiUhB5PN7WnEKujb_yshsgo_OqOJbRwoxAaZjd78Z0iUsD_E0wesB6eUcvFQeEPvOkImTOFAS7FraPhw88bUova9Lyf-nBYlJT4hwxEFWHyhAm853c8-njVu6BydbY-0wYpp0i3DpzHlYI9Ftwy1mK5Op56ipZUn5gltMrFV/s320/shards.jpg" width="240" /></a></div><p>Flying Houses is no longer a book review blog; it is a blog devoted to reviewing the books of Bret Easton Ellis. I kid, but this is just our third [book review] post of 2023, and the first post was for <i><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2023/01/glamorama-bret-easton-ellis-1998.html" target="_blank">Glamorama</a></i>. In that review, I suggested that <i>Glamorama </i>was, in fact, BEE's greatest novel, and upon re-reading, I had second thoughts. I revised that opinion to <i>Less Than Zero</i>. And right when I posted that review, <i>The Shards </i>was released, and I saw that it was longer than <i>Glamorama, </i>and I knew it had something to do with his earlier life, around the time he was putting the pieces of <i>Less Than Zero </i>together, while still in high school.</p><p>I had also listened to this <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/1N0mypcTuJ5FWIh3y1HSTG?si=2fd4f8eea1d94d4e" target="_blank">podcast</a> and recalled certain nefarious details of violent crimes being committed in Los Angeles around that time that reached closer towards Ellis's social circle. I do believe there was a serial killer on the loose, but will need to relisten to reference this with any kind of specificity. I will say that this podcast is interesting to listen to both before and after reading <i>The Shards</i>, because the host tends to conflate the characters in <i>Less Than Zero </i>with friends and acquaintances from Ellis's life. While that may have been true, <i>The Shards </i>takes that as a cue to present a more extreme example. </p><p>It is not unlike <i>Lunar Park</i>, in this respect, which is Ellis casting himself as the protagonist. Unlike <i>Lunar Park</i>, it takes place in the past, and at first blush, it is far more believable. </p><p>I might as well just come out and say it: for the first 200 pages or so, I felt completely convinced that this was Ellis's greatest novel. It basically is <i>Less Than Zero, </i>writ-large, and four hundred pages longer. But by page 400, that feeling started to wane. At its conclusion, I had to place it in slot #2 behind <i>Less Than Zero</i>. I feel confident in stating it is his 2nd best, and <i>LTZ </i>is only #1 because of its rapid-fire style and cultural/industry impact. By contrast, <i>The Shards </i>is the epitome of a slow burn.</p><p>***</p><p>Over the first 200 pages, Ellis does the best work in his career. This is saying something. Because it felt like he "lost it," really, since <i>Glamorama</i>, and that is now *twenty-five-years* in the past. But <i>Glamorama </i>is still a really fucked up book, and arguably he had "lost it" since <i>Rules of Attraction</i>, which was a follow-up that walked along similar lines as <i>Less Than Zero</i>, and now here, <i>The Shards </i>has as well. Ellis was a baby when he wrote those first two books. Now he is approaching senior citizenship, and while still one of the most famous American authors, this is the "comeback" that he hasn't ever particularly cared about making. He still has it, he never lost it, even though <i><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2019/05/white-bret-easton-ellis-2019.html" target="_blank">White</a> </i>made it seem like he had become a cranky old man and mostly interested in "yelling at clouds." </p><p>He didn't "lose it," but his r'aison d'etre shifted. Things changed after <i>Glamorama</i>. <i>Lunar Park </i>is a truly bizarre novel, far from an abject failure, but an attempt at a genre exercise, or rather a nudge in the direction of genre fiction. It was his ode to Stephen King, and so too <i>The Shards </i>owes a certain debt to King. While <i>Lunar Park </i>mined quiet domestic bliss with a hazy undercurrent of nameless dread, it felt more suggestive than visceral. It would fall into the horror genre, but it was not an aggressive example of such. (Note: I haven't read <i>Lunar Park </i>more than once, I used to have a copy in 2006 or so, but I think I lent it and never got it back; so my memory of it is "hazy," too.) </p><p>After that, there was <i><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2010/06/imperial-bedrooms-bret-easton-ellis.html" target="_blank">Imperial Bedrooms</a></i>, the sequel to <i>Less Than Zero</i>, but similarly, a genre exercise--this time "detective fiction" or "crime noir." It was enjoyable and fun, amusing, but felt like something of a <i>truc</i>, somewhat slight, almost like he was writing it to cash in on previous success. Then he apparently did work in film, most notably <i>The Canyons</i>, which I barely recall seeing. Then there was <i>White</i>, which was his first book in 10 years, a collection of essays, a good portion of them previously published. And now finally in the opening pages of <i>The Shards</i>, he pulls back the curtain to explain this career trajectory:</p><p>"After that night [which involved a panic attack and ambulance ride in 2006] I abandoned the project and instead wrote two others book during the following thirteen years, and it wasn't until 2020 that I felt I could begin <i>The Shards</i>, or <i>The Shards </i>had decided that <i>Bret </i>was ready because the book was announcing itself to <i>me</i>--and not the other way around. I hadn't reached out to the book because I spent so many years pushing myself away from the dream, from Robert Mallory, from that senior year at Buckley; so many decades spent pushing away from the Trawler, and Susan and Thom and Deborah and Ryan, and what happened to Matt Kellner; I had relegated this story to the dark corner of the closet and for many years this avoidance worked--I didn't pay as much attention to the book and it stopped calling out to me. But sometime during 2019 it began climbing its way back, pulsing with a life of its own, wanting to merge with me, expanding into my consciousness in such a persuasive way that I couldn't ignore it any longer--trying to ignore it had become a distraction. This particular timing had coincided with the fact that I wasn't writing screenplays anymore, that I had decided at a certain point to stop chasing that game--a decade of being well compensated for TV pilots and scripts for movies that would mostly never be made--and I briefly wondered if there was a connection between the book beckoning to me and the new lack of interest in writing for Hollywood. It didn't matter: I had to write the book because I needed to resolve what happened--it was finally time." (6-7)</p><p>The book thus introduces itself in grand fashion, and its propulsive energy does not abate until roughly the halfway point. It gets a lot of mileage out of autofiction. Autofiction can be a cheap, lazy device, not unlike voice-over narrative in film--but I have a soft-spot for voice-over narrative in film, and so too for autofiction, because it can sometimes best explore the artist's intent and motivation, and offer the most profound insights they've uncovered over the course of their career. It can feel lazy if you are trying to write a 5 paragraph essay on symbol and metaphor in this book, when you need to do literary detective work and interpret the "text" through a pre-determined lens (Feminist, Queer, Marxist, etc.). You can't do that with this book. It's like a big piece of candy. <i>Less Than Zero </i>is basically a pixie stick, and <i>The Shards </i>is basically a giant pixie stick. While the characters and motifs here are all "arch" and have a certain intellectual underpinning (primarily Ellis's admiration for Joan Didion), it is lurid, graphic, gory, prurient, and yes, cliched. </p><p>But what separates it from the rest of his oeuvre, like <i>Less Than Zero</i>, is the era, and his ability to create atmosphere out of it. Ellis was the same age, or even younger than the characters in <i>Less Than Zero </i>when he wrote it. He writes this about 40 years later, and he inhabits that same perspective brilliantly. </p><p>There are two novels here: one is a coming-of-age novel about a senior year in high school and getting ready to get away from everyone and starting a more authentic life; the other is an 80's slasher flick about teenagers doing drugs and having sex and getting slaughtered by a killer on the loose. The magic of the novel is that Ellis ties them together seamlessly. He does this so well that the reader will constantly question whether it is really autobiographical. At least this was the case for me. </p><p>I will do my best to avoid spoilers here but the novel is at its best when it is working from this perspective: Ellis knows his own notoriety and presence as a faded literary icon, and he fashions an origin story befitting that perfectly. The narrative detail from the period is so precise and intricately observed that one cannot discount its veracity. </p><p>***</p><p>This does, however, lead to my sole criticism of the book, which is that it moves <i>slow</i>. This is probably intentional. I didn't mind all that much. But others have criticized this book for some of the dialogue, that it becomes inane and cliched and devolves into "basic" tropes. Yes perhaps, but so did all 80's movies, and while I do think this is a Great Novel, I have trouble putting it on the Best Books list. </p><p>This a book of two halves, similar to <i>Glamorama </i>being three "parts" of varying quality. The first half of this book is just stellar. It really does announce itself as being the book that everyone <i>should </i>be reading as their 2023 summertime beach read. Maybe it wouldn't get shortlisted (or even longlisted) for the Booker Prize, but it's a lot better than <a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2014/12/gone-girl-gillian-flynn-2012.html" target="_blank"><i>Gone Girl</i> </a>(which I liked too!). There is actually more in common with that book than appears at first glance. BEE hasn't had a "hit" since <i>American Psycho</i>, to put it mildly incorrectly--a <i>Glamorama </i>film could be a dazzling misunderstood classic if adapted, like some people sometimes say about <i>Southland Tales (</i>that odd <i>Donnie Darko </i>2007 follow-up that is mostly forgotten but which may be sort of brilliant) . <i>The Shards </i>finally would make for the best adaptation for a multitude of reasons (including societal repression in the early 80's vis-a-vis mainstream depictions of gay/bi relations; the movie would have no audience in 1985 with an "openly closeted" narrator; in 2023, it is practically required that award-winning films must focus on some marginalized identity, though yes, these are rich white kids, so maybe it's a no-go) because it is a pure genre exercise that has a real human story underpinning it. </p><p>This review is getting bogged down in parentheticals and comparisons and box office musings and semi-colons; suffice to say, it's the most mainstream thing he's done so far, and while it may be less ground-breaking than <i>Less Than Zero </i>was at the time, it doesn't come off as "padded" or "parasitic" as some might have considered <i>Imperial Bedrooms</i>, which even though I liked it a lot, definitely mines <i>Less Than Zero </i>for all it is worth in an attempt to re-ignite interest in oeuvre and work. That didn't come off in a way that made a dent in the larger cultural conversation. </p><p>And this probably won't either, but it's a much better candidate. I will lament that more people will not read this novel, because they won't know what they are missing. It's got to be made into a movie (it already is "in development" as an HBO series, actually)--the only problem is that BEE is also the main character and I can't recall a big movie where the author writes about themselves (in this particular way) and also has a movie made about that. There are memoirs, for sure, but this isn't a memoir. </p><p>***</p><p>PLOT: 1980's Los Angeles, serial killer on loose, paranoia, "numbness," Quaaludes, stereotypical high school politics, secret gayness. CAST: Bret, Thom (jock, prom king), Susan (prom queen, class President), Debbie (girlfriend to Bret, daughter to Terry, major film producer/"open secret" married gay), Matt (harmless stoner/slacker, "close" with Bret); Ryan (sidekick to Thom, also on football team, "close" with Bret); and Robert (the new kid that drives the majority of the action of the novel).</p><p>[Would like to pause here for one moment to acknowledge a small detail about Robert: it is often remarked that he was in a "facility" just outside of Jacksonville, IL. I doubt that many people reading this post (or book) have been to Jacksonville but I have. It's such a weird detail. I wonder if BEE has been there. It's not a place I'm anxious to revisit, but there's more there than in some of the surrounding towns (Florence--pop. 9, where I stayed in a ABNB that Abe Lincoln allegedly stayed at in the late 1850s; Pittsfield, more charming and bigger than Florence, but empty)--though it's all chains and big box stores on a strip. It's the middle of nowhere basically. But Robert also went to school in Evanston, IL and moved to L.A. for confusing reasons that are ultimately explained (by his aunt, whom he stays with and mildly disturbs).]</p><p>Most of the characters are students at Buckley, a famous fancy private high school, which seems like the L.A. equivalent to the Dalton School in NYC. It's not a boarding school, crucially, and it is often observed how much <i>freedom</i> they all had when they were 16 or 17 and had a car to drive around L.A. They live at home with parents, but parents are never there, or if they are, they seem to let their kids do whatever they want. Bret's parents are separated, and details about his father are glossed over. His mother, too, for she spends the entirety of the novel on a seemingly endless trip to Europe, and Bret lives alone in a house in Sherman Oaks with their dog (Shingy) and a maid that comes by on weekdays (Rosa). </p><p>Of course, it's not an endless trip to Europe, as the novel seems to concern two months in particular--September and October--though it may be November by the end of the novel. </p><p>This is the only scene with Bret's mother:</p><p>"I grabbed my mother and fell into her arms weeping when she appeared at Laurie Wright's house early Tuesday morning to take me back to Mulholland in a black limousine that was waiting curbside in front of the residence on North Hillcrest." (572)</p><p>BEE has always been a writer very concerned with specific time and place, and again, anyone that has lived in L.A. for any limited amount of time will be able to envision the events more clearly. This may annoy some readers, however, as certain stretches of the novel read more like Google Map directions than a literary thriller. </p><p>This is forgivable, as are many other aspects. Yes, BEE's high school experience is rather basic and feels lifted out of a John Hughes film except set in L.A. But, after re-listening the podcast, it is <i>quite </i>clear that this novel is very true to life in a certain sense. Just to hear him talk about his girlfriend at the time, and her father, and the two classmates that he got "close" with--the experience feels directly transposed onto the novel. Robert Mallory is essentially a plot device and really the entire novel is just Bret being suspicious of him. </p><p>From a certain angle, there can be a lot to take apart, and it doesn't feel like the work of a literary master, but if we consider Stephen King that, this is every bit as good as anything King has ever done.</p><p>Ellis writes about his love for King in this book, and his attendance at an opening day screening of <i>The Shining </i>figures as a crucial detail throughout the novel. King's villains are not often serial killers but demonic spirits and "triggered" humans. While here, there definitely is a serial killer, and graphic descriptions of their "offerings," his experience of that is mostly through <i>Los Angeles Times </i>reporting, not his own detective work. He suspects Robert is the killer (I don't think that's a spoiler) and he undertakes his own detective work on <i>him</i>, but not as directly on the murders themselves (apart from one of the victims). </p><p>I'm wary of spoiling anything here, but the spoilers are mostly about who dies when, and shifts in relationships between characters. Ellis takes the opportunity to depict a "me too" experience and essentially minimizes the hurt and pain that many victims express in the wake of such "casting couch" incidents. He does this by writing about himself in that position, and it may be disingenuous, or maybe not. </p><p>Many times, authors write thinly-veiled autobiographical novels, and readers and critics subtly acknowledge the elements that appear taken from their own lives. But when one writes an "openly autobiographical" novel, it gives one license to write about more questionable behavior and avoid moral opprobrium. No, one cannot call Ellis a "me too" apologist, because as a victim (whether or not he actually was--and I don't think anyone wants to presume that he was not, for it certainly lends credence to the idea that his early literary stardom was a byproduct of said incident, though this seemingly only relates to a screenplay deal, not a book deal), we must believe, or at least give the benefit of the doubt (even rich white male ones). </p><p>Writing a novel like this also takes a "quiver" out of the critics' arrows: we don't analyze that Debbie is real-life Ellis's girlfriend, because we know she was, after what he said in the podcast (this must be intentional--all of Ellis's work, including what he says about himself on podcasts, is all of the same part). Instead, we analyze how much of this book really is autobiographical, and after reading, we should know. </p><p>The ending, while somewhat anticlimactic, despite having a real climax that probably would be good on film, also leaves some unanswered questions, including a rather chilling one. There are things I like and don't like about the ending, but on balance I see it as "adequate." It's not an Ernest Hemingway ending (i.e. significantly better than the rest of the novel). It's not as puzzling as the ending to <i>Glamorama</i>, but feels vaguely unsatisfying, maybe because it feels a little unrealistic (i.e. how easily and simply it ends, with such little investigation). </p><p>I am not sure it belongs on the Best Books list, but it is very close and I think I probably would put it on there. On that note, I now need to read yet another Ellis book, so I can have an actual review of <i>Less Than Zero </i>on FH, and truly assess if it is still his best novel. Both might go on the list, and while this may not be better, it is a close second, and probably better than <i><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-rules-of-attraction-bret-easton.html" target="_blank">The Rules of Attraction</a></i>, which I now hope will get similar treatment, and a book-length exploration of his time at Bennington College. </p><p>It's one of the limited few books (along with <i>Why We Sleep) </i>that I checked out from the public library, needed to return, and felt comfortable purchasing for the personal library (which is not very large--as the personal library is Flying Houses itself--and most books are rented and not bought, here). That is the last thing I can say as a testament to its quality. </p><p>Grade: A-</p>JKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16199023801433187878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3851264164198134050.post-62070343334726174602023-03-15T20:26:00.005-04:002023-05-11T11:22:10.321-04:00Aliss at the Fire - Jon Fosse (Transl. Damion Searls) (2004; 2010; 2022) <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMj-FLLz2ywffK7AmjdIzzFFJFpQOMD2WBUkR5iW6dkpRJoY3rB5S4u79NyjlURqqUQL46hieAR99s4OEbgvuI5SwJOlQma8FZIjQXs10mmIKd4lhLAzJ6ePTBjaqRoUMWWA2NIxJhlBd0Yo-1CFCykblixdLGbOdT_VqUJ4o0L2Wqm8m_qREHUQPMbQ/s346/31OJyzQJ08L._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="346" data-original-width="227" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMj-FLLz2ywffK7AmjdIzzFFJFpQOMD2WBUkR5iW6dkpRJoY3rB5S4u79NyjlURqqUQL46hieAR99s4OEbgvuI5SwJOlQma8FZIjQXs10mmIKd4lhLAzJ6ePTBjaqRoUMWWA2NIxJhlBd0Yo-1CFCykblixdLGbOdT_VqUJ4o0L2Wqm8m_qREHUQPMbQ/s320/31OJyzQJ08L._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" width="210" /></a></div><p>This book is 74 pages long and I received it as a gift on New Year's Eve and it took me 71 days to read. </p><p>I should have finished it sooner. I took it with me to Spain, and I spent most of that time reading <i>The Shards</i>, not this. I feel guilty about this, and so the only thing I can do is explain myself. I try to pride myself on having wide-ranging tastes, and being open-minded towards more experimental literature, but in reality, my imagination is rather limited. I tend to be self-obsessed and look for personal connections in art to elevate (or justify) my own experience as a human being in this world. I would like to try to understand others better so that I can be more compassionate towards their sensitivities and struggles, but I also have my own, and they are not often considered "worthy" of transmogrification in art. Here, that struggle may be "grief," or perhaps death itself, which is something that all of us share, and so this should mean something to us all--but the method of communication has to fit the message. Unless there really isn't one. </p><p>This is a really strange little book. It bears something of a resemblance to the final section of <i>Ulysses. </i>It has no punctuation, save for question marks (and more limited exclamation points--<i>but see below</i>). New sentences are denoted by capitalization, but these are generally lines of dialogue, and beyond that, only proper nouns are capitalized. So there are no sentences, really. Someone compares it <i>Waiting for Godot </i>in a praise blurb on the back (technically, "The Beckett of the twenty-first century" - <i>Le Monde</i>) and that is a fair estimation of its plot. Except instead of Godot, Signe (?) is waiting for Asle to return.</p><p>I thought it was Aliss that was waiting for Asle to return but looking back at the first page it does appear the protagonist of this novella is Signe, the woman, who is looking out the window of her home on some Thursday in 2002, thinking back to a date in 1979 when her husband went out to the fjord near their home in a flimsy rowboat. He never returned (I think) and so she continues to wait, 23 years later. </p><p>The book might have been a little more interesting if she had taken edibles or acid or mushrooms or something, because it does become "trippy." It essentially consists of an extended hallucination where the woman (I will call her that because the book mostly just says "she") looks through the window and see various things, generally closer to the shore, that appear to be distant events from the past. (If you don't mind, I'm going to read the wikipedia page now, because sometimes we need cliffs notes to confirm uncertain understanding.)</p><p>Before that, though, the translator's note does offer some clues, and may "sell" the book better than this review: </p><p>"The Norweigan title of this novel is <i>Det er Ales</i>, which means 'That's Ales' or 'It's Ales'; the woman's name in the original is Ales, not Aliss. Unfortunately, this Norweigan name coincides with the English word for a type of beer, and would certainly be interpreted that way in a title without other context: <i>It's Ales</i> would come across as a very different book than the one Fosse wrote. Since publishing this book in 2004, Fosse has written a <i>Trilogy </i>and <i>Septology</i> with multiple characters named Asle and Ales, so the decision might have been different now, but a dozen years ago I decided I needed to change Ales's name and the book's title. This second edition follows the first English translation, published in 2010, but readers should know that Aliss is another one of Fosse's characters named Ales." ([77])</p><p>Not much more helpful, though the 2nd paragraph of the note may be more illuminating:<br /></p><p>"Back then I emailed Fosse to ask what the name Ales meant to him and what he wanted the title to convey. I had noticed that the book's first burst of short sentences, after forty or so pages flowing by without a full stop, included the sentence 'Det er Ales,' so the title should refer to that moment in the book, but what else? Fosse told me that Ales was a very old-fashioned name, 'maybe your grandmother might have known an old woman names Ales'. He himself had a great-great-grandmother named Ales who was known as a 'wise woman', a healer. She really did heal people, and the sick came to see her from far and wide; at one point she was called in to see a local priest, to talk about her 'practice', but there was no punishment. About the title, Fosse said: 'It means Ales is spreading out over the whole universe.'" ([77])</p><p>So it appears there <i>are </i>actual sentences. Let me try to find them:</p><p>I'm super proud of myself now:<br /><br />".....and she takes the stick over to the fire and she puts the stick with the sheep head on it into the flames and while the boy dangles in her arm she moves the sheep head back and forth in the flames, and then its wool catches fire and blazes up and then a burnt smell goes up, burning, and then she dips the sheep head in the water of the fjord before she puts it back into the flames, and again that burnt smell, and then she moves the sheep head back and forth, back and forth in the flames. That's Aliss, he thinks, and he sees it, he knows it. That's Aliss at the fire. That is Aliss, he thinks, his great-great-grandmother, he is sure of it. It's Aliss, he was named after her, or rather after her grandson Asle, the one who died when he was seven, the one who drowned, he drowned in the bay, his Grandpa Olaf's brother, his namesake. But that is Aliss, in her early twenties, he thinks. And the boy, about two years old, that's Kristoffer, his great-grandfather, the one who would later be Grandpa Olaf's father and also the father of the Asle he was named after, his namesake, the one who drowned when he was just seven years old, he thinks and he sees Kristoffer start to cry dangling there in Aliss's arm and she puts down the stick with the sheep head on it and then she sets Kristoffer down on the shore and he stands up and stands there unsteady on his little legs, and then Kristoffer takes one careful step, and he stands, and then he takes another step, and then he falls on his side and shrieks and Aliss says no, why do you have to try to stand up, can't you just sit quiet, Aliss says, and she puts down the stick and she picks up Kristoffer and holds him tight to her chest<br /> You good little boy, you're a good little boy, Aliss says<br /> Don't cry now, don't cry anymore, that's a good boy, she says<br /> and Kristoffer stops crying, gives a little sob, and then he's happy again and Aliss puts him down on the same stone as before and she picks up the stick with the sheep head again and starts to burn it, moves it back and forth in the flames. And again Kristoffer stands up. And again he takes a careful step forward. And then another. And Aliss stands there, moving the stick with the sheep head on it back and forth in the flames. That is Aliss." (33-34)</p><p>Actually, the sentences continue onto page 35, but end there. I excerpt something so long to provide a flavor of the text and perhaps you can see why it was difficult for me to summon the will to ensconce myself within it.</p><p>The wikipedia page is not much help because it does not exist, but there is one for Jon Fosse, which notes that he suffered a serious accident at age 7 that brought him close to death and significantly influenced his later writing. </p><p>And so perhaps <i>Aliss at the Fire </i>is a puzzle one has to solve: it must be semi-autobiographical in some form or shade, Asle (the great-grand-uncle) died at age 7, I think, and Aliss is portrayed as something of a healer, in the vision that Signe/Asle has.</p><p>Yes, the book shifts perspectives between Signe and Asle at a certain point, and then there is later Brita (who I think is ancestor-Asle's mother, or current-Asle's great-great-grand-aunt), who gives a boat to Asle for his 7th birthday (Kristoffer, Asle's older brother, is apparently there too).</p><p>To say this book is enormously difficult and confusing is an understatement. It is extremely boring, to a ridiculous degree.</p><p>I said some of these things to my friend that gave it to me as a gift, and he told me that Fosse's masterpiece is 700 pages long and very similar in style and tone to this, and opens up with an image of a person watching paint dry, presumably drawn out over several hundred pages. So this all feels intentional but something of a cruel joke on readers. </p><p>Yet this is High Art, and does tend to lend credence to a fractural and mystical reality. Asle may have drowned too, like his great-grand-uncle, but he has also lived in the same house that his ancestors lived in, and so this may be considered a ghost story. It also bears a certain resemblance to a short story that I wrote a five paragraph essay on in high school called "Yellow Wallpaper." I got a C- on that paper. That story is about the frayed mental health of a subjugated woman; this story is not necessarily about madness, but a vision, seeing things that aren't there, or might be there, and the reality of things we experience when we are alone, in a house, we hear certain noises and see certain flashes of things and our experience is the only reality of them, as no other person is there to witness them or confirm that reality--it may just be in our minds.</p><p>So perhaps <i>Aliss at the Fire </i>is a success, because it made me think all of these things, and I do think its "message" (if it has one) may be profound. Yet on the metric of '<i>le plaisir du texte,' </i>it did not provide an enjoyable experience. Perhaps neither does grief, or dying, but still, this is not a cogent meditation, this is an experiment in language and form, and the translation lends it a further air of mystery. Yet perhaps it is all too real, if one lives alone in a house in Norway, looking out at a fjord, waiting for a missing person while the hope of their return is all but lost.</p>JKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16199023801433187878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3851264164198134050.post-46206497801969787262023-03-06T16:08:00.009-05:002023-04-01T10:12:09.438-04:002023 Academy Award Nominees for Best Picture<p><i>Certain people that fashion themselves cinephiles to one degree or another sometimes make an effort to see all of the films nominated for Best Picture in any given year. This is a difficult thing to do. I am sure I have done it at several points before, most likely when the Academy limited the nominees to 5 films. I cannot recall the last time that I saw them all. To demonstrate this, I am going to check all the old Best Picture nominees going back to the year when I last saw them all (before they announced the winner).</i></p><p><i>I think it's probably 2008. Semi-ironically, that is the one year that I lived in Hollywood. So it makes sense (easier to get advance screeners there), and in any case, it was much easier to see them all up until 2010. Now it is something of a bigger project. </i></p><p><i>I've never undertaken it before, and there are not many days left (it's currently March 6 and I have 4 left to see), but I'm going to see what I can do. I've shifted my efforts from films and movies (there is a difference) to books, because long-form reviews of books are more acceptable (and generally safer on the "spoiler" issue). It's much easier to see a movie than read a book and Roger Ebert used to bang out film reviews in 90 minutes and I'm not going to write full-scale "Ebert reviews" for each film but I'm going to do what I can this week, because <a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-interview-dir-evan-goldberg-and.html" target="_blank">sometimes</a> there are <a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2019/12/top-10-movies-of-decade.html" target="_blank">moments</a> where it feels <a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2012/12/skyfall-dir-sam-mendes-bond-project-23.html" target="_blank">appropriate</a> to dust off the film cricket hat. The movies and films will be addressed in the order they were seen, and this post will be updated either up until they are all seen, or March 12, which is when the winner will be announced. If I can complete this project on time, I will rank them all as if I were a voting member of the Academy, filling out a preferential ballot. No grades or stars or numbered ratings--you should be able to tell how I feel about each. </i></p><p><b><u>Everything Everywhere All at Once </u></b></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijWyLCpjCbK6sJpCu4W0em4rYqNPFq5ZUJthBxpng2ihpKzjsS3lsQPJi3iqbKDvK_uG1nshtS-1q8lIQNmCgoLO4mTPE9AtOfUVxBxKQ5M7P9mK9MeX8wdIaPflvnlistDt4LPvuoJ138q1opJ4E2s3HDXz286xMxnM2ajqpyn_rUswbhPTtHLXk4oA/s1920/SCT_0428_GO_Movie_EverythingEverywhere.webp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1033" data-original-width="1920" height="172" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijWyLCpjCbK6sJpCu4W0em4rYqNPFq5ZUJthBxpng2ihpKzjsS3lsQPJi3iqbKDvK_uG1nshtS-1q8lIQNmCgoLO4mTPE9AtOfUVxBxKQ5M7P9mK9MeX8wdIaPflvnlistDt4LPvuoJ138q1opJ4E2s3HDXz286xMxnM2ajqpyn_rUswbhPTtHLXk4oA/s320/SCT_0428_GO_Movie_EverythingEverywhere.webp" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p>Released April 8, 2022, EEAO quickly developed redoubtable buzz and became a box office sleeper hit. It made $500,000 in its opening weekend and went on to gross $73 MM in the US and $104 MM worldwide. Now, those are not <i>Avengers </i>numbers, but they aren't bad for a $25 MM budget. It is the third highest grossing of the Best Picture nominees, and the only one that isn't "record-breaking" in some way. It's not a <i>Blair Witch </i>level of success vs. budget, but it feels every bit as successful as <i>Avatar </i>or <i>Top Gun,</i> and probably more successful than <i>Elvis </i>even though that made more than twice as much and didn't have <i>that </i>much bigger of a budget.</p><p>Everybody loves this movie and I am no different. I watched it twice, and it was better on the second viewing. I am looking forward to the third. Michelle Yeoh is less likely to win than Ke Huy Quan, but they, along with every single other member of the cast turn this into a completely unpredictable multi-layered extravaganza (terrible word for a review, I know, but in this case it is accurate) that makes little-to-no sense, thumbs its nose at the "Multiverse" and one-ups it, even as that franchise has done everything in its power to make people think their movies are films and not theme park attraction blueprints. </p><p>Pretty much everything is good about EEAO, except viewers may experience whiplash and confusion upon first viewing. There is a ton of subtext to it, but mostly, it's Michelle Yeoh. This is a career-defining statement in a similar way that <i>Birdman </i>was for Michael Keaton, with each film "advancing" from <i>Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon </i>and <i>Batman</i>. CTHD was groundbreaking at the time, and so too, is this: it could be the weirdest movie ever nominated for Best Picture. It seems to reflect on the entire history of cinema, with more recent "modern classics" like <i>Kill Bill</i>, <i>CTHD</i>, <i>Ratatouille, The Matrix, </i>Marvel movies<i>, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom </i>(as this is Quan's long-due comeback from his iconic turn there) all referenced, and it's better than all of them. There has been an "Asian renaissance" in cinema over the last several years, and while I cannot say this is better than <i>Drive My Car</i>, it is certainly a lot more entertaining and engaging, and it is probably better than <i>Parasite</i>. </p><p><b><u>The Banshees of Inisheran </u></b></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivrVn1i-wJzjBLzdrW30KgSSqbzuBDE8Ek-EoAjg5vGKNOAoLNJ9C8PZb_Ld9xosjbJng_Msl4rx0JtTU3us5S49asuY_idQOD_bqs9yT79gvKSdp0JvSVmvTRfqnDGxwC-9v1imgSOX6zHbmp9vsir53lurvW2KdIKUqezlhcY1tfbi_-QJVFYXjO8g/s1920/new-trailer-for-brendan-gleeson-and-colin-farrells-dark-comedy-the-banshees-of-inisherin.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="1920" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivrVn1i-wJzjBLzdrW30KgSSqbzuBDE8Ek-EoAjg5vGKNOAoLNJ9C8PZb_Ld9xosjbJng_Msl4rx0JtTU3us5S49asuY_idQOD_bqs9yT79gvKSdp0JvSVmvTRfqnDGxwC-9v1imgSOX6zHbmp9vsir53lurvW2KdIKUqezlhcY1tfbi_-QJVFYXjO8g/s320/new-trailer-for-brendan-gleeson-and-colin-farrells-dark-comedy-the-banshees-of-inisherin.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p>2022 was a wonderful year for me, professionally. Personally, it was far from the best, as I spent a good bit of it estranged from a dear friend. Without getting into too much personal drama, let us just say that seeing this film provided an emotional balm that few cinematic experiences are able to offer. I had a similar experience with <i>Drive My Car</i>, and earlier, <i>Toni Erdmann</i>. This isn't a three-hour foreign drama, however, and the light-hearted tone keeps it from becoming gruesome or depressing. This is a follow-up to the excellent <i>In Bruges</i> in the same way that <i>The Interview </i>was a follow-up to the excellent <i>Pineapple Express</i>. Except this is better than <i>In Bruges </i>and hits a deeper emotional core. You already know that Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson play off each other well, but this film pushes them back about 80 years into the past and from Belgium to Ireland. It feels like a play. And plays, unlike films, are more laser-focused on providing such catharsis to the audience, to stir something in them and make them uncomfortably-moved as they watch the actors live out on stage something they've felt deeply in themselves. In this way, the film delivers, and few of the other nominees have accomplished the same. </p><p><b><u>Elvis</u></b></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8cxGsbLM49gDOQTSuAVnM9hor8xIfW7-J4FOhxWiSTQjfFttWpeXfvlmf8kJMqnFgUFDT3yAENCbcsevBLLmgdfVBV9NaP24MQZDwvd0DRXe4mRyEaA1GD72Dcz9FhzSZjVmHX7eGKUIAjH5TPcOSNucS8mfS_SqLEqW1QR0B10RX7q-6aY3Jgw2PDA/s1800/23elvis2-mobileMasterAt3x.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="748" data-original-width="1800" height="133" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8cxGsbLM49gDOQTSuAVnM9hor8xIfW7-J4FOhxWiSTQjfFttWpeXfvlmf8kJMqnFgUFDT3yAENCbcsevBLLmgdfVBV9NaP24MQZDwvd0DRXe4mRyEaA1GD72Dcz9FhzSZjVmHX7eGKUIAjH5TPcOSNucS8mfS_SqLEqW1QR0B10RX7q-6aY3Jgw2PDA/s320/23elvis2-mobileMasterAt3x.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p>On March 2, 2023, I watched <i>Elvis</i>. I liked it better than I thought I would. Not that I don't like Elvis. While I am not a superfan, I have always found him amusing and feel that his ghost haunts Memphis, TN in a truly remarkable way. There are not quite as many impersonators these days, it seems, and so it was time to bring him into Generation Z. And so what you have here is a relatively true-to-life biopic of a music icon...with a Doja Cat song on the soundtrack, twenty minutes deep. This is a Baz Luhrmann film, and for me personally, this was better than <i>Moulin Rouge</i> and not quite as good as <i>Romeo + Juliet</i>. Much has been made of Austin Butler, and while I am not yet sure if I am going to pick him for Best Actor, it is quite likely I will. It's a great performance, and probably better than that of Ana de Armas, doing another icon from the same era (excellent in its own right). Rami Malek won for <i>Bohemian Rhapsody </i>and I thought Taron Egerton won for <i>Rocketman </i>but I was mistaken and Joaquin Phoenix once won for <i>Walk the Line </i>and so I think it is a strong possibility that Butler also wins. The movie itself is about as good as one might expect. Baz Luhrmann always has a comedic sensibility in his films (i.e. flashiness, interpolating the new into the old), but <i>Elvis </i>could have used some broader comic relief. The funniest line to me was Elvis mispronouncing the name of the group the Byrds. His relationship with his mother, which is one of the most interesting things about the movie, is depicted in abbreviated form, rather than as a throughline and theme, as it should have been. But if you make it to the final scene, I do not believe you will remain unmoved.</p><p><b><u>Top Gun: Maverick</u></b></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaIXsIabeQ_UgkHJSMv4ExMbtAoH6jf58OtlVY6PcTwnPY8SMLP21ruZuwFkdjDn4phThKYmtc0y4fVQeVtOAc8NEG_eWsIJglcQ33pKoool2s557u84V6007vaCEHBcaeUU6V6modVf6q-GlXqk-9AKoBPCLN80lM9eMULQlonhLMDuNpcuJ5rcbcXQ/s1000/top-gun-sailing-2.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="562" data-original-width="1000" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaIXsIabeQ_UgkHJSMv4ExMbtAoH6jf58OtlVY6PcTwnPY8SMLP21ruZuwFkdjDn4phThKYmtc0y4fVQeVtOAc8NEG_eWsIJglcQ33pKoool2s557u84V6007vaCEHBcaeUU6V6modVf6q-GlXqk-9AKoBPCLN80lM9eMULQlonhLMDuNpcuJ5rcbcXQ/s320/top-gun-sailing-2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p></p><p>On March 3, I watched <i>Top Gun: Maverick</i>. I never saw the original despite my family owning a VHS copy of it and being rated PG. Maybe this is because I didn't care about being in the military, for better or worse, even though my Dad was in the Navy. Apparently, the "Top Gun" program is part of the Naval Air Force Academy, not the Air Force itself. This is one thing I learned in watching the sequel, which is an odd movie I would never consider Best Picture material until a few years ago. </p><p>Now then, the main thing about this movie is that it was a huge box office hit (along with <i>Avatar</i>). Big box office is not a problem for the Oscars. Yet in this case, there is a certain narrative that involves Tom Cruise saying "no" to streaming ahead of the regular schedule, and it being a gamble that pays off big time. Much has been made of Steven Spielberg congratulating Tom Cruise for bringing people back into theaters. Apart from the business aspect, the movie isn't bad, and it's worth noting that Cruise is doing some of the best work of his career in his late 50's. </p><p>No, this is not <i>Magnolia </i>and he is not nominated for Best Actor, and he shouldn't be for this, and frankly, whatever next Mission Impossible movie comes out will probably be just as good. But there have already been like six of those movies and this is just the 2nd <i>Top Gun </i>and will probably be the last (we hope, though it seems increasingly unlikely that any successful film with any kind of franchise potential will not get a sequel for the sake of not ruining a good thing). The scene with Val Kilmer is probably the reason this is nominated for Best Picture and while it is too brief for him to get Best Supporting Actor nomination, expect Kilmer to get one of the biggest ovations on Oscar night, for his accomplishments and contributions to cinema shouldn't be discounted. </p><p><b><u>Tàr</u></b></p><p><b></b></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPko-fUlIRfi6W_p1N-W6CdvY2JhcYiyNt_dxdzeXx7hiT4VJa7I_YwBR1EhT5Wo3-BrnjdtDp-VK6_QBMD3fQM7IBFpaO8iDACwkRsxrDLmequZ_fTgXwjdN_GozhQ9UVgy2LnOYZSxDOJQQOM2GzumadONlTeLN_DQN57_O60aJJv5gwO8UBbX73RQ/s1050/tar-scene1-videoSixteenByNine1050.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="591" data-original-width="1050" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPko-fUlIRfi6W_p1N-W6CdvY2JhcYiyNt_dxdzeXx7hiT4VJa7I_YwBR1EhT5Wo3-BrnjdtDp-VK6_QBMD3fQM7IBFpaO8iDACwkRsxrDLmequZ_fTgXwjdN_GozhQ9UVgy2LnOYZSxDOJQQOM2GzumadONlTeLN_DQN57_O60aJJv5gwO8UBbX73RQ/s320/tar-scene1-videoSixteenByNine1050.png" width="320" /></a></b></div><p></p><p>On March 4, I watched <i>Tàr. </i>I had been wanting to see this film for nearly five months, since it had come out in theaters. It did not jump to streaming until fairly recently, and I watched it on Peacock. I knew it was divisive, and I expected to come out on the "love" side, and for the most part, I do. This is an Art Film, and the first thirty minutes will test anyone's intellectual capacity. It should do for music conservatories what <i>Black Swan </i>did for ballet. It should be required viewing, for them and for any art students generally.</p><p>The intellectual philosophizing in the film is nearly unprecedented, and Mahler aficionados should love it to death. It is "about" a lot of things, and there is not much of a plot until you realize there's no plot to any of our lives, just events, and experiences we go through leading up to events. Blanchett is good in everything and has probably surpassed Meryl Streep in terms of cultural renown. The question is whether this is the best performance of her career. This is her 8th nomination, and she has won twice. She should win for this, because few actors in history have ever undertaken the degree of preparation that she did here. I would be curious to know who could compare. The only problem is the movie is something of a downer, as Art Films tend to be, and isn't especially emotionally satisfying to the viewer. Its ending is not the ending to <i>Elvis</i>, basically, but it's also quite beautiful in its own way. </p><p><b><u>All Quiet on the Western Front</u></b></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrOirFqCN8mef_1Ez9kNeb8tZbgES1xIeCCp7dz0E7bzRl4774IkicgDKPw4nqGpE9zND2zGIBm2DL3-i6c3aN4n_Yr1FaXkWwDZfNVmJ4GWkOj07-pfqKRmvwuMkVX1lMJg2k2M6Yl5UyqrAc_gCFb0sVk7UagAtaPCWn0qdAYwX5O-2kU8X-JeBelw/s750/quietwesternfront.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="422" data-original-width="750" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrOirFqCN8mef_1Ez9kNeb8tZbgES1xIeCCp7dz0E7bzRl4774IkicgDKPw4nqGpE9zND2zGIBm2DL3-i6c3aN4n_Yr1FaXkWwDZfNVmJ4GWkOj07-pfqKRmvwuMkVX1lMJg2k2M6Yl5UyqrAc_gCFb0sVk7UagAtaPCWn0qdAYwX5O-2kU8X-JeBelw/s320/quietwesternfront.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p></p><p>On March 5, I watched <i>All Quiet on the Western Front. </i>It is nominated for Best Picture because apparently there always needs to be a war movie nominated for Best Picture. It is also nominated for Best International Feature and it seems obvious it will win that one. The opening sequence illustrates that the filmmakers were looking to do for WWI what Steven Spielberg did for WWII at the opening of <i>Saving Private Ryan</i>. But it's only about five minutes long; I don't think it lasts ten. And it feels weirdly juxtaposed, almost as if the filmmakers are saying, "give us an Oscar for this." It's an adaptation of a widely-read novel--one I haven't read, unfortunately--and from what I can tell, has been adapted twice already, in 1930 and 1979. The 1930 version is probably quite fascinating and I'd be interested to see it after having seen this, as the source material has not changed. I have not seen anyone talk about the 1979 version favorably, so it's probably fair to remake it, and there may be some timing to it, as we constantly try to say that xx foreign policy situation will develop into WWIII, China/Russia, etc. But fighting will never be like that again, anyways. Of course, there is horrifying and gruesome violence, of course, there are a few heartbreaking moments (the plot of the film, from what I can tell, is really about which friends in their group will survive), and of course, it's a good movie, but <i>1917 </i>pretended to be "one continuous take" and <i>Dunkirk</i> at least had a shorter runtime, so I slightly prefer them. Actually, this was probably about as "engaging" as <i>1917</i> and similarly impressive in its technical aspects. This isn't something, however, like <i>The Thin Red Line </i>or <i>Apocalypse Now </i>or <i>Platoon</i> or <i>Full Metal Jacket </i>or <i>Born on the Fourth of July </i>or <i>The Deer Hunter - </i>all of which offer something "extra" to the usual cinematic tropes of war movies. Even lacking such, it's perfectly fine, but I'm a bit surprised by the nomination here on top of the International one, and query whether Netflix really just needed to have one of their originals in the category. </p><p><b><u>Triangle of Sadness</u></b></p><p><b></b></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyqxob8oJH4O3mwl5siXYPQPjiUBDW1zqoHcrRxb-xYj9zRWX7AruLyOLLZZhh9WLVrMoUAUoiR8loWZySQjlzIJF2w3CFTpQ3CssCkg49FXuS74dakEEwM2rBalNqHNFC9OhOSjpxdTaDvWyS0IvM9zKEZzrBf4yOan37KYoU5yFp-HojhFrvLEEzAw/s1500/filmstill-aus-ruben-oestlunds.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="563" data-original-width="1500" height="120" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyqxob8oJH4O3mwl5siXYPQPjiUBDW1zqoHcrRxb-xYj9zRWX7AruLyOLLZZhh9WLVrMoUAUoiR8loWZySQjlzIJF2w3CFTpQ3CssCkg49FXuS74dakEEwM2rBalNqHNFC9OhOSjpxdTaDvWyS0IvM9zKEZzrBf4yOan37KYoU5yFp-HojhFrvLEEzAw/s320/filmstill-aus-ruben-oestlunds.jpg" width="320" /></a></b></div><p>On March 6, I watched <i>Triangle of Sadness </i>with a friend. Somehow, incredibly, I lost the review I just wrote of this, and it's horribly depressing because it was pretty good. Of course we all agree that editing makes writing much better, but when you lose the original, rewriting a new one from memory is stressful. That said, I mentioned that this is the English-language debut of an acclaimed Swedish director, that I saw <i>Force Majeure </i>and liked this better, found it more engaging and entertaining, and questioned whether it is appropriate to nominate for Best Picture merely because it is in English, rather than Best International Feature (I cannot recall any English-language films in the Best International Category). </p><p></p><p>Also mentioned that, like <i>AQWF</i>, this is a good film, but demonstrates that the Best Picture category is now available to "merely good" films rather than the "great" ones--it is good to acknowledge and include more filmmakers, but it has resulted in a bloated ballot. The category worked fine when there were only 5 nominations, and it's odd that most other categories (if not all) each have five nominees. I mentioned that this same friend and I watched <i>Another Round </i>together a couple years ago and probably would both agree that it is superior to this; perhaps today, that would be nominated for Best Picture. </p><p>Finally, declared that this was basically <i>The White Lotus: the Movie</i>, except that it goes even further and devolves into an allegory on class and privilege. It is absurdist, and while it is amusing and sometimes thought-provoking, it is over the top (i.e. Woody Harrelson's Marxist "Captain" reading his written reflection on workers' rights through a P.A. system as their boat is bombed by pirates). I'm still not sure what happens at the end, and I think it's meant to be open-ended, and perhaps that air of mystery is why it landed in this category. But I really think it's just because people love <i>White Lotus </i>and this had a very similar vibe. </p><p><b><u>Avatar: The Way of Water</u></b></p><p>On March 7, I watched <i>Avatar</i>, because I'd never seen it before, from beginning to end, and felt if I was going to do this project the right way, I needed to properly prepare and get up to speed for the sequel. Right now I am expecting to make the only actual theater trip for this project in about three hours, and while <i>Avatar </i>is a fairly decent movie, this does not make me any more excited for the coming hours. In short, background research is complete. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhufOTMf4Z05IHM-BBpUKEGYRkowmBKYR1Lt-B118HYydKVb1urG_C0OecZD_YKQurmGL3QrHadARkV57KxgkGO7XQ9_k8xJn51B7-T6gNWSJM7z8RQCUAehqVrr2n5L0XMWmai7kgGx4fxWZknML1IZzQiXX9PvAmk1Fqxn-18qMOyrUKgp0-jaW6mLw/s800/Avatar-The-Way-Of-Water.webp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="421" data-original-width="800" height="168" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhufOTMf4Z05IHM-BBpUKEGYRkowmBKYR1Lt-B118HYydKVb1urG_C0OecZD_YKQurmGL3QrHadARkV57KxgkGO7XQ9_k8xJn51B7-T6gNWSJM7z8RQCUAehqVrr2n5L0XMWmai7kgGx4fxWZknML1IZzQiXX9PvAmk1Fqxn-18qMOyrUKgp0-jaW6mLw/s320/Avatar-The-Way-Of-Water.webp" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">On March 8, I watched <i>Avatar: The Way of Water</i> in 3D at a Regal Cinema. It is nearly 30 minutes longer than <i>Avatar</i>. It may be the longest movie I have ever seen in a theater. Regardless, it might have felt shorter than the first one--except there was a family with several young kids that never got the memo that you're not supposed to talk during movies. This half-ruined the experience for me as I ruminated on how annoyed it made me, and how I should have been more compassionate--but they literally talked the entire way through the movie. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">In any case, this was definitely a movie to see in the theater (even though at $22, it will also be the biggest investment of this project). The visuals were, in fact, very impressive. I have seen a few other movies in 3D in recent years but this made the best use of the technology (4D might have been even more fun for it). But this is exactly the issue: <i>Avatar </i>literally is a theme park ride, and one hopes that Disney will now make a 2nd ride, a water ride. Only three movies in history have made more money than <i>Avatar: The Way of Water</i>, and two of them are also directed by James Cameron. The Academy does not need to tell more people to see this movie, but it should tell them to see it in 3D by lavishing technical awards on it. (Putting aside the notion that it looks like pure CGI, and that Kate Winslet and Sigourney Weaver are more or less unrecognizable, despite apparently modeling for computer animation.) </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The story is basically the same as <i>Avatar</i>, but slightly more compelling. Instead of mining the planet Pandora for precious materials that are worth $20 million per kilo on Earth, the "sky people" (i.e. human beings from Earth, the year being roughly 2170) are hunting whale-like creatures that contain a precious fluid that stops aging and goes for $80 million per vial. The two main characters from <i>Avatar </i>now have a family with four kids and so that is another theme here. They have run away from the forest, as they have been tracked there by humans, and escaped to the ocean. One of their sons bonds with one of the "whales" that saves his life and that relationship is probably the best part about the movie (in the same way that Sigourney Weaver was probably the best thing about the first one). In short, I liked it better than expected, but mostly for the visuals. I might go to see <i>Avatar 3 </i>or <i>Avatar 4 </i>in 4D. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><u>The Fabelmans</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><u><br /></u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixMGl_bNS-nVzTEw30WoZ7mxrxykkZpUXvy8hNyq5IqyWAkE0LUfXW6p5tGFInYCdmd6Y3i2SZEe_zqePB8-NYnzom6ZX5Hh06qCs4TZ9safZb7fqHocUQXO66p-YbMAm9a2kEnB1TyVUwd0FXA4QfRb-u8jjRWeH5IDgWkeeq7TiG-1ZHXxy780yi8Q/s2000/Spielberg-Kushner-Site-Story-Image.webp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1333" data-original-width="2000" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixMGl_bNS-nVzTEw30WoZ7mxrxykkZpUXvy8hNyq5IqyWAkE0LUfXW6p5tGFInYCdmd6Y3i2SZEe_zqePB8-NYnzom6ZX5Hh06qCs4TZ9safZb7fqHocUQXO66p-YbMAm9a2kEnB1TyVUwd0FXA4QfRb-u8jjRWeH5IDgWkeeq7TiG-1ZHXxy780yi8Q/s320/Spielberg-Kushner-Site-Story-Image.webp" width="320" /></a></div><br />On March 9, I watched <i>The Fabelmans. </i>A friend asked what it was about and I said, "Spielberg family basically. His growing up/To say more would spoil it." And yet I check the Vanity Fair article from where the above still is lifted, and it totally spoils the film. I generally encourage most people to avoid spoilers, because for me at least, even seeing a movie once takes something away a second time--they get burned into my brain in a way that keys in memorization, and they don't feel as new to me. Spoilers jumpstart this process ahead of time, leading me to anticipate some kind of turn, and when it happens it's not as powerful. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Luckily I did not spoil this for myself and I would not spoil it for you except to say I knew enough about Spielberg's family from watching one doc on HBO (which is something of a career retrospective, and quite candid) that I had a sense of what this film might be like. And yes, much as it pains me to praise something by someone who <i>definitely</i> <i>does not </i>need anymore accolades, this is very good and worth seeing, on most every level. It has its share of light moments but ultimately it felt heavier to me than the other nominees (yes, even <i>AQWF, </i>which as noted above, also owes a debt to Spielberg). </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>This also underscores the strength of the Best Actress category: Cate and the two Michelle's all deserve to win (Ana de Armas is remarkable in her own right in <i>Blonde</i> and let's not get into Andrea Riseborough here, it's not fair because I haven't seen <i>To Leslie, </i>though obviously I will, eventually). Of course, Michelle Williams gets a special boost for her excellent turns in <i>Venom </i>and <i>Venom: Let There be Carnage </i>(both criminally underrated), more so than Cate Blanchett gets a boost for being in <i>Thor: Ragnarok. </i>It's really hard for me to say which is my favorite but I have to go with Cate Blanchett because I felt like I could identify the most with her Tàr<i> </i>(ignore what that says about me). <div><br /></div><div>Joyce Carol Oates slammed this movie and said it was "remarkably mediocre," comparing it to made-for-TV movies with inane dialogue and exaggerated acting, though even she had to acknowledge David Lynch's cameo as a good scene. Yes, JCO wants to be hipper than thou and this is not a super-hip film, but it's better than that. Lynch is great in his small role (arguably as good as Judd Hirsch, with far fewer lines--and Hirsch's role skirts the edge of "minimal presence required for Oscar nom") but Michelle Williams is the real standout here. The film will have to win at least one award; it probably resonated for me emotionally more than any of the others (yes it brought me closest to tears). <br /><p><b><u>Women Talking</u></b></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgi2CvQFwWcmttUG0pszFnJzRsKjsB3LH83P302uzfpICa1F1k2bdfrUumSygvWfpn2mpVX2cs_EZh0AFRouBmdjthwIlcfCW7Lkd2vZuixeiEu3BHdiJu4akJiAyGKyvkFI7iCAcGp7PLwnFOfArYTjKIkSgENhpVYaCUexheLsuE6Gbbp2e53OPjoA/s3000/women-talking-1674495445.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2001" data-original-width="3000" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgi2CvQFwWcmttUG0pszFnJzRsKjsB3LH83P302uzfpICa1F1k2bdfrUumSygvWfpn2mpVX2cs_EZh0AFRouBmdjthwIlcfCW7Lkd2vZuixeiEu3BHdiJu4akJiAyGKyvkFI7iCAcGp7PLwnFOfArYTjKIkSgENhpVYaCUexheLsuE6Gbbp2e53OPjoA/s320/women-talking-1674495445.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />On March 10th, I watched <i>Women Talking </i>with a friend--late, around midnight. This is undoubtedly the "smallest" of the nominees and the most difficult to review. It basically is a play. Much has been made of its color palette, and given the setting, the costumes, the makeup (or lack thereof) and the subject matter, a drab sepia tone befits the proceedings. That is, the women are being attacked--more specifically, drugged and raped in their sleep--and so they congregate to vote and decide on one of three options: do nothing, stay and fight, or leave.<p></p><p>It is not necessarily a spoiler to say they are part of an ultra-conservative Mennonite colony, but certain facets of this cultural identity account for the some of the more surprising and powerful moments of the film. The performances by all of the women are stellar, and the script beautifully juxtaposes their personal story with a larger meditation on society as a whole. The screenplay is written by director Sarah Polley, and adapted from a novel by Miriam Toews, which was based on a true story. The events in question took place in Bolivia, and though the setting is likely transplanted to North America (the precise location of the colony is never revealed), it could happen wherever such communities with backwards rules persist (even in Brooklyn).</p><p>Few people saw this movie, and though it is likely to draw a bigger audience, being nominated for Best Picture, it will only ever be seen by a small fraction of the number of people that saw <i>Avatar: The Way of Water </i>or <i>Top Gun: Maverick</i>. It is the only other Art Film besides <i>Tàr</i>. It's probably the most gut-wrenching in terms of subject matter, but due to its monotone aspects, also the most likely to put a viewer to sleep. There are moments of humor in it too, and though it is nothing of the spectacle of some of the bigger-budget nominees, I could see it being a special experience in a theater. Unfortunately, that time may have passed (it would have been the 2nd of the films to see in the theater on the list, but it was added temporarily to Amazon Prime this weekend and so I opted for that format), and yet it may have not, because this is a film that is tailor-made for the stage as well, and so the experience of being in the same room as these women as they are talking may yet become a reality. It's the first selection I've made on my ballot. It may not be the most entertaining or amusing of the nominees, but it may be the greatest demonstration of a perfectly realized (and streamlined) vision.</p><p><br /></p><p><u>Rankings:</u></p><p><u>My personal favorite preferential ballot:</u></p><p>(1) <i>Tàr</i><br />(2) <i>Banshees of Inisheran</i><br />(3) <i>Everything Everywhere All at Once</i><br />(4) <i>The Fabelmans</i><br />(5) <i>Women Talking</i><br />(6) <i>Top Gun: Maverick</i><br />(7) <i>Avatar: The Way of Water</i><br />(8) <i>Elvis</i><br />(9) <i>Triangle of Sadness</i><br />(10) <i>All Quiet on the Western Front</i></p><p><u>My predicted preferential ballot for Academy voters*</u></p><p><u>(</u>1) <i>Everything Everywhere All at Once</i><br />(2) <i>The Fabelmans</i><br />(3) <i>Banshees of Inisheran </i><br />(4) <i>Top Gun: Maverick</i><br />(5) <i>Women Talking</i><br />(6) <i>Triangle of Sadness</i><br />(7) <i>All Quiet on the Western Front</i><i><br /></i>(8) <i>Avatar: The Way of Water</i><br />(9) <i>Tàr</i><br />(10) <i>Elvis</i></p><p><i>*</i>I really have no idea how accurate this is according to current buzz and reserve the right to modify after completing my own ballot. </p><p>This was a worthwhile endeavor, I'm glad I did it because I wouldn't have seen at least half of these, and not nearly as quickly. None of these movies and films are bad, and there truly is at least one here for everyone. It made me reassess the state of cinema. Despite the increasing tendency towards the blockbuster sequel, original and imaginative films continue to be made. </p></div>JKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16199023801433187878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3851264164198134050.post-63833834673288309422023-01-15T15:20:00.006-05:002023-01-17T12:37:53.385-05:00Glamorama - Bret Easton Ellis (1998) <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjl3rj0KNdO3aJ2F8zM1hE_Fvn5YjJbOblur4fhbameeBjMaQgf6WsYGhv9X82PeNVpV63Ba9FigPkrMjIeyVIxqMIkk7LDfrj-bsU6Fat5xeP70d12kgdslzSv70UwZR5Frd0P0dCYxLU5v3Qh8Kp_p1kiwSgMgIFHexXWDDDknPAPUQnhozXv8sVrxw/s500/glam.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="324" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjl3rj0KNdO3aJ2F8zM1hE_Fvn5YjJbOblur4fhbameeBjMaQgf6WsYGhv9X82PeNVpV63Ba9FigPkrMjIeyVIxqMIkk7LDfrj-bsU6Fat5xeP70d12kgdslzSv70UwZR5Frd0P0dCYxLU5v3Qh8Kp_p1kiwSgMgIFHexXWDDDknPAPUQnhozXv8sVrxw/s320/glam.jpg" width="207" /></a></div><p>Of all the writers covered on this blog over the past 14 years, Bret Easton Ellis (or BEE as he is semi-affectionately known in literary circles, the counterpoint to DFW) has more appearances than most. To do the oeuvre exercise: <i>Less Than Zero </i>has not been reviewed, but I've read it multiple times and now believe it is still his best. I used to tell people that <i>Glamorama </i>was the best. Now, I don't necessarily renounce that, but as far as <i>recommending </i>his books go, I would recommend <i>Less Than Zero </i>over <i>Glamorama</i>. (And to follow up on the question posed in the review of his previous release, no, <i>Glamorama </i>does not make it onto the Best Books list; it's likely that <i>Less Than Zero </i>would.)</p><p>I'm not sure I'd recommend <i><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-rules-of-attraction-bret-easton.html" target="_blank">Rules of Attraction</a> </i>over <i>Glamorama</i>, but maybe, depending on how much you like your books to fuck with you. <i>Rules of Attraction </i>and <i>Less Than Zero</i> are rather straightforward narratives where Ellis's appeal should be clear to most readers: the books are relatively short, "punchy," dialogue-heavy, "cool," and their words seem to spool off the page--they're not page-turners in the traditional sense but they're quick reads if you "get" them.</p><p><i>American Psycho </i>is his only book that I never finished, and feel with that book, he was trying to "develop" as an artist, and it certainly has the reputation (to say nothing of the film, which has its own referents in <i>Glamorama</i>) to prove it. Ellis was a star from the moment he debuted, and while his work was "gritty" from the start, he went over the top with it. I think I've heard him say that the book was a metaphor for cocaine and that makes sense. And it would make sense for <i>Glamorama, </i>too.</p><p>That said, this is a much better book than <i>American Psycho</i>. Maybe I am just jaded about <i>American Psycho</i> because I saw the movie enough times for the source material to be demystified. I think everyone remembers the first time they saw that movie, and it was one of the few times you could say a super controversial book also became a super controversial movie, and I don't think anyone understood the ending. Over time, now, I know that the ending is basically an admission that he has been fucking with the reader all along.</p><p>That is <i>not </i>the case in <i>Glamorama, </i>and its ending mystified me as well. To compare it to the rest of the oeuvre, <i>Lunar Park </i>is another one that was read-and-not-reviewed, my copy is lost, and it's something of an anomaly in the oeuvre (a faux-autobiography styled as an homage to Stephen King), but probably just as good as <i>Glamorama</i>, probably a better book to recommend for the so-called "average" reader. <i><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2010/06/imperial-bedrooms-bret-easton-ellis.html">Imperial Bedrooms</a> </i>was the sequel to <i>Less Than Zero</i>, and I enjoyed it for the fan-service it represented, and still think it would make an amazing movie, even 12 years later, but I'm afraid that ship has sailed. I have no qualms about recommending it. Conversely I did not recommend <i><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2009/05/informers-bret-easton-ellis.html">The Informers</a></i> and I do not think I'm alone in that, but it's an interesting read if you are an Ellis fan. I wouldn't read it as a model for the perfect short story, but there are probably two or three in it that are more decent than most. There was also <i><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2019/05/white-bret-easton-ellis-2019.html" target="_blank">White</a>, </i>which is similar to <i>The Informers </i>in being an anomaly, slightly better because Ellis is a better essayist than short story writer, but maybe slightly worse because he also seems to be "baiting" the reader and burnishing his newfound reputation as a cultural curmudgeon. </p><p>He's talked about <i>Glamorama </i>(1998)<i> </i>as his favorite novel of his own, and how it is also the most hated of his works. True, it is easy to misunderstand, and in the same way that I think <i>American Psycho </i>(1991)<i> </i>is easy to misunderstand. </p><p>***</p><p>They are both very <i>shallow </i>books on the surface. The first one is littered with fashion: any brand name you can imagine is going to be referenced somewhere. This one is littered with celebrity: pretty much anyone who was anyone in 1998 (and a surprising number of more "obscure celebrities" that seemed plucked out of BEE's personal circle, that have evolved in the cultural conversation over the ensuing decades) is mentioned here. </p><p>More importantly, perhaps, it references my preferred racer in Mario Kart 8:</p><p>"'Shhh, I'm playing,' I tell her. 'Yoshi's eaten four gold coins and he's trying to find the fifth. I need to concentrate.'<br />'Oh my god, who gives a shit,' Alison sighs. 'We're dealing with a fat midget who rides a dinosaur and saves his girlfriend from a pissed-off gorilla? Victor, get serious.'<br />'It's <i>not </i>his girlfriend. It's Princess Toadstool. And it's <i>not </i>a gorilla,' I stress. 'It's Lemmy Koopa of the evil Koopa clan. And baby, as usual, you're missing the point.' <br />'Please enlighten me.'<br />'The whole point of Super Mario Bros. is that it mirrors life.'<br />'I'm following.' She checks her nails. 'God knows why.'<br />'Kill or be killed.' <br />'Uh-huh.'<br />'Time is running out.'<br />'Gotcha.'<br />'And in the end, baby, you...are...alone.'<br />'Right.' She stands up. 'Well, Victor, that really captures the spirit of our relationship, honey.'" (25)</p><p>***</p><p>Plot: novel concerns Victor Ward, who is a 27-year-old male model, previously seen in a small supporting role in <i>The Rules of Attraction. </i>He lives in Manhattan and he dates another model named Chloe Byrnes, and he has an affair with Alison Poole, who is Damien's (I forget his last name) girlfriend. Victor is opening a new nightclub with Damien. Victor is the lead singer of an alternative rock band and barely involved and quits the band in the one scene they have. He goes to the Tower Records at Broadway and 4th St. and encounters Lauren Hynde, who went with him to Camden College (and has a much bigger role in <i>Rules of Attraction</i>). They hook up after. </p><p>These are the first 200 pages of the novel. They all concern preparations for opening the nightclub. It's very stressful, but with shallow concerns about who is on the invite list, who is going to show up, and whether it will be a success if they don't. Ultimately, Damien finds out that Victor is having an affair with his girlfriend and there is a scary scene where he threatens him and then eventually somehow sends Victor into the actual plot of the novel, which really starts on a cruise ship from New York to London. </p><p>The novel is comprised of six parts, each part consisting of a number of chapters that count down to 0. This was vaguely clever. At the very end of Part 1, Chapter 0, Ellis paints the scene at his protagonist's apartment:</p><p>"On my desk: free drink tickets, a Cohiba cigar still in its container, a Clash CD--<i>Sandinista!</i>--unopened, a check to Save the Rainforest returned because of insufficient funds, last year's Social Register, a baggie of psilocybin mushrooms, a half-empty bottle of Snapple, a roll of Mentos, an ad ripped from a magazine of Tyson promoting a new lip balm and the dragon tattoo etched on his bicep that has a Chinese inscription on it that translated means 'don't trust anyone' and an old fax machine and falling out of the fax machine at this moment is a slip of fax paper that I pick up and read. <br />On it:</p><p><i>nie Marais, Christopher Lambert, Tommy Lee, Lauren Hutton, Claire Danes, Patty Hearst, Richard Grieco, Pino Luongo, Steffi Graf, Michael J. Fox, Billy Crudup, Marc Jacobs, Marc Audibet, the Butthole Surfers, George Clinton, Henry Rollins, Nike, Kim Deal, Beavis and Butt-head, Anita Hill, Jeff Koons, Nicole Kidman, Howard Stern, Jim Shaw, Mark Romanek, Stussy, Whit Stillman, Isabella Rossellini, Christian Francis Roth, Vanessa Williams, Larry Clark, Rob Morrow, Robin Wright, Jennifer Connelly, RuPaul, Chelsea Clinton, Penelope Spheeris, Glenn Close, Mandie Erickson, Mark Kostabi, Rene Russo, Yasmen, Robert Rodriguez, Dr. Dre, Craig Kallman, Rosie Perez, Campion Platt, Jane Pratt, Natasha Richardson, Scott Wolf, Yohji Yamamoto, L7, Donna Tartt, Spike Jonze, Sara Gilbert, Sam Bayer, Margaret Cho, Steve Albini, Kevin Smith, Jim Rome, Rick Rubin, Gary Panter, Mary Morris, Betsey Johnson, Angela Janklow, Shannen Doherty, Molly Ringwald, O.J. Simpson, Michael DeLuca, Laura Dern, Rene Chun, the Brady Bunch, Toni Braxton, Shabba Ranks, the Miller Sisters, Jim Carrey, Robin Givens, Bruno Beuilacqua de Santangelo, Huckleberry Finn, Bill Murr</i> (212)</p><p>It is just amusing sometimes to see who Ellis decides to namedrop. It seems rather random. The world depicted in this novel is a familiar one--our 1998 reality--but turned upside-down; it has a sort of "Alice in Wonderland" type-feel, if Lewis Carrol had been a tabloid journalist. </p><p>***</p><p>There are a number of Ellis tropes and motifs that recur, though these may be more limited to this novel and <i>AP</i>. Mistaken identity is one of them. Being seen at places one has never been. The idea that one is so bland and superficial and generically attractive that one blends in with everyone else in that cohort. In this case, however, it's more real: photoshopping technology for the average consumer user is now available. </p><p>There is a film crew that follows Victor around. The film crew may or may not be imagined. </p><p>There is hardcore sex and violence, which may only be in this and <i>AP. </i>Ellis does drop into the genres of both "erotic fiction" (several scenes, though one more drawn out and vaguely surprising) and "torture porn" (which he arguably created in <i>AP, </i>which would soon be capitalized upon by an entire generation of horror filmmakers). Sometimes we can get lurid on Flying Houses but I feel it may be best not to excerpt one of these, as they are not particularly interesting. But yes, Ellis is capable of working in these genres if he wants to. </p><p>There is the <i>comedie humaine </i>element to his oeuvre, which is blended with the mistaken identity trope and his own personal semi-autobiographical wink-winks, most particularly in the character of Christian Bale/Russell. </p><p>***</p><p>It is worth a brief excursion into Christian Bale's career to properly understand his role in this novel, because quite clearly, he is the one celebrity that plays a more meaningful role. (Both Joaquin and River Phoenix and Skeet Ulrich would be the others, but Bale actually moves the plot forward.)</p><p>Now everyone knows that <i>American Psycho </i>(2000)<i> </i>was Christian Bale's breakout role, and many people know that he was also a child actor, notably in <i>Empire of the Sun </i>(1987) and <i>Newsies </i>(1992). He had other small roles, but gained more widespread recognition after notable roles in <i>Little Women </i>(1994) and <i>Pocahontas</i> (1995--voice work, but a key character) and then having his biggest role yet as an adult in <i>Velvet Goldmine </i>(1998), which is an odd film but somewhat required viewing for so-called cinephiles, as it is a Todd Haynes film. (Bale would later play one of the iterations of Bob Dylan for Haynes in <i>I'm Not There, </i>which is a slightly better movie, though Cate Blanchett steals it as she tends to do.) </p><p>But in 1998, he was likely most famous for his casting as Patrick Bateman. The film's development was closely watched by people in the industry (or say, young aspiring filmmakers teetering on 17) because <i>AP </i>was such a controversial novel and so any adaptation of it would be controversial too. Early reports reflected an NC-17 rating, which is terrible for commercial prospects but alluring to those not able to get into the theater (<i>see also </i>Requiem for a Dream). Ultimately while the film was not an enormous success (few adaptations are), it was widely seen, and I think people look back on it and see an Oscar-worthy performance, because Bale completely owns it and kills it. It's not surprising that he has won multiple Oscars since. </p><p>And of course, BEE must be very well apprised of the status of the film, must have met Bale, must have known that Bale would make or break <i>AP </i>the film, and he was writing <i>Glamorama </i>throughout the course of that film's development:</p><p>"Behind us, walking out of the front entrance of the apartment on Avenue Verdier, are Palakon, Delta, Crater--all in overcoats and sunglasses--without the Japanese man. They maneuver past us, walking purposefully down the block, conferring with one another. Jamie barely notices them since she's preoccupied with staring at Russell. But the director stops walking towards me and stares at Palakon as he passes by, and something in the director's face tightens and he worriedly glances back at me and then once more at Palakon.<br />'It's a favor,' [teaching Victor French] Russell says, putting on Diesel sunglasses. 'I'm between roles, so it's cool.'<br />'He's between roles,' I'm saying. 'He's waiting for a good part. One worthy of his skills.'<br />'Listen, I gotta split,' Russell says. 'I'll talk to you later, man. Nice meeting you, Jamie.'<br />'Yeah,' Jamie says tentatively. 'You too, Christian.'<br />'Peace,' he says, moving off. 'Victor, I'll be in touch. Au revoir.'" (433) </p><p>There are also a lot of drugs in this novel, as with any Ellis novel, and so blending in this weird version of reality with Bale who may or may not be a double agent or just a doppelganger (to say nothing of the 1-2 film crews that are making a movie tracking the plot of the novel), adds to the hazy sense that Ellis was reflecting on the reality of his experience as an aging wunderkind (this was published as he turned 35, which is not old but felt older back then) and that he was completely zonked out while writing it and it's super messy and sloppy and doesn't hold together and is mostly just there to make the reader go "WTF" in the same way as <i>AP</i>, both novel and film. But that's not a charitable view. This novel is better than that, but like I said, difficult to wholeheartedly recommend.</p><p>***</p><p>If one takes the novel seriously, the comparisons to Tom Wolfe and Don DeLillo on the front cover are not unreasonable. In a way, this is the anti-<i><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2009/04/underworld-don-delillo.html" target="_blank">Underworld</a></i>, and also vaguely predicts 9/11, and includes Semtex as a plot device. Many historical figures are depicted, but DeLillo's work is more realist than fabulist. </p><p>It's not a spoiler to say that Victor gets involved in international terrorism and espionage, and perhaps its unfair to say the novel becomes more pedestrian once the plot becomes apparent, because that is also when it starts to resemble a "page-turner." This novel took me forever to read this time, months and months. Of course my personal life affected it, but I read it much more quickly in 2004, perhaps because I was anxious to write a novel that could mimic Ellis and get noticed and start an actual career doing something that is ostensibly very exciting and personally rewarding. I guess this time I just didn't care as much, and while it's not like 2023 is vastly different from 2004, it sort of is. In 2004, this was still Ellis's latest work, and many of the celebrities had not shifted in their cultural weight. </p><p>Now, Ellis is preparing to release a new <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Shards-novel-Bret-Easton-Ellis/dp/059353560X" target="_blank">novel</a>, and since we have basically covered his entire oeuvre here, it is inevitable that it will show up here soon. (Actually, this novel is coming out in two days--I swear this wasn't planned!) Ellis has been "problematic" for about 30 years, but <i>White </i>revealed him to be <i>problematic </i>in the "woke-era," and so it will be interesting to see how "controversial" people consider <i>The Shards</i>. </p><p>Is <i>Glamorama </i>his best novel? No, in this critic's opinion, that is still <i>Less Than Zero</i>, much as I'd like to say this is his best. I wanted to like the novel more. Frankly, it annoyed me a bit this time around. I didn't care as much. I even remember liking Part 2 (the whole cruise ship voyage) much better the first time. Once the plot kicked in (I said 200 pages above, but it's probably around page 400 that you have a better idea of what's going on---though again, Part 6 of the book also tears down that understanding), I plowed through more of it, but I couldn't love any real element of it beyond the semi-autobiography and literary experimentation. I love the bold swings it takes, I admire them, but it only briefly felt satisfying, and in those moments I wanted to care most about the characters, they are revealed to be just another part of the film that is geared towards getting an emotional response out of the reader/viewer.</p><p>I wanted to excerpt a passage that illustrates this, and I wanted to mention the use of "Champagne Supernova" in the novel and question whether Paul Weller really is a contributor to that track, but instead will just say that I appreciate Ellis for opening up that curiosity, and feel it is appropriate to post this now, because we do care a little bit about remaining relevant here, even when there are six months between reviews. And yes: this should still be made into a movie, but now it will have to be a period piece--and that's not a bad thing for this author. </p>JKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16199023801433187878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3851264164198134050.post-4342588920623035422022-10-21T20:09:00.003-04:002022-10-22T12:02:05.254-04:00Bonsai - Alejandro Zambra (2006) (Transl. Megan McDowell) <p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><i style="text-align: left;">It's been a <a href="http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2018/02/cats-cradle-kurt-vonnegut-jr-1963.html" target="_blank">while</a>, but we finally have a new guest contributor. David Caves is an attorney and avid reader of foreign and independently published books. He's responsible in part for the recommendation of </i><a href="http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2022/07/a-little-life-hanya-yanagihara-2015.html" style="text-align: left;" target="_blank">A Little Life</a><i style="text-align: left;">, and getting me deeper into <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/132096700-jack-knorps" target="_blank">Goodreads</a>. His tastes are not mainstream, and he often reads books that I have never heard of before. As such, he is a perfect contributor for Flying Houses. I deeply appreciate his participation and look forward to future collaborations.</i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><i style="text-align: left;"><br /></i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeDPAAr-bB8S8lEgGSywQUjcWIThqZSyaCHlahNQn2c66s1nbnmrFYu8s7pc4pYu6LeFyUaGcfFzNo887AVbLuR5d1AOg8T28c7f-j2uCgbnHRpOQ6Ug3849O2fsnjNkOfpS7gCmag0TjXwDl60JjP5IKwEvl0ehbg7sqxmCbzd0GHwQEoma4DkzLwHA/s555/bonsai-crop.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="555" data-original-width="365" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeDPAAr-bB8S8lEgGSywQUjcWIThqZSyaCHlahNQn2c66s1nbnmrFYu8s7pc4pYu6LeFyUaGcfFzNo887AVbLuR5d1AOg8T28c7f-j2uCgbnHRpOQ6Ug3849O2fsnjNkOfpS7gCmag0TjXwDl60JjP5IKwEvl0ehbg7sqxmCbzd0GHwQEoma4DkzLwHA/s320/bonsai-crop.jpg" width="210" /></a></div><p></p><p><span class="gmail-normaltextrun"><i>Bonsai</i> came to me, as most books do these days, in
the mail, this one courtesy of my subscription to Fitzcarraldo Editions. <i>Bonsai</i>
(<i><span style="color: #202122;">Bonsái</span></i><span style="color: #202122;">
in the original Spanish)</span> is Alejandro Zambra’s first novel, but I previously read his more recent <i>Chilean Poet </i>(<i>Poeta
chileno</i>) a few months back when it came out over the summer in a splashy
edition from Viking. <i>Chilean Poet </i>had almost turned me off Zambra entirely –
more on that below – but Zambra has an enviable reputation as a literary
stylist, particularly for his earlier work. <i>Bonsai</i> is also, attractively, 74
pages – the perfect length for a novel, in my book – and so I was willing to
give it a go.</span><span class="gmail-eop"> </span></p>
<p class="gmail-paragraph" style="font-kerning: none; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="gmail-normaltextrun">Zambra’s reputation, of course, is more than as an enviable literary stylist. He’s one of those writers people love to hate. Everyone seems to have their own critique of Zambra but, I suspect, Zambra’s reputation is largely a function of the way he has managed to straddle the line between literary and commercial fiction, praised by critics while simultaneously enjoying international commercial success.</span><span class="gmail-eop"> </span><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 9pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-paragraph" style="font-kerning: none; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 9pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-paragraph" style="font-kerning: none; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="gmail-normaltextrun">My trepidation with Zambra is probably due to the fact that <i>Chilean Poet</i> was the first book of his that I’d read. By the time </span><span class="gmail-textrun"><i>Poeta chileno</i></span><span class="gmail-normaltextrun"> was published in 2020, Zambra already had four novels under his belt, two of his works had seen film adaptations, and he clearly enjoys a sterling reputation among critics. </span><span class="gmail-textrun"><i>Poeta chileno </i></span><span class="gmail-normaltextrun">was rapidly translated into English by Megan McDowell and published in the U.S. by Viking Press, an imprint of Penguin Random House, and displayed on the front table of bookstores nationwide. That’s as close to a red carpet rollout as translated fiction is ever going to see in North America.</span><span class="gmail-eop"> </span><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 9pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-paragraph" style="font-kerning: none; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 9pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-paragraph" style="font-kerning: none; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="gmail-normaltextrun">Alas, there was nothing innovative or interesting about the 350+ page <i>Chilean Poet</i>. It’s overlong and bulky, and clearly Zambra’s effort to go mainstream. The joke is that Zambra wrote it because he had a mortgage to pay. It reminded me a bit of Sally Rooney’s work – a novel very much of the here and now, focused on hetero relationships stripped of idealism and romanticism, and popular with the type of young adults who read novels on public transit. It was also self-satisfied and willing to break the fourth wall, albeit in a way that turned me off rather than pulled me in.</span><span class="gmail-eop"> </span><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 9pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-paragraph" style="font-kerning: none; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 9pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-paragraph" style="font-kerning: none; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="gmail-normaltextrun"><i>Bonsai</i>, though, is where Zambra’s reputation began. <i><span style="color: #202122;">Bonsái</span></i><span style="color: #202122;"> was published in 2006 and only came to English in 2008 through the then-unknown Carolina De Robertis and indie press Melville House Publishing. The opening paragraph (below in the new McDowell translation) tells us everything we need to know about the story and is quintessential Zambra:</span></span><span class="gmail-eop"><span style="color: #202122;"> </span></span><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 9pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-paragraph" style="font-kerning: none; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 9pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-paragraph" style="font-kerning: none; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="gmail-normaltextrun"><span style="color: #202122;">In the end she dies and he is alone, although really he had been alone for some years before her death, before Emilia’s death. Let’s say her name is or was Emilia and that his name is, was, and will be Julio. Julio and Emilia. In the end Emilia dies and Julio
does not. The rest is literature[.]</span></span><span class="gmail-eop"><span style="color: #202122;"> </span></span><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 9pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-paragraph" style="font-kerning: none; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 9pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-paragraph" style="font-kerning: none; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="gmail-normaltextrun"><span style="color: #202122;">I say this is quintessential Zambra because it has so many of his hallmarks. It is about a hetero relationship. It is willing to upend convention in the opening sentence, informing us Emilia dies in the end. It is also smug and self-aggrandizing, telling us that what follows – his first novel! </span></span><span class="gmail-textrun"><span style="color: #202122; font-size: 10.5pt;">–</span></span><span class="gmail-normaltextrun"><span style="color: #202122;"> is literature.</span></span><span class="gmail-eop"><span style="color: #202122;"> </span></span><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 9pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-paragraph" style="font-kerning: none; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 9pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-paragraph" style="font-kerning: none; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="gmail-normaltextrun"><span style="color: #202122;">If what follows is literature, then it’s a rather bourgeois type of literature and not at all the kind I like to read. Emilia and Julio are, at the start, young lovers who are very much in love with each other, themselves, and books. Marcel Proust is name-dropped in the first chapter, and before we reach the end of the second chapter, we’ve also been treated to </span>Rubén Darío, Marcel Schwob, Yukio Mishima, Georges Perec, Juan Carlos Onetti, Raymond Carver, Ted Hughes, Tomas Tranströmer, Armando
Uribe, Kurt Folch, Friedrich Nietzsche, Emil Cioran, Jorge Luis Borges, Adolfo Bioy Casares, Silvina Ocampo, and Macedonio <span style="color: #202122;">Fernández. I stopped keeping track after page 27.</span></span><span class="gmail-eop"><span style="color: #202122;"> </span></span><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 9pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-paragraph" style="font-kerning: none; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 9pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-paragraph" style="font-kerning: none; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="gmail-normaltextrun">There’s more to <i>Bonsai</i> than a litany of writers, of course. We also learn the ins and outs of the sex lives of our teenage protagonists, a subject I found more than a bit banal. I’d like to think it picks up from there, and in a way it does. On page 65 we get a drawing of a bonsai tree.</span><span class="gmail-eop"> </span><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 9pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-paragraph" style="font-kerning: none; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 9pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-paragraph" style="font-kerning: none; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="gmail-normaltextrun"><span style="color: #202122;">De Robertis was an interesting choice to bring <i>Bonsai</i> into English in 2008. These days she is a celebrated author in her own right, but in 2008 she had yet to publish her first novel. I see from her wikipedia page that she has translated a handful of works since <i>Bonsai</i>, but I suspect it may have been the first long-form work of fiction that she translated.</span></span><span class="gmail-eop"><span style="color: #202122;"> </span></span><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 9pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-paragraph" style="font-kerning: none; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 9pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="gmail-paragraph" style="font-kerning: none; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="color: #202122;">The rest of Zambra’s novels – <i>The Private Life of Trees</i>, </span><span style="color: #202122;"><i>Ways of Going Home</i>, <i>Multiple Choice</i>, and <i>Chilean Poet</i> – have been translated by </span><span style="color: #202122;">Megan McDowell. McDowell, in contrast to De Robertis, is a highly sought after </span><span style="color: #202122;">career translator, an American who lives in Chile. McDowell has not only </span><span style="color: #202122;">translated the bulk of Zambra’s output, she has also translated most of Samanta </span><span class="gmail-normaltextrun"><span style="color: #202122;">Schweblin’s work and plenty of other contemporary South American writers.</span></span><span class="gmail-eop"><span style="color: #202122;"> </span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-paragraph" style="font-kerning: none; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 9pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-paragraph" style="font-kerning: none; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="gmail-normaltextrun"><span style="color: #202122;">The version of <i>Bonsai</i> I have from Fitzcarraldo is a new translation courtesy of McDowell. It’s a bit odd to see two competing English translations to a work of contemporary fiction, as the De Robertis remains very much in print. I suppose McDowell wants to be a Zambra completist, which isn’t what I’d choose to do with my life, but hardly the worst thing I suppose.</span></span><span class="gmail-eop"><span style="color: #202122;"> </span></span><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 9pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-paragraph" style="font-kerning: none; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 9pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-paragraph" style="font-kerning: none; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="gmail-normaltextrun"><span style="color: #202122;">Snarkiness aside, the McDowell translation is a winner. Critic Paul Fulcher has compared the translations of one of the more challenging paragraphs, which yields startlingly different results.</span></span><span class="gmail-eop"><span style="color: #202122;"> </span></span><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 9pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-paragraph" style="font-kerning: none; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 9pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-paragraph" style="font-kerning: none; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="gmail-textrun"><span style="color: #202122;">The original passage:</span></span><span class="gmail-eop"><span style="color: #202122;"> </span></span><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 9pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-paragraph" style="font-kerning: none; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 9pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-paragraph" style="font-kerning: none; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="gmail-normaltextrun"><i><span style="color: #181818;">Poco antes de enredarse con Julio, Emilia había decidido que en adelante follaría, como los españoles, ya no haría el amor con nadie, ya no tiraría o se metería con alguien, ni mucho menos culearía o culiaría. Este es un problema chileno, dijo Emilia, entonces, a Julio, con una soltura que solo le nada en la oscuridad, y en voz muy baja, desde luego: Este es un problema de los chilenos jóvenes, somos demasiado jóvenes para hacer el amor, y en Chile si no haces el amor solo puedes culear o culiar, pero a mí no me gustaría culiar o culear contigo, preferiría que folláramos, como en España.</span></i></span><span class="gmail-eop"><span style="color: #181818;"> </span></span><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 9pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-paragraph" style="font-kerning: none; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 9pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-paragraph" style="font-kerning: none; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="gmail-textrun"><span style="color: #181818;">DeRobertis:</span></span><span class="gmail-eop"><span style="color: #181818;"> </span></span><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 9pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-paragraph" style="font-kerning: none; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 9pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-paragraph" style="font-kerning: none; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="gmail-normaltextrun"><i><span style="color: #181818;">Shortly before getting involved with Julio, Emilia had decided that from now on she would follar, as the Spanish do, she would no longer make love with anyone, she would not screw or bone anybody, and much less would she fuck. This is a Chilean problem, Emilia said, then, to Julio, with an ease that only came to her in the darkness, and in a very low voice, of course: This is a problem for Chilean youth, we're too young to make love, and in Chile if you don't make love you can only fuck, but it would be disagreeable to fuck you, I'd prefer it if we shagged, si follaramos, as they do in Spain.</span></i></span><span class="gmail-eop"><span style="color: #181818;"> </span></span><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 9pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-paragraph" style="font-kerning: none; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 9pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-paragraph" style="font-kerning: none; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="gmail-textrun"><span style="color: #181818;">McDowell:</span></span><span class="gmail-eop"><span style="color: #181818;"> </span></span><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 9pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-paragraph" style="font-kerning: none; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 9pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-paragraph" style="font-kerning: none; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="gmail-normaltextrun"><i><span style="color: #181818;">Not long before she got mixed up with Julio, Emilia had decided that from then on she was going to fuck </span></i></span><span class="gmail-textrun"><i><span style="color: #181818; font-size: 10.5pt;">—</span></i></span><span class="gmail-normaltextrun"><i><span style="color: #181818;"> what the Spanish call 'foliar' — and she would no longer make love with anyone or hook up with anyone, much less would she screw, or 'culiar', as a Chilean would say. This is a Chilean problem, Emilia said to Julio, with a boldness she only displayed in the dark — though in a very low voice, of course: This is the problem with young Chileans. We're too young to make love, and in Chile, if you don't make love you can only culiar, but I don't want to screw you, I'd rather follar, I'd rather fuck you like they do in Spain.</span></i></span><span class="gmail-eop"><span style="color: #181818;"> </span></span><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 9pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-paragraph" style="font-kerning: none; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0.5in; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 9pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-paragraph" style="font-kerning: none; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0.5in 0in 0in; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="gmail-normaltextrun"><span style="color: #181818;">To my ear, I like the McDowell translation because it captures the cadence and tone of the original. It also makes the most sense of the competing words for “fuck.” It’s interesting that both translators choose to leave one or two words untranslated, perhaps a nod to multilingual readers who can be trusted to form their own conclusions about the passage.</span></span><span class="gmail-eop"><span style="color: #181818;"> </span></span><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 9pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-paragraph" style="font-kerning: none; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0.5in 0in 0in; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 9pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="gmail-paragraph" style="font-kerning: none; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: .5in; margin-top: 0in; margin: 0in 0.5in 0in 0in; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span class="gmail-normaltextrun"><span style="color: #181818;">All this is interesting enough and these nuances held my attention for 74 pages. I can’t say that I’m a Zambra fan now. In fact, the experience of reading <i>Bonsai</i> irretrievably cemented my dislike of his output. Part of me hopes that his effort to go mainstream with <i>Chilean Poet</i> is a flop and he returns to the style of his earlier, more innovative work. But in a world where I have many other books I want to read, I probably won’t read any more Zambra so it really doesn’t matter to me what he does next.</span></span><span class="gmail-eop"><span style="color: #181818;"> </span></span><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="font-size: 9pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>JKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16199023801433187878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3851264164198134050.post-16648073397997455512022-10-15T11:18:00.005-04:002022-10-24T15:41:41.839-04:00Chicago Cubs 2022 Year in ReviewThere is very little for me to say about the Cubs this year. This is because I basically stopped paying attention sometime in July, and really June. I only went to one game this year - June 4th versus the Cardinals - and by that point I had already been thinking that the season was over, unless they swept the series and showed signs of turning it around. They didn't, so really you could say I just paid attention in April and May. <div><br /></div><div>Because of this I'm not sure it's prudent to give out a report card. But I can say, for the franchise, overall, this year gets a C-</div><div><br /></div><div>C- because they brought on Marcus Stroman and Seiya Suzuki. And because there were apparently bright spots after I stopped paying attention. </div><div><br /></div><div>Mainly this seems to have come in the pitching. While he had something of a rocky start, Stroman ultimately performed as expected, leading the team in innings pitched, and turning in a solid season. Keegan Thompson and Justin Steele emerged as two reliable pitchers that are entering their prime. </div><div><br /></div><div>I don't really know what happened with Kyle Hendricks. It seems he must have gotten injured. It was unfortunately his worst season with the Cubs, I think most can agree. We all have to hope that the old Kyle will return in 2023. </div><div><br /></div><div>If he does, they've got a solid rotation. So that's a big piece of the puzzle. They had a great closer in David Robertson, and he did what he could and showcased his wares before being traded to a better team that is actually willing to spend money (the Phillies). Actually, tonight he will be playing against the Cardinals in the wild-card game. [Ed: And as of the date of this post, they could advance to the NLCS today with a win over the Braves---by the way, has the NLDS always been a best of 5? Because I thought it was best of 7...]</div><div><br /></div><div>The main story with the players was Willson Contreras, who along with Kyle Hendricks represented the last of the 2016 squad (and Jason Heyward, too). Maybe Hendricks was injured, I'm not sure. Heyward was released, and it seems as though he will not play for the Cubs in the last year of his contract and so does that mean he gets paid for not playing? He did what he could and he will be remembered for his contributions. I don't think it played out the way most people were hoping it would. Contrast that signing with Jon Lester's, and you have one of the best transactions and one of the worst transactions right around the same time. But Willson came up through the Cubs farm system and proved himself to be one of the team's greatest stars. I can't speculate about what is going to happen with him. I would not be surprised if he is playing for another team next year. I hope the Cubs decide to keep him for the remainder of his career but I don't really see it happening. </div><div><br /></div><div>Nico Hoerner pretty much showed up this year and lived up to the pseudo-hype. Ian Happ played reasonably well. Frank Schwindel did not, unfortunately, and I think he was released. </div><div><br /></div><div>Christopher Morel was amazing, I remember paying attention to him, and I think he ended up playing O.K. except his batting average dropped. Suzuki was extremely exciting at the beginning of the season too, but he was injured for a bit, and ended with merely decent stats.</div><div><br /></div><div>The general consensus seems to be that the Cubs hit some kind of stride, almost like a mini-Atlanta Braves of 2021. After the All-Star break, they went through a certain period where they played better than any other team in the MLB. For like two or three weeks, I think. So that was something. </div><div><br /></div><div>***</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOZdI0qQ4PxCeCdQ9faNNqqDV7Fe6Nsgt6CnZOUUQ4sbDza7OMtn1B9yQscXYfNEiRaSFGvLWLDaMQSVySncIEbnaTA91A0gjKZ-tnx760sd-BE0rVHL5jPfRUn-rNU78Zq5GBDMFtcuTdkrw6fWHDd5Sctt36I7As4Uh0yeH1seUP0PYPOLH52i788A/s900/WILSO.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="485" data-original-width="900" height="172" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOZdI0qQ4PxCeCdQ9faNNqqDV7Fe6Nsgt6CnZOUUQ4sbDza7OMtn1B9yQscXYfNEiRaSFGvLWLDaMQSVySncIEbnaTA91A0gjKZ-tnx760sd-BE0rVHL5jPfRUn-rNU78Zq5GBDMFtcuTdkrw6fWHDd5Sctt36I7As4Uh0yeH1seUP0PYPOLH52i788A/s320/WILSO.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div>Jed Hoyer delivered a press conference on Monday, 10/9/22. He confirmed that they would make a qualifying offer to Willson Contreras. The general feeling is that it will be a lowball offer and will be rejected. I can't profess to know enough about the team to guess what they will do at the catcher position, but Yan Gomes was a reliable back-up option this year. I do know Miguel Amaya has been hyped, for years, and also beset by injuries. In short, if we lose Willson, it will be difficult to replace him. Frankly, he is irreplaceable. </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0z94mpV99nr1vU2T6i977uQ_ecP1vk-foS7NQGQQezTcixKFS2HSn81EiFbmxFo6FTyz350GPZdsW7cqR3QdZOt8xhhQbNBE0wziwtUF2ExwdAS9B9ejWZj8kcgh7K-JiBcfkaltj_At66lhbfvahGXoeIw6I4v814AIP9Xiqr6WZj--2WDOQujJ6rA/s1600/0926-hendricks.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0z94mpV99nr1vU2T6i977uQ_ecP1vk-foS7NQGQQezTcixKFS2HSn81EiFbmxFo6FTyz350GPZdsW7cqR3QdZOt8xhhQbNBE0wziwtUF2ExwdAS9B9ejWZj8kcgh7K-JiBcfkaltj_At66lhbfvahGXoeIw6I4v814AIP9Xiqr6WZj--2WDOQujJ6rA/s320/0926-hendricks.png" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div>Since we mentioned Gomes, and he is in this picture, it is appropriate. But we really need to talk about Kyle.</div><div><br /></div><div>Now anyone that has read these updates going back to <a href="http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2015/11/special-comment-chicago-cubs-2015.html" target="_blank">2015</a> or <a href="http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2014/10/special-comment-chicago-cubs-2014.html" target="_blank">2014</a> knows that Kyle Hendricks has always been one of my favorite players on the team. He has been <i>solid</i>. For <i>years</i>. In 2016, do you remember, Arrieta, Lester and Hendricks? Hendricks finished ahead of Lester for the Cy Young, and led the MLB in ERA. No one really knew about him back then, and still, after everything, he never has made the All-Star team. This is just Kyle's way. He starts slow. In April and May, he starts slow, he is imperfect. But he rights the ship, and he finishes the year putting up numbers consistent with his role as the Ace on the team.</div><div><br /></div><div>Of course, when we had Yu Darvish, he took something of a backseat, but I believe he was still #1 in the rotation. Now that we have Marcus Stroman, he is in a similar position, and unfortunately, after his performance not only this year, but also last year, I would be surprised if he is the Opening Day starter and not Stroman. </div><div><br /></div><div>Kyle signed an extension a few years ago that kept him locked up until 2023, so he will be with the team next year (though at the present moment, he has not thrown a baseball for a while, as he has been injured). Nobody considered this a bad idea, and I still don't. Kyle is still pretty young, and in his prime years. Pitchers can still be amazing as they age. Adam Wainwright was still very effective this year, and nobody can claim that Justin Verlander has lost a step. (Relatedly, nobody considered the failure to get Verlander when they had the opportunity a good idea.) </div><div><br /></div><div>The Cubs literally could have done almost anything in 2017 and 2018 and 2019 to be big-time competitors. Yu Darvish was a big move, but beyond that, they didn't want to mess with their core, not until 2021. 2020 was a very strange season, but we did finish in 1st place. They were still good in 2021 up until the end of May. </div><div><br /></div><div>This year? We sucked, so bad, until they had already given up on the season, and it became a "futures showcase," and then they played surprisingly well, for a time. Ironically, they beat the Phillies every single time this season, and now the Phillies are a Cinderella story (and make no mistake that I am rooting for them, with Schwarber and Castellanos together in their outfield <i>as they should still be on the Cubs</i>).</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgu5m03k26zo8TNDf8tlz3j1IYG_DQyWqw1XJ7em9WwlniIqucMk5G24qqCbZ21Ht3lCL76O1zQhRLitQSOwU1Kua9w4SJvpH6WAoAs05XP4eebYtwrMmNwkFxfdQ-_ic7gyWXhYJE1xFsmi-9hRgqV2rCJmKSQbDkcS1-PrxTieuR1c16ytY09Pow5NA/s1200/nicoh.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="1200" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgu5m03k26zo8TNDf8tlz3j1IYG_DQyWqw1XJ7em9WwlniIqucMk5G24qqCbZ21Ht3lCL76O1zQhRLitQSOwU1Kua9w4SJvpH6WAoAs05XP4eebYtwrMmNwkFxfdQ-_ic7gyWXhYJE1xFsmi-9hRgqV2rCJmKSQbDkcS1-PrxTieuR1c16ytY09Pow5NA/s320/nicoh.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div>Nico Hoerner emerged. He has been emerging for years. He has gone back and forth as being a bust and as living up to his potential. It seems clear, after 2022, that he has lived up to his potential and "figured it out," for lack of a better phrase. He led the team in batting average. He actually hit for a higher average in 2021 (over .300), but he played in 3 times as many games this year, and finished at .281. </div><div><br /></div><div>Now, this shows a problem with the team: your best hitter should be hitting better than .281. Regardless, Nico is that guy. Disciplined at the plate, an above-average fielder, and versatile as either a shortstop or second baseman, Nico is likely to play a significant role on the 2023 team, as a borderline everyday starting player (135 games this year, and he also got 135 hits).</div><div><br /></div><div>This is complicated by the recent revelation of Carlos Correa leaving the Twins and opting out of his contract there. Correa has explicitly spoken about his desire to play with the Cubs. Correa is frequently cited as the biggest star free agent available. If the Cubs go after Correa, they will send the signal that they are very serious. </div><div><br /></div><div>If the Cubs signed Correa this off-season, it would be like signing Jon Lester in 2015. We do not expect to necessarily get anywhere in 2023, but we could very easily make a surprise run to the NLCS, if the pieces fell into place in the way they did in 2015 (unlikely, however, that you will have someone like Arrieta step up and go on one of the most torrid stretches for any pitcher in baseball history--that <i>was </i>2015, right?). </div><div><br /></div><div>However, if the Cubs are truly going to compete, they need more than just Correa. They need another pitcher, too. </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDoTCfoCjPhoxf5CXE_ZvcB8-g-lPeQp6mVRrHFPIWIt4nGyk_F39JgTtrlvIPkB3CUhl8rd-EHwLupSP1zhnr_O3K0a6-B1Y9TPO5L_omDaev62g0VnXHiuvsXTf9IRypmGwOvyieK1Yqxaz5HGElJaxA_tvL7a7wQ1VoNmnvUKhmml00mO31FSd05w/s1040/stroman-cubs-1040x572.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="572" data-original-width="1040" height="176" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDoTCfoCjPhoxf5CXE_ZvcB8-g-lPeQp6mVRrHFPIWIt4nGyk_F39JgTtrlvIPkB3CUhl8rd-EHwLupSP1zhnr_O3K0a6-B1Y9TPO5L_omDaev62g0VnXHiuvsXTf9IRypmGwOvyieK1Yqxaz5HGElJaxA_tvL7a7wQ1VoNmnvUKhmml00mO31FSd05w/s320/stroman-cubs-1040x572.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div>We did get this guy. Is Stroman comparable to Jon Lester? Way too early to say. You can't quite put them in the same category, as Lester is a borderline Hall of Famer, and beginning to be recognized as the greatest free agent signing in franchise history. But Stroman has been very good, and while he did not have a great supporting cast, his numbers at the end of the year are satisfactory, given the ostensibly weak run support. With Stroman and Hendricks, you have two of the great "ground ball pitchers" of today, and they are solid, solid rotation guys (presuming that Hendricks has not gone off a cliff for good---and knowing Kyle, that will not be the case). You do need to round out that rotation, and Justin Steele is likely going to be part of that rotation. For the last two slots, that remains to be seen. Drew Smyly was probably above-average for this team, and Keegan Thompson has shown flashes of greatness, though it remains to be seen if he is more valuable as a reliever or a starter. You could just go with Stroman/Hendricks/Steele/Smyly/Thompson or Adrian Sampson or Alzolay (again), but I think you need <i>at least </i>one star pitcher to add to that rotation. This post isn't going to lay out all the best options for the team, but is Verlander available? Because I would totally go for him again if he is, even in the twilight of his 30's. Given that he may win the Cy Young this year, I seriously doubt he will be going anywhere. </div><div><br /></div><div>In terms of relievers, however, I will always support Jeremy Jeffress, and highly suggest the Cubs take another chance on him. Just invite him to Spring Training! That is all I ask.</div><div><br /></div><div> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUNxxSX22bKza0uMHu-3mhZZpQGM1S3lZCcGLFGfatCxRMfhC8XfCiHBL1QN51sVn6PmU0ThfVxA59VE_LPX7RTmFBEwcKeXR7qfi_Gkqx3931MvOp1LbIXSCbMJNw3LotZMganaqNgCXREoINPmvpIivsl5Rq6DWVx6dh3iOJ0_OM2JCcmxHA48wRgg/s1486/seiya.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1062" data-original-width="1486" height="229" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUNxxSX22bKza0uMHu-3mhZZpQGM1S3lZCcGLFGfatCxRMfhC8XfCiHBL1QN51sVn6PmU0ThfVxA59VE_LPX7RTmFBEwcKeXR7qfi_Gkqx3931MvOp1LbIXSCbMJNw3LotZMganaqNgCXREoINPmvpIivsl5Rq6DWVx6dh3iOJ0_OM2JCcmxHA48wRgg/s320/seiya.jpg" width="320" /></a></div> </div><div>We really need another hitter, though. We did get this guy, and in the first couple weeks of the season, he was totally on fire and basically looked good in every single one of his plate appearances. No one could be expected to remain that consistent throughout the entire season, and injuries compromised Suzuki's overall performance. Regardless, I do not think anyone considers this a bad move. They did not get Shohei Ohtani (though they possibly could have, it is best not to cry over spilt milk) but they got Suzuki, and you have to figure that he will be an everyday starting player. He would have shared time with Jason Heyward, but Heyward will not be playing for the Cubs in 2023. No one considers that a good move, but we all still will always be appreciative of the contributions Jason made to the enterprise. Sometimes you have players that don't do much in terms of numbers, but play an indispensable role on the team. </div><div><br /></div><div>(Recall, for example, Jack Haley on the Chicago Bulls rosters with Dennis Rodman. Haley did not really play--he might have played a few minutes each season--but he was Dennis Rodman's friend, and Dennis Rodman played better knowing Jack Haley was on the bench. So sometimes players that make no statistical impact actually make a huge impact behind the scenes.)</div><div><br /></div><div>So we have talked about the rotation, for which we need at least 1 high-quality starter, possibly 2. </div><div><br /></div><div>In the field, it plays out like this:</div><div><br /></div><div>C- Willson/Yan Gomes (for now--and I do not think anyone would complain if it stays this way.)<br /></div><div>1B - ? </div><div>2B - ?<br />SS - Nico Hoerner</div><div>3B - Patrick Wisdom</div><div>RF - Seiya Suzuki</div><div>CF - Christopher Morel</div><div>LF - Ian Happ</div><div><br /></div><div>You see I don't really know enough about the team. David Bote is able to play some of those positions. But I think you need another outfielder, too. You already know who I think would have been great (they are both on the Phillies). There must be a fair number of players out there that would be serviceable in these roles. But, let's say they get Correa. If they get him, I think they still need another star hitter. </div><div><br /></div><div>DH is now part of the NL. I keep forgetting that. Also, next year, every single team will play every single other team, which most people think is cool, so far as I have heard. </div><div><br /></div><div>I would take a flyer on Nelson Cruz. He did not do well on the Nationals this year, and his career may finally have reached its endpoint, but I would at the very least, give him a shot at Spring Training. He would be very low-cost, and could potentially stage a comeback and add more power coming off the bench. </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj51aI1rYejpRCx__ENa_0A5BzxrxY6IVzJaU_4hYmX9kstggdotOBGT9_souClFhmH6NfLBO1hRHVV59TrpKoq8XXu3rYNc7i9vfEtqNHYuwqe8QcGQzJ64rlVhytotULzRbq-2xAmJfgSRk1JWHa7SQJEqQKzCTEj5L4Ti9oIigcCaHn1-RwgCD15Tw/s1000/christopher-morel-cubs-1000x600.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="1000" height="192" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj51aI1rYejpRCx__ENa_0A5BzxrxY6IVzJaU_4hYmX9kstggdotOBGT9_souClFhmH6NfLBO1hRHVV59TrpKoq8XXu3rYNc7i9vfEtqNHYuwqe8QcGQzJ64rlVhytotULzRbq-2xAmJfgSRk1JWHa7SQJEqQKzCTEj5L4Ti9oIigcCaHn1-RwgCD15Tw/s320/christopher-morel-cubs-1000x600.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div>The best part of the year was when Christopher Morel made his debut. He reached safely in the first 14 games of his MLB career, which was a record for the franchise. The Cubs were always looking for a real leadoff hitter, since Dexter left us, and there were many interesting experiments (Rizzo still the greatest) but Morel-Contreras 1-2 in the lineup was brilliant. Javier Baez was gone but Christopher Morel arrived. They're not <i>quite </i>the same players but Morel's energy seemed just as infectious with his teammates. He is not, say, Juan Soto, but I think most people that watched the team last year would not object to his appearing in the opening day lineup. </div><div><br /></div><div>***</div><div><br /></div><div>There's not much more I can say other than provide a list of targets the team should pursue (apart from Jeffress and Cruz, and hoping they will make a competitive offer to Contreras):</div><div><br /></div><div>(1) Carlos Correa</div><div>(2) Justin Verlander (more realistic than De Grom) (I would trust for a 2 year contract, assuming Verlander is Brady-like, as they share a similar sleep regimen and have supermodel wives*.) </div><div>(3) Anthony Rizzo (he belongs here, and everyone knows it; same goes for KB and Javy.)</div><div>(4) Trea Turner</div><div>(5) Gary Sanchez (as backup/option when Contreras is DH)</div><div>(6) Luis Severino</div><div>(7) Andrew Chafin + Craig Kimbrel</div><div><br /></div><div>Get those guys, and you can go for the World Series in 2023. That is a fantasy, and the team is more likely to go for younger players in the hopes of going, realistically and sustainably, in 2024 until say, 2027. Whether it comes off remains to be seen. I'll certainly pay attention come April, and we can all hope that Summer 2023 will be more fun than Summer 2022. </div><div><br /></div><div>*I've been informed that Gisele and Tom Brady are getting divorced. I'm sorry for their struggles, and boldly predict that Tom Brady's best days are, now, actually, behind him. I do not think anyone properly weights the value of a strong and supportive spouse. </div>JKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16199023801433187878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3851264164198134050.post-85276739531992288482022-07-16T12:39:00.000-04:002022-07-16T12:39:59.072-04:00A Little Life - Hanya Yanagihara (2015)<a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/melodrama" target="_blank">melodrama</a><br />NOUN<br />a sensational dramatic piece with exaggerated characters and exciting events intended to appeal to the emotions. <div>see also, <i>A Little Life</i>. <div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhE1wko5w30PrnV7FYdO3XgIvau6n0GQuTBSWNFHmmf3aCO5hBVsV2a63xFUwDvi8SOUVq0whvU_gNLVWqEO5HFqYKqk7MK0ZVpbaipL0CdsJ76DZ5gly0VOqTe__mIiap9EqONk8wTMHJo9yAstRkGuWoX4pv6IXYjridbBQkXIUDSsuIePracgXQ1NQ/s333/A_Little_LIfe.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="333" data-original-width="220" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhE1wko5w30PrnV7FYdO3XgIvau6n0GQuTBSWNFHmmf3aCO5hBVsV2a63xFUwDvi8SOUVq0whvU_gNLVWqEO5HFqYKqk7MK0ZVpbaipL0CdsJ76DZ5gly0VOqTe__mIiap9EqONk8wTMHJo9yAstRkGuWoX4pv6IXYjridbBQkXIUDSsuIePracgXQ1NQ/s320/A_Little_LIfe.jpg" width="211" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div>I met someone who had recently finished her Ph.D. in English and I asked if she had read this. I told her I was going to write a positive review, but tear it apart, because there was so much in it that annoyed me. I told her it was a melodrama. She said she eventually found it funny, because she began to look at it as an experimental novel, in which the author was doing everything she possibly could to pile it on and write the most depressing book of all time. But she also liked it.</div><div><br /></div><div>Oeuvre rule: I haven't read anything else by Yanagihara. This book references <i>The People in the Trees </i>prominently on its front cover, but she has a new novel out, <i>To Paradise</i>, published this year. She also edited anthologies of stories about roommates, bridesmaids, and first jobs.</div><div><br /></div><div>"Why I read it rule": I first became aware of this book when my younger sister received it from Santa Claus on Christmas morning, either 2015 or 2016. We did not discuss it in any detail. Later, I saw a friend on Facebook reference it in a re-post of something off Tumblr, to make some other joke about depression (i.e. self-deprecating). Then finally, two friends recommended it during a discussion about soliciting reviews from other contributors for Flying Houses. I promised to read <i>A Little Life </i>if they promised to contribute a review. So now it is their turn. </div><div><br /></div><div>The plot? Well, this is going to be one of those reviews with an asterisked section for spoilers. And the part above the asterisks will be short. </div><div><br /></div><div>The novel concerns four friends and their evolving friendship over the course of five decades. These are Jude, Willem, Malcolm, and J.B. Except it's not really about the four of them. It's about the four of them for about the first 100 pages. (I'll set the spoiler cut-off point around page 400). </div><div><br /></div><div>There are not very many chapters or even sub-chapters or page breaks in this book, and for 720 pages, it's pretty easy to describe. </div><div><br /></div><div>Except the first 100 pages are more interesting, because it charts how the novel could have gone in a different direction. That is, it begins as a dovetailing narrative, with sections from the perspective of each of the four characters. They go through this cycle once or twice, and then focus almost exclusively two of the characters, along with other ancillary characters at random points. </div><div><br /></div><div>We know a fair amount about J.B. and Malcolm, but not nearly as much as we do about Willem and Jude. And while it seemed at first the novel would be equally split between the four of them, it then effectively does away with J.B. and Malcolm and relegates them to supporting cast. This may be because they are not as interesting, but by the end of this novel, you will wish that there had been more "breathers" of chapter/section breaks returning to J.B. or Malcolm. It does this once, memorably, when J.B. is in an abusive drug-fueled relationship and suffers a breakdown, and then makes fun of Jude in a grotesque way from a hospital bed. </div><div><br /></div><div>Jude does not ever want to forgive J.B. for doing this, and Willem certainly never would forgive him, either. I forgot how Malcolm felt about it, maybe he recognized that J.B. wasn't in the best state of mind and immediately deeply regretted what he had said and apologized, so it was OK to stay friends with him. Anyway, it is at this point where the group of four breaks off into a group of three, and really, a group of two. It was also at this point that I thought the novel became too sensitive for its own good. (Or perhaps that became clear in pages 200-300, when we hear so much about how so many people care so much about Jude and all of their inspirational speeches on the subject.)</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Now I did not know anything about this book, really, going into it. Just the basic idea and that a few people recommended it. Around the time I reached the chapter "The Axiom of Equality," I met with one of the three friends that recommended it, and asked if it got any better from that point. She said it did not. </div><div><br /></div><div>Question: what does "better" mean in the context of this novel? More entertaining? Less extreme? (The extremity is purposeful, that much is clear.) A nice story about nice characters? Well, yes, and the chapter of "The Happy Years" is effectively that (but not really). At a certain point for a certain sort of novel, how quickly you finish it in a relatively satisfied state becomes the criterion by which "better" is measured. It's already an engaging book, it's something of a page-turner, but then again, it really is just a parade of horribles. You will want to be finished with this book by the time it ends, I think. </div><div><br /></div><div>J.B. is black and an artist who takes photographs and makes paintings out of them, among other mediums. Malcolm is black (half-black? I forget because there's barely anything about him in here comparatively) and his family is rich and he will never need to worry about money but he wants to be an architect and he builds little models of houses for his friends. Both of them have families in or around New York City, and so they are able to stay there to avoid paying the ridiculous rent. J.B.'s family is not as rich as Malcolm's, but they are not living in poverty. </div><div><br /></div><div>The other two characters are white (basically). One of them seems relatively empty-headed and is ridiculously good looking and is a struggling actor for a while but eventually starts seeing his star rise. The other one is disabled, but not really, just maimed and utterly traumatized/broken, enters college early, goes to law school, (does he get a PhD in Math, too?), excels at everything, and has a great gig at the U.S. Attorney's Office after doing a clerkship (I think). </div><div><div><br /></div><div>These are Willem and Jude and 90% of the novel is probably devoted to them. But the four of them are super close and love each other. They meet in college at a school in Massachusetts, which I eventually began to code as Harvard. I'm pretty sure Willem goes to Yale with J.B. for graduate school, too. Pretty sure Jude stays and goes to Harvard Law School. And yet they are struggling at the beginning of the novel, comparatively, in their mid-20's. Jude will always be struggling despite his professional achievements. But none of the other three have especially achieved anything at that point.</div><div><br /></div><div>And so, the novel at this point (maybe page 200) has an amusing quality about it with occasional flashes of intrigue. It could have kept going like this and potentially done something much more interesting. I mean, you still could have made it all about Willem and Jude (and really, let's be honest, if 90% of the novel is about the two of them, 85% of the novel is about Jude, and it seems clear from the beginning that he is the real protagonist). But you could have kept the dovetailing narratives going, you could even make them shorter. You wouldn't even have to be super consistent; you could just do it a few times to break up the relative monotony that the novel then becomes. </div><div><br /></div><div>Willem had a younger brother that was disabled and eventually died at a very young age and he has a very icy relationship with his parents perhaps due in part to their extreme religious views, so we know that he has a certain instinct to want to take care of someone. He is basically perfect. He never does anything wrong. Never. Maybe he cheats on a girlfriend, I forget, but I don't think so. This is another "extreme" quality of the book. Yanagihara may be making some sort of statement with the book, the extremity of it lends it an air unreality, turning it almost into satire or parody, and this has to be intentional. </div><div><br /></div><div>Because we wouldn't really want to get into the complexity of Willem's feelings. It is easier to have him be simple-minded. We certainly get the full panoply and range of Jude's emotions and thoughts. And in fact, these three people that recommended the book to me, I am not sure, perhaps they did not know at all that I once wrote a [second] novel [not available as a link on this blog] about self-harm, self-mutilation, and you know what, the parallels are a little unsettling, but I also could not write about self-harm quite like Yanagihara does here. Say you what you will about this novel but her description of the various bloody scenes of cutting as well as the mentality that drives one towards that kind of compulsive behavior is expert. </div><div><br /></div><div>Technically, this is a very good novel. However, one sees several ways it could have been much better. And yet, taking it to full fruition may have taken several hundred more pages. And so it ends in a place that feels a bit premature, still, but as noted earlier, not too soon.</div><div><br /></div><div>***SPOILERS BELOW****</div><div><br /></div><div>I recently read a piece from <i><a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/01/17/hanya-yanagiharas-audience-of-one" target="_blank">The New Yorker</a> </i>that seemed to confirm a lot of my impressions about this novel, and also give me new ways of thinking about it. That being said, I tend to side with Daniel Mendelsohn's interpretation rather than Garth Greenwell's. This is not the Great Gay American Novel. No, there are a few of them, probably, and the newest one is <i><a href="http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2019/07/short-form-lets-play-two-perfect-sound.html" target="_blank">The Great Believers</a> </i>(even though it's "basic" because its narrative is framed around the AIDS crisis). I am not here to tell you how gay people are, or that they are all different, and Yanagihara is not trying to write a realistic novel, but the temporal aspect of the novel confused me.</div><div><br /></div><div>It seems to take place in no time or space. There are no references to the world as we know it. Nothing about 9/11 in NYC. All of the movies that Willem does and all of the other artists he meets do not reference any works that influenced them or previous actors. Everything is coated in a vague patina. I get this. This is intentional. This is a novel about interior lives. </div><div><br /></div><div>And also, sometimes you do not want to say the thing explicitly so the reader can sense for themselves what you meant, or they can do the research and figure it out and have the easter egg "solved" on their own. Because sometimes if you just say what the thing is explictly, it minimizes it, it makes it more quotidian and less meaningful. To pin something down is to complete the analysis and define it, negating any further mystery or meaning to be harvested from the expression.</div><div><br /></div><div>Then again maybe it's not fair for me to say that people who had cell phones and texted during college would not have any sort of sexual identity crisis because social mores dictated relatively widespread acceptance of same-sex desire in the same era (even though this novel isn't realistic, it has to take place at least partly in the future). Then again none of these characters has a sexual identity crisis (except Malcolm, the only "straight" friend in the group, who briefly thinks he might be bi). Greenwell thought it was the great gay novel because of the very reason noted at the top of this review: it is a melodrama <i>par excellence</i>, which is a classic queer expression. Mendelsohn felt it was regressive because it showed that gay people deserved to be punished for having good lives (yes, <i>The Great Believers </i>could be seen as regressive for a similar reason--or at least mining the tense relationship between sex and death in that community--but that book was kinder to its characters, and realistic). I don't agree with either of them. I just think it's the straightest gay novel there is, or the gayest straight novel there is. And really, I don't think it needs to be viewed through this lens at all.</div><div><br /></div><div>Would I have identified with the novel as much as a woman? I think I would. Even though it is tied to rather specific forms of abuse and trauma, they cut across all genders, identities and orientations. There is no tension about "coming out," except briefly after Willem and Jude become an item, and he has to come to terms with being known as a "gay actor" and fears of being pigeonholed. Over the first 100 or 200 pages, I felt there was something "off" about the way male friendship was depicted. These four friends are obsessed with one another and don't seem to have much interest in hooking up or dating anyone. I could say I had a few friendships like this in high school or college, but I don't think any of us wouldn't have balked at spending like, 100% of our time together. But the novel isn't meant to be realistic. This group of friends is more like a family.</div><div><br /></div><div>A good example is how Willem and Jude live together in Lispenard Street. Certainly, there are situations where two people share a one-bedroom apartment, but there is usually the barrier of a living room arrangement for one of them. This does eventually become the case for them, but they seem to have no problem sleeping together in separate beds for years, there is no existential panic that they are getting older and settling into this pseudo-gay arrangement as if it is the only future they wish to have. </div><div><br /></div><div>And so, when the "big reveal" happens, it was a bit of a relief for me. Okay. They were not all too precious with one another. It made more sense. Still, it doesn't make as much sense for Willem. Casual reference is made to his sleeping with both men and women, but nothing in the entire novel up to that point had suggested that was the case. It feels a bit like the relationship is shoe-horned into the narrative.</div><div><br /></div><div>Because what is the difference between friendship and a relationship? This is one of the Big Questions that the novel is actually very good at examining (though as noted it doesn't play into these existential, time-running-out concerns--except when Harold points out that Willem is almost 30, and questions what he is waiting for). How important is sex to a relationship? Obviously, if it is sexless, an arrangement can be made, and here, it is an easy and simple arrangement that doesn't lead to any sort of jealousies. How does sex complicate a friendship? Obviously, it can lead to ambiguities as to status, conflicting views on it, and it can potentially derail that friendship and test its limits. This isn't an FWB situation between Willem and Jude. This is different. And I guess, even though I found it completely ridiculous, I accept it. It makes sense in the context of the novel. Willem needs to take care of someone, and Jude needs someone to take care of him (several people, actually). </div><div><br /></div><div>That's the main spoiler, I think. Of course, Jude's whole story is something that gets spoiled by basically anything written about this book, so I have tried to avoid that above, though I said the cutting made better sense. What happened to him is about as horrible as anything anyone could ever have possibly experienced growing up. (In that <i>New Yorker</i> article linked above, Yanagihara acknowledges that she wanted the novel to feel like a "piling on," and she certainly achieved that.) It does devolve into "torture porn," and yet how could it not, once a writer decides to go <i>there</i>. Does it say something about me if I say these were the most gripping sections of the book? They are obviously the hardest to read, but they are also the fastest to read. Maybe it's because the rest of the book feels somewhat "antiseptic," and that works, too, because Jude's entire life after age 15 is an exercise in attempted antisepsis. Anyone that has been ravaged by early childhood trauma will undoubtedly find comfort in its exhortations on the nature of memory-repression and the impossibility of wiping certain memories from the mind (though doesn't electroshock therapy accomplish that goal?). The descriptive power of these scenes is unmistakable. </div><div><br /></div><div>We have no excerpts in this review, but we will bring back the 420 Test. Spoiler alert: it fails, and page 420 happens to be one of the more disturbing pages:</div><div><br /></div><div>"The brother still talked of their being together, although now he talked of a house on the sea, somewhere in central California, and would describe the stony beaches, the noisy birds, the storm-colored water. They would be together, the two of them, like a married couple. No longer were they father and son; now they were equals. When he turned sixteen, they would get married. They would go on a honeymoon to France and Germany, where he could finally use his languages around French and Germans, and to Italy and Spain, where Brother Luke had lived for two years: once as a student, once the year after he graduated college. They would buy him a piano so he could play and sing. 'Other people won't want you if they knew how many clients you'd been with,' the Brother said. 'And they'd be silly to not want you. But I'll always want you, even if you've been with ten thousand clients.' He would retire when he was sixteen, Brother Luke said, and he had cried then, quietly, because he had been counting up the days until he was twelve, when Brother Luke had promised he could stop." (420) </div><div><br /></div><div>There's the other major spoiler, which comes around page 600, I think. That's probably the True Spoiler. And of course, it is another blatant instance of emotional manipulation. There is some unease concerning the nature of the "happy ending," because that is not always realistic. In this case, the "unhappy" ending does seem to fit into the themes of the novel, but I would not have complained <i>one bit</i> if this novel had a more conventional happy ending. You could still have the emotionally manipulative death trope, but you could also depict emotional growth. As it is, it seems to stand for the proposition that people do not change. Whether you agree that people change or that people do not change, it is depressing to think that people do not change. I prefer to think the opposite. And for all of the veritable metaphorical mountains that Jude has to scale--which he does, at an incredibly high level of success--it's a little unbelievable that he never is able to conquer his trauma, that with dozens of characters shouting at him that he is not a bad person, that he is not completely damaged goods (though only a couple know the specifics), he can never believe that for himself. I'm sorry, but eventually, after enough time, it feels incredible that one cannot forgive oneself for what was done to them, when there is zero question on the assignment of victimhood. A lot of people really love this character but by the end of the novel I just wanted to slap him and say, "snap out of it!" and did not feel much sadness at the very end.</div><div><br /></div><div>This is a complicated part of the novel, too, because it seems to permit suicide under appropriate circumstances. That makes it all feel rather hopeless. Truly, if Jude had nothing to offer the world, no money, felt horribly disfigured and suffered chronic (physical) pain, then it would be more palatable. But I simply cannot accept that he would not live on and try to do good in the world, work against some of the evils that had destroyed his early life. But this is the easier way to end the novel. It's already too long as it is. </div><div><br /></div><div>And for something as long as it is, we could do a little bit better on character development. Asian Henry Young is maybe explained once, and he becomes a lifelong friend, one of the "acquaintances" that are included in the bigger circle of friends beyond the four. So is someone named Phaedra. A couple of the other random people (Citizen, Rhodes) are co-workers of Jude's at the U.S. Attorney's Office, so they aren't as superficially defined. There are a few other friends that get included in this roll call for certain parties and gatherings and celebrations, but they add nothing to the novel whatsoever except to show that they have other friends, too.</div><div><br /></div><div>Again, as I said at the start of this review, I could tear it apart. And yet with everything I've read from Yanagihara on the reception of this book, she understands that, she anticipates that, she wants people to tear it apart. There's no question that it provides an indelible emotional experience (even the lack of "white space" in the novel is intentional--she did not want to provide the "breather" that I suggested near the beginning of this review) so we can consider her choices well-made. The book has certainly been successful enough to bear that out. Yet this "messy" quality, with so many absurd elements, feels slapdash, as if the enormity of the text itself justifies any weaknesses in it. It may be nearly as long as <i>The Magic Mountain</i>, but it does not suggest alternative dimensions: we have a sad human story here, an examination of the contours of friendship, but we have no greater statement on History or Philosophy. Perhaps we do have a statement on Art, and perhaps that should be enough. </div><div><br /></div><div>It's a page turner, and a significant accomplishment that deserves recognition. It's not the definitive Great Gay American Novel, but despite all my above-listed complaints, it belongs in the Top 10. Probably. </div><div><br /></div></div></div>JKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16199023801433187878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3851264164198134050.post-42232292998828723342022-06-14T17:47:00.005-04:002022-06-16T13:25:32.461-04:00Corporate Rock Sucks: the Rise & Fall of SST Records - Jim Ruland (2022)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiMmspk6DpoSGAiaray23U9uJdVE6UauQ8WoiGb7awiMDZgpKRaoPDnySkcsKUkVHPXesTWXlO0R-CD33hurbARCCEloJ4jZsUNx3d27OOKqCWuJo9EUKhKeRc7CdFxX5IkaGE8UpnAPM7PSOcKXIpde1PmupIw5Hoopce9Lz72F2VbvJcTqGms4ReRA/s346/corporate%20rock%20sucks.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="346" data-original-width="231" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiMmspk6DpoSGAiaray23U9uJdVE6UauQ8WoiGb7awiMDZgpKRaoPDnySkcsKUkVHPXesTWXlO0R-CD33hurbARCCEloJ4jZsUNx3d27OOKqCWuJo9EUKhKeRc7CdFxX5IkaGE8UpnAPM7PSOcKXIpde1PmupIw5Hoopce9Lz72F2VbvJcTqGms4ReRA/s320/corporate%20rock%20sucks.jpg" width="214" /></a></div><p>The place to start in this review is <i><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2018/03/our-band-could-be-your-life-scenes-from.html" target="_blank">Our Band Could Be Your Life</a>. </i>Because Ruland writes this in the Bibliography:</p><p>"<i>Our Band Could Be Your Life: Scenes from the American Indie Underground</i>, by Michael Azerrad (2001); <i>Enter Naomi: SST, LA and All That</i>, by Joe Carducci (2007); and <i>Spray Paint the Walls: The Story of Black Flag</i>, by Stevie Chick (2011) form the foundation for any serious consideration of SST Records. If this book is your introduction to SST Records and its many sagas, they are required reading." (401)</p><p>So, do I have to read the other two books now? I wouldn't necessarily mind. The experience of reading this book was affected by trying to read it at the same time as <i>A Little Life</i>. Eventually, I realized it was more efficient for the purposes of this blog to just pick one and finish it first. This one was shorter, but also more amusing. </p><p>We have to start with <i>Our Band Could Be Your Life </i>because this is, essentially, <i>Our Band Could Be Your Life, Part 2</i>. But that wouldn't be accurate--a true part 2 of that book would feature a dozen different bands. Thus, an effective "part two" would be a 25th anniversary edition of it, with a new introduction or afterword, as well as revised histories of the bands featured to capture their activities post-2001. </p><p>This is not that book, but it is close to that book. This is because about half (if not more than half) of the bands from <i>Our Band Could Be Your Life </i>are featured similarly in this one. Most prominently, this involves Black Flag and the Minutemen. Then Husker Du, to a lesser extent. And then finally Sonic Youth and Dinosaur Jr., in somewhat cursory sketches. Every other band in that book is also mentioned (not 100% clear on Mudhoney or Fugazi, but you certainly get Green River (in conjunction with Soundgarden) and Ian Mackaye/Teen Idles/Minor Threat (in conjunction with Henry Garfield and Bad Brains, who must have been one of the "outtakes" of that predecessor volume, and command more space here than Dinosaur or Sonic)). Many familiar figures, such as Roger Miller from Mission of Burma, releasing a number of solo items on SST, the Replacements as major label jumpers with Husker Du, Big Black and Steve Albini and his writings in zines, and Calvin Johnson and K Records (in conjunction with Screaming Trees), show up throughout the text. Perhaps only Butthole Surfers are left out, but they are an anomaly in any case.</p><p>This came out in 2022 and since 2001, the stories on these bands have evolved in sometimes surprising ways. Certainly, Fugazi's presence, influence and status ("on hiatus") has not changed. While Black Flag never jumped to a major label, Azerrad did not spill much ink on Greg Ginn's multitude of side and solo projects. The competing reunions of FLAG and persistence of Black Flag itself as a known quantity are briefly detailed here. There is not a great deal of material on the Minutemen/Mike Watt post-2001, and the same for Husker Du (in fact their role in this book is almost exactly the same as that earlier one). This is also the case for Sonic Youth and Dinosaur Jr., whose major label efforts are deemed irrelevant to the story. But we really should get to the substance of this book, which essentially is Greg Ginn. </p><p><i>OBCBYL </i>opens up with Ginn as the progenitor and founder and CEO of SST Records, which is totally appropriate, really the <i>only </i>place that book could start, and <i>Corporate Rock Sucks </i>begins in almost the same place, before quickly taking the deeper dive into SST and SST alone.</p><p>Ginn is, to put it simply, "an enigma," which was how Mark Lanegan defined him, shortly before Lanegan passed away, far too soon. He is an iconoclast that started from the bottom, perfected his brand and commissioned several masterpieces, and spent the last 25 years mostly in a state of maligned repose. SST crushed all competition up until about 1988. Nirvana really wanted to be on the label (Ginn wasn't impressed), and who knows how that might have affected the life cycle of the band and/or changed history. It was cool, it had its own aesthetic, its own philosophy and attitude, and most importantly, it was a sign of the quality of the record. Many fans would simply buy every album that SST put out, in its earlier years, because they were hand-picked and curated by Ginn, whose tastes were respected. </p><p>There is no SST without Greg Ginn, but SST would never have become as successful without his brother, better known as Raymond Pettibon. Ginn and Pettibon have not spoken to one another in about 30 years, not even when their father passed away. Both of them are expert keepers of grudges, apart from being groundbreaking artists. Pettibon comes off better than Ginn, because the source of their estrangement was Ginn's unauthorized use of some of Pettibon's work, as their partnership became frayed towards its end. Black Flag would never have become as big a concept without Pettibon. Pettibon made the logo, and that logo accounts for 50% of Black Flag's legacy and continuing appeal. Pettibon also made the artwork that adorned many covers of the early SST releases. While some may consider his work gruesome or unnecessarily dark, it is unmistakably iconic. The artwork informed the lyrical content, and as the subject matter was generally ugly, they complemented each other beautifully.</p><p>Hardcore is seen by the general public as music for neanderthals and skinheads and lunkheads, but this belies its intellectual foundations. Ginn got his degree from UCLA. Kira Roessler got a graduate degree from Yale after playing bass for Black Flag. Mike Watt read <i><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2009/12/ulysses-james-joyce.html" target="_blank">Ulysses</a> </i>and wrote the song "June 16th" as a tribute. Pettibon had his first gallery shows after cutting ties with the label. Much of it sounds like "low art," but that is intentional (sometimes), and that makes it easy to misinterpret.</p><p>To be sure, the earliest releases had serious limitations in terms of budget and studio time and equipment, but more often than not these limitations proved inspirational. While Ruland sometimes writes in a sort of sensational style, this tone seemed to fall away after about 100 pages, and he does not balk at criticizing the music (both he and Azerrad express their disdain for "Slip it in," which I still believe is misplaced). <i>Damaged </i>and <i>Zen Arcade </i>are good examples of inspiration out of limitations. The lesser quality of all Black Flag material post-<i>Damaged </i>is not ignored. </p><p>***</p><p>On the subject of <i>Zen Arcade</i>, the release that put Husker Du into the spotlight, Ruland makes a fascinating interpretation of the album, quite different from Azerrad's. Azerrad's is rather brief and seems to position this "concept album" on similar grounds to what <i>Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness </i>would later define: depressed teenager comes-of-age. This is Ruland's reading:</p><p>"No one leaves home without a reason. The opening tracks on Side 1 focus on the courage it takes to put a bad situation behind ("Broken Home, Broken Heart") and how empowering it can be to make a clean break with the past ("Never Talking to You Again"). But things get more challenging for the young protagonist after he leaves home, and he entertains thoughts of joining the military ("Chartered Trips") or a cult ("Hare Krsna")--systems of control that provide the comfort of structure but risk leading him away from his dreams.<br />Side 2 explores the wild world outside the safety of home ("Beyond the Threshold"), which tries to lure him back with promises of security ("Pride"). He has a very particular dream to create a video game. He lands a dream job developing this project in Silicon Valley, but he can't escape the pull of the past ("The Biggest Lie"). <br />Although Side 2 is far from mellow, on Side 3 things take a chaotic turn for our hero. He throws himself into developing a game called <i>Search</i>. The game's title implies that its creator still hasn't found what he's looking for, and his journey continues on a deeper level ("Somewhere"). After his girlfriend overdoses ("Pink Turns to Blue"), he ends up in a sanitarium and questions everything from the state of the world ("Newest Industry") to his own tumultuous past ("Whatever").<i>Zen Arcade </i>concludes with just two "songs" on Side 4: the galloping "Turn on the News" and "Reoccurring Dreams," a sprawling fourteen-minute instrumental that returns to the motifs expressed on Side 2 in "Dreams Reoccurring." While "Turn on the News" suggests a mental patient's interest in returning to the concerns of the world, the shimmering guitars of "Reoccurring Dreams" signifies a return to consciousness. Our hero's search was all a dream. Husker Du preferred to 'leave things up to people's imaginations instead of making concrete definitions,' Mould said. 'We didn't want it to be a rock opera.'" (138)</p><p>Ruland goes off even more about the album, but, seriously, WTF, developing a video game called <i>Search</i>? Perhaps this demands another listen*. Suffice to say, what Ruland considers a "wake up call" at the end of the album, Azerrad considers the flatlining of a heartbeat on a life-support machine. The album can be whatever the listener makes of it, and these wildly diverging interpretations illustrate the difference between the two books: this is the more passionate one. </p><p>Of course, Azerrad is clearly a big fan of the music, but these are very different books. I would say this is better than <i>OBCBYL</i>, except that book is intended more as a survey of bands, while this one is far more detailed about one specific label. The book's appendix lists every single SST release, and nearly all of these are referenced in the text, if only for a line or two. Azerrad's is more engaging because he can pick and choose the most interesting parts of many different bands' stories. Ruland's is more evocative and authoritative in terms of the intricacies of the label and many of the "forgotten" bands that had their albums released on it. Some of these stories are just as good as those about more "famous" bands.</p><p>***</p><p>For example, to start with Ginn again, few probably know just how many bands he "ran" apart from Black Flag. Some of these bands are "imaginary" and most of the albums are glorified jam sessions. We might consider Gone the most prominent of his post-Black Flag activities. Gone emerged in December 1985 and put out their last release, <i>The Epic Trilogy</i>, in 2007:</p><p>"...a double CD that is one of the strangest releases of Ginn's post-Black Flag career, which is saying something. The trilogy consists of three instrumental songs on the first disc, each approximately fifteen minutes long, and the exact same songs on the second disc with vocals from H.R. that had been tracked many years before when Batwinas was running Casa Destroy." (350)</p><p>It would probably take me an hour to itemize all of these bands, such as October Faction, Mojack, Greg Ginn and The Taylor Texas Corrugators, Good for You, the Killer Tweeker Bees (who put out <i>The Killer Tweeker Blues</i>), Bias (who put out <i>Model Citizen</i>), and Get Me High (who put out <i>Taming the Underground</i>), Hor, Confront James, and El Bad. Suffice to say, few of these releases are essential. </p><p>I daresay that while <i>The Epic Trilogy </i>is strange, it is worth hearing. Because in 2007 I was living in the South Bay and super into Black Flag and Bad Brains and bemoaned the lack of new music from either (Apparently, I missed it when Bad Brains released an album in 2007 that probably would have been super exciting at the time - Ed.). Yet while this is not a Black Flag/Bad Brains collaboration, it is a side-project for each. It doesn't sound all that great but it's interesting at the very least. </p><p>***</p><p>There is also SWA, which is Chuck Dukowski's band. For all of the many members of Black Flag over the years (which is oddly akin to The Fall in this respect, Greg Ginn as Mark E. Smith if he ran his own record label), Dukowski is #2 to Ginn's #1. Henry Rollins may be the most famous, but he clearly was just following orders, though he did something with the music (which had become far less "catchy" than the material recorded before he joined) that was undeniably special and elevated the band into legacy territory. It wasn't just Greg Ginn, it was also Raymond Pettibon, and Henry Rollins--and Chuck Dukowski, who was not only #2 in Black Flag, but #2 at SST. </p><p>Dukowski was fired from Black Flag but maintained a working relationship with Ginn and the label. SWA commands a fair amount of space in this book, and it was unfortunate that I could not locate any of their albums on Apple Music. Because I'd want to listen to at least one (<i>Sex Doctor</i>, SST 073):</p><p>"While concepts for SWA had been percolating for years, Dukowski teamed up with Ward to write some songs and record an album with guitarists Ray Cooper and Richard Ford and drummer Greg Cameron (a.k.a. Nazi Sex Doctor). Ward worked at a bookstore with an adult section, and he would occasionally bring titles to the office at Global. While waiting for rehearsal, Cameron perused a novel about a German commandant of a labor camp who fell in love with one of his prisoners. When Rollins and Davo returned from getting coffee, they found Cameron engrossed in the book. They were delighted to discover its title was <i>Nazi Sex Doctor</i>. 'Boom that was it,' Cameron said. 'I was the Nazi Sex Doctor...Of course, it was so opposite of who I was. In fact, I was still a virgin, but the nickname stuck like glue.'<br />His friends at SST would call him Naz (prounced 'Knots') or Nazi for short, which created some uncomfortable situations for the young drummer. On tour, Dave Rat did SWA's sound, and during soundcheck one day he addressed Cameron by his nickname through the talkback mic, which was also going through the house sound system. Cameron recalled, 'He actually said, "Okay, Nazi, go ahead and hit the kick drum." Everybody that worked at the venue just stopped what they were doing and all eyes were on the stage.'" (191-192)</p><p>***</p><p>I've listened to a bit of the band Leaving Trains, and they are relatively accessible, perhaps worth hearing, but perhaps just a curious footnote:<br /><br />"Like Divine Horsemen, the Leaving Trains started out on Enigma Records before jumping ship to SST. Founded by Falling James Moreland in the early 80's, the original lineup featured future SST artist Sylvia Juncosa on keyboards. Starting with <i>Kill Tunes </i>(SST 071), the Leaving Trains issued a slew of grungy pop records for SST, including <i>Fuck </i>(SST 114) and <i>Transportational D. Vices </i>(SST 221). A productive run, considering Moreland was married to Courtney Love long enough to produce Hole's first single for Sympathy for the Record Industry before the relationship crashed and burned." (256)</p><p>Painted Willie is another fairly accessible band, noteworthy for featuring Dave Markey on drums. Painted Willie opened for Black Flag on their final tour, and Markey made a documentary about it, which I watched on YouTube a while back. While not as essential, it clearly set the template for the seminal <i>The Year Punk Broke</i>, which was also shot and directed by Markey: </p><p>"Later that year, Ginn ventured up to North Hollywood to produce Painted Willie's debut, <i>Mind Bowling</i> (SST 057), at Spinhead Studios. 'It was just a play on mind blowing,' Markey said of the album's title. 'It was just mind blowing to be welcomed into that world, to be invited into that by Greg Ginn himself.'<br />The album opens up with '405,' an instrumental with multiple time changes that builds to a gallop and slows to a crawl--just like driving on L.A.'s most infamous freeway. The dynamic nature of the song must have caught Ginn's ear right off the bat. Like all of Markey's projects, Painted Willie has a sense of humor that comes across in songs like 'Chia Pet,' in which the eponymous plant grows into a jackbooted Nazi, and 'Monkey Mia,' a whimsically weird tale of cannibalism. Side 2 includes a spirited cover of 'My Little Red Book,' a faster, fuzzed-out version of the 1965 hit by Burt Bacharach and Hal David that was made famous the following year by L.A.'s Love. Painted Willie's take on 'My Little Red Book' wouldn't be out of place on a Husker Du record." (210)</p><p>There are many more of these short-lived, semi-forgotten bands memorialized in the text, and suffice to say, one of the virtues of the book is that while it may not give these bands a "second life," it will at least provide readers with knowledge of them, and some of those readers will become listeners.</p><p>***</p><p>There is a lot more I could say about this book, and I haven't even touched on Negativland, which is not so much a band as an art project. The story of SST and how it "disrupted" the record industry, along with Ginn's litigiousness and penchant for writing angry letters telling his side of the story, is epitomized in the Negativland material. It would take too much space to get into this in the review (which is already running long), but it is truly one of the more fascinating sections of the book. For just a small taste, we may excerpt the band's first foray into controversy and irreverence:</p><p>"Michael Whittaker was working in the office at SST when one of the members of Negativland called to ask whether he knew anyone in the Minneapolis press. A sixteen-year-old boy named David Brom had murdered his father, mother, brother, and sister with an axe. One detail in the shocking tragedy seemed like it had been planted to provoke a media firestorm: Brom's murderous rampage was instigated by an argument between Brom and his conservative Catholic father abotu music. Negativland wanted to know if Whittaker would tell the media that the music in question was none other than 'Christianity is Stupid' from the band's SST debut <i>Escape from Noise</i> (SST 133)." (286)</p><p>This would not be the first "prank" the band would play, and because the label often had to pay for them in court, Ginn's relations with the band were contentious, but also complicated, because while Negativland later tried to capitalize on the popularity of U2 through a stunt, SST later tried to capitalize on the controversy by printing up t-shirts that read "Kill Bono." (The members of U2 and Brian Eno seemed to have some understanding of what Negativland was trying to do and did not take major offense; Island Records, however, did.)</p><p>***</p><p>This book is not perfect. Like many other works of non-fiction charting the entire history of a business, there are many players, and many references to those players' last names that will be lost on the reader, particularly without proper context in the preceding 2-3 paragraphs to "remind" the reader of who they are (i.e. "Ward" above, in the excerpt about SWA).</p><p>As noted previously, this book is really all about Ginn, because Ginn's baby was SST. And one wonders how Ginn must feel about this book. It bears a striking resemblance to <i><a href="http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2021/11/the-contrarian-peter-thiel-and-silicon.html" target="_blank">The Contrarian</a></i>, and while Greg Ginn is not Peter Thiel, they have many similarities. They are enormously influential, and given credit for their numerous accomplishments, but also widely reviled for different reasons. Ginn did not espouse vile politics (occasionally questionable lyrics aside), but many of these bands left SST because of so-called "accounting irregularities." SST was a good place to put out an album, but not a good place to get paid. Ruland's mission with the book, it seems, is spelled out in the final chapter, which advises the label to give the rights to the music back to (some of) its creators. Ruland wants Ginn to redeem himself. And it seems totally possible. </p><p>Ruland did not interview Ginn for this book, and it seems obvious that he tried. Thus, it is an "unauthorized" history, and probably the better for it. One can imagine that Ginn would not like it very much, but Ruland gives credit where it is due. Perhaps somewhere, Ginn is writing a letter, debunking many of the "facts" in the book, or perhaps filing suit for defamation. Or perhaps not, for he should know as well as anyone: even bad press is still good press. This book will not cancel him, and he should not be cancelled; it merely encourages him to try to do better by the artists he signed, and one hopes it will lead the way towards better outcomes for all. </p><p><br /></p><p>*Open invitation for comments that directly link lyrics of songs from <i>Zen Arcade </i>to the interpretation provided here. </p>JKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16199023801433187878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3851264164198134050.post-48912418855635623452022-05-10T13:50:00.000-04:002022-05-10T13:50:15.875-04:00The Examined Life: How We Lose and Find Ourselves - Stephen Grosz (2013)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpq9dK9e1zeEO_0-7WyuXar_FqJ0YqPAMWRNEMkq2kopPxPUSyEX6eoGqboQwEl-XFVLCLbI0j7WM2e7tQxtayKgYMwLOqxUc9I60QTkLke6Tv_YeHFep_lhlXYw83hlBuPYLasvV9rQYldF3HSZXk2jZTgP7M936mMlVnP7uTqKHbhK9juQVbEczcwQ/s355/examinedlife.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="355" data-original-width="236" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpq9dK9e1zeEO_0-7WyuXar_FqJ0YqPAMWRNEMkq2kopPxPUSyEX6eoGqboQwEl-XFVLCLbI0j7WM2e7tQxtayKgYMwLOqxUc9I60QTkLke6Tv_YeHFep_lhlXYw83hlBuPYLasvV9rQYldF3HSZXk2jZTgP7M936mMlVnP7uTqKHbhK9juQVbEczcwQ/s320/examinedlife.jpg" width="213" /></a></div><p>I have been listening to the New York Times Book Review podcast for about five years. It has been the source of many of the reviews here. I would not have read a great deal of the books here had I not listened. The first was <a href="http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2017/12/avid-reader-robert-gottlieb-2016.html" target="_blank"><i>Avid Reader</i>.</a> It took a bit while longer for there to be a second, and truthfully, <i>Avid Reader </i>was not discussed on the podcast--Robert Gottlieb just appeared on it--and so <i><a href="http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2018/06/the-house-of-broken-angels-luis-alberto.html" target="_blank">The House of Broken Angels</a> </i>was arguably the first. <i> <a href="http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2018/08/less-andrew-sean-greer-2017.html" target="_blank">Less</a> </i>came two months later, though that selection may have been swayed by the New Yorker Radio Hour (but the NYTBRP, if anyone calls it that, is far superior). We will leave the Paris Review podcast alone, which is highly stylized and niche, releasing only a few episodes a year, but that one led me to <i><a href="http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2018/09/homesick-for-another-world-ottessa.html" target="_blank">Homesick for Another World</a>. </i>I then stepped away. </p><p>I stepped away and retired the blog to focus on more creative pursuits. Yet 5 months later, I settled on the idea of "short form" reviews, which were relatively painless to write. That first return included both <a href="http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2019/02/short-form-four-agreements-impossible.html" target="_blank"><i>Asymmetry </i>and </a><i><a href="http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2019/02/short-form-four-agreements-impossible.html" target="_blank">Sabrina</a>. </i>A few months after that, <i><a href="http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2019/07/short-form-lets-play-two-perfect-sound.html" target="_blank">The Great Believers</a> </i>showed up in short-form. Early in 2020, <a href="http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2020/01/short-form-conversations-with-friends.html"><i>Conversations with Friends </i>and </a><i><a href="http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2020/01/short-form-conversations-with-friends.html">She Said</a> </i>shared space. <i><a href="http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2020/02/trick-mirror-jia-tolentino-2019.html" target="_blank">Trick Mirror</a> </i>could not just have been discussed on the New Yorker Radio Hour, it had to have made it onto the NYTBRP. And it was there that the short-form died and the long-form returned. There were too many things I wanted to say about certain books.</p><p>As the pandemic hit, <i><a href="http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-night-of-gun-david-carr-2008.html" target="_blank">The Night of the Gun</a> </i>provided good company. Later that summer, I found<a href="http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2020/08/dept-of-speculation-jenny-offill-2014.html" target="_blank"> the book I would recommend randomly to other people more than any other</a> (and <a href="http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2020/11/weather-jenny-offill-2020.html" target="_blank">its follow-up</a>). And I might have read <i><a href="http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2020/09/catch-and-kill-ronan-farrow-2019.html" target="_blank">Catch and Kill</a> </i>regardless of the podcast (to be completist), but I would not likely have found <i><a href="http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2020/09/indelicacy-amina-cain-2020.html" target="_blank">Indelicacy</a></i>. Or <i><a href="http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2020/10/cleanness-garth-greenwell-2020.html" target="_blank">Cleanness</a></i>, for that matter. I had heard of <i><a href="http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2021/06/trust-exercise-susan-choi-2019.html" target="_blank">Trust Exercise</a> </i>from other sources, but I feel this had to be discussed on the program, and I know for certain this was the case for <i><a href="http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2021/07/fake-accounts-lauren-oyler-2021.html" target="_blank">Fake Accounts</a>.</i></p><p>So those amount to about 15 different posts out of 420 (yes that is where we currently stand). It's only 3.5% of the total (which seems like almost nothing) but truly, many of these posts represent the best of the criticism on the blog. I daresay no single other source has inspired more.</p><p>***</p><p>I start here because I want this review to be something of an homage to Ms. Paul. While every element of the podcast is excellent--the two author interviews, the news from the publishing world, the historical items from the Book Review--the final segment ("the latest in literary criticism" or "what we and the staff have been reading") is often the most amusing. On her penultimate episode, she offered this book as the recommendation--one her colleague (and now successor) John Williams had read and recommended earlier, closer to the time it was published. </p><p>I do not disagree with their recommendation (which was, to be sure, somewhat qualified). I picked up this book because I had a hard time with the limited other titles I'd digested (primarily <i><a href="http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2020/08/maybe-you-should-talk-to-someone-lori.html" target="_blank">Maybe You Should Talk to Someone</a></i>) dealing in similar territory, and I wanted to believe that a psychologist or psychoanalyst could write about their work in an interesting and artful way. So many people do not seek help out of a sense of weakness, or fear, and so books such as these are extremely valuable. If the reader cannot work with another person to learn something about themselves, there is always the chance they can learn something about themselves through literature. But books such as this clearly do not belong in the self-help category. </p><p>***</p><p>It is easiest to compare this to [Lori] Gottlieb's book because they are a study in contrasts. That book was too long for me. This book isn't too short for me, but just right, at 215 (small) pages. That book delves into a lot of relationship issues from the author's own life (it is as much personal memoir as "work memoir"). This book has limited few of those. That book focuses primarily on four different patients and the evolution of their treatment. This book focuses on dozens of patients, and confines each to one chapter. There are more differences still, but the biggest (and the one that matters to me most) is the quality of the writing. </p><p>Grosz's style is <i>pithy</i>. It almost seem as though he is making fun of his patients when he writes about them. Clearly, he is not. But there is so much ambiguous humor in here that one may do double-takes. </p><p>It is also casually erudite, for example, when it contains a passage which moved me greatly, particularly as I read it to a person in a similar stance (that is, Felice's):</p><p>"For a moment he seemed lost in the contemplation of something visible only to him and then he said, 'Do you know the story of Kafka and Felice Bauer? For five years, Kafka was intensely involved with Bauer, sometimes sending her several letters a day. She lived in Berlin, he lived in Prague--not a great distance even then, but during the five years they were engaged, they met only ten times, often for no more than an hour or two.' If you read <a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2017/06/letters-to-felice-franz-kafka-1973.html" target="_blank">Kafka's letters</a>, Michael said, it's clear that he was distraught--anxious about where Felice was going, who she was seeing, what she was eating or wearing. Kafka wanted instant replies to his letters, and he was furious when he didn't get them. He proposed twice and broke it off twice--the wedding never took place. Michael said that for Kafka, separation from Bauer was unbearable. 'The only thing more disturbing was her presence.<br />'Kafka got into that sort of relationship over and over again,' he told me. 'Nowadays, we'd say he was schizoid or suffered some mild form of Asperger's, but those words give no sense of the central thing. The person he most avoided was the person upon whom he was the most dependent--the person he most wanted." (50-51)</p><p>This is from the chapter titled "On not being in a couple," which Pamela mentioned (along with "How praise can cause a loss of confidence," and maybe "How paranoia can relieve suffering and prevent a catastrophe"), perhaps to underscore the nature of its literary style. I daresay there is something Nietzschean about it, but I did not read the entirety of <i>Ecce Homo</i>. Suffice to say, there are lessons to be learned in life that we can sometimes whittle down into bite-sized morsels of universal truth. It might be more accurate to call it Montaignean (though that is not apparently a word), maybe Montaigne-esque.</p><p>***</p><p>The book touches on many topics and illnesses: grief, imaginary problems, irrational behaviors, incomprehensible violence, disappointment, boredom, autism/Asperger's, HIV/AIDS, dreams, envy and love, to name a few. </p><p>"Loving" is one of the 5 sections that comprise the book. The others are "Beginnings," "Telling Lies," "Changing," and "Leaving." (Nitpicky note: I would remove the S from Beginnings.) Indeed the subject of love is essential in psychoanalysis and plays into many other facets of living and surviving in this world (statistics bear out that being in a couple leads to increased longevity). In my own psychiatric sessions over the past 8 years, "love" and the status of various friends and partners has taken up a <i>significant </i>portion of our time. So while I am not an expert, I was particularly intrigued by "How lovesickness keeps us from love." (Nitpicky note #2: I don't know how I feel about the lowercase chapter titles.)<br /></p><p>About three months ago, shortly before Valentine's Day, I discovered a new term: limerence. For all intents and purposes, "lovesickness" is an appropriate synonym for limerence, yet I feel there are slight differences. Limerence contains its own vocabulary, and we do not consider people "crushes," but rather, "LOs." We recognize ourselves as limerent individuals because our relationships follow similar patterns: (1) intense crush and placement of LO on pedestal; (2) extraordinary happiness at reciprocated feelings; (3) extreme depression at lack of reciprocation; (4) locking into dynamic of misaligned expectations of relationship; (5) texts and communications from LO take on magnified importance; (6) obsession/infatuation with LO; (7) no contact ("NC") with LO as necessary self-care; (8) breaking NC with LO, revisiting relationship, restarting cycle.</p><p>We see limerence in society as something to shun and demonize. We consider them "stalkers" and presume they lack self-control or any sense of boundaries. They are, effectively, one of the "lower forms" of human beings. We consider them "toxic" and "unstable." I have not watched "My Crazy Ex-Girlfriend" (though I keep telling myself I will) but that archetypal figure is the poster child for limerence. We keep irrationally hoping that we can get back together and everything will be magically better this time. </p><p>So it was heartening to read something so precise here:</p><p>"Most of us have come down with a case of lovesickness at one time or another, suffering its fever to a greater or lesser degree. In severe cases, lovesickness can lead to delusional behaviors (stalking, for example) or sexual obsession. When we are lovesick, we feel that our emotional boundaries, the walls between us and the object of our desire, have fallen away. We feel a weighty physical longing, an ache. We believe that we are in love.<br />Many psychoanalysts think that lovesickness is a form of regression, that in longing for intense closeness, we are like infants craving our mother's embrace. This is why we are most at risk when we are struggling with loss or despair, or when we are lonely and isolated--it is not uncommon to fall in love during the first term of university, for example. But are these feelings really love?<br />'I sometimes say--but not entirely seriously--that infatuation is the exciting bit at the beginning; real love is the boring bit that comes later,' the poet Wendy Cope once told me. 'People who are lovesick put off testing their fantasies against reality.' But given the anguish that lovesickness can cause--the loss of mental freedom, the dissatisfaction with one's self, and the awful ache--why do some of us put off facing reality for so long?<br />Often it's because facing reality means accepting loneliness. And while loneliness can be useful--motivating us to meet someone new, for example--a fear of loneliness can work like a trap, ensnaring us in heartsick feelings for a very long time. At its worst, lovesickness becomes a habit of mind, a way of thinking about the world that is not altogether dissimilar to paranoia." (110-111)</p><p>Grosz then later goes into an illuminating discussion of Dickens' <i>A Christmas Carol </i>and makes the point that we cannot redo the past or be certain of the future--change can only take place in the here and now, and sometimes we change most when we repair our relation to the lost, the forgotten, the dead. While this passage was not a cure for limerence, it presented a different way of looking at the problem, a different perspective to take, and so I at least personally found it helpful, along with many other such moments in the book--when Grosz steps back from a specific discussion of x patient and makes larger observations about humanity as a whole, drawing from personal experience with numerous other individuals he has seen that do not star in their own "mini-feature" in this book. And it is this type of "wisdom" that makes the book a valuable resource for anyone, and especially for those experiencing trauma or any other great upheavals in their lives.</p><p>***</p><p>Today (last Friday, really), Jennifer Egan appeared as a guest on the NYTBRP. I haven't read <i>Manhattan Beach </i>or <i>A Visit from the Goon Squad</i>, but they are a couple I've considered, waiting for one to reach out and grab me, from word-of-mouth or a chance twisting-of-the-arm. She was talking about her follow-up, <i>The Candy House</i>. I am not sure how often I will listen to the podcast (query whether many podcast listeners continue on after their host moves on), but I still consider the newspaper (for all of its recent questionable op-eds and headlines) one of the preeminent outlets of literary criticism. Pamela will still appear as a guest, sometimes, and while Egan's voice was the first one to be heard on this episode (which was never the case with Pamela as host), I did appreciate Williams and what he had to say about his recent selections (he is in fact responsible for this choice), and so I think he will be a fine host as well. It just remains to be seen what interesting and new directions he can take the show.</p><p>As for Grosz, we should all be so lucky to have our therapy turned into literature, etched into history and the understanding of human beings in general. In this way, he has succeeded, and avoided the fate of several other psychiatrists and psychologists before him, whose books were longwinded and boring. This really cut to the chase and didn't waste any time getting into the philosophy of his practice. It might help other practitioners refine their practice, and it might help those that seek them out to become better patients. It may, also, lead to conversations that can change lives and reconfigure destinies. For all of these reasons, it is worth checking out (and so is the NYTBRP). </p>JKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16199023801433187878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3851264164198134050.post-50111152827955630822022-04-15T11:08:00.006-04:002022-04-16T17:43:16.629-04:00John the Angelic: A Chronicle of Pope Joan (Volume I of The Latecoming West) - A.P. Andes (2021)<span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdO_r0hpoqcD18UJBO_7Ca-v-K_fVsMBcsglaCby981BVFCGGSVokfgrQHUmgWjnJ3npkHyhHd5ZXZuEb0-kihgWT4uYIRTYB85ZXhe9VRF1P8TY0KkLmIlTU3ZoYb3ZnfiZyvV6pXNzau5GTCwyr_FlPpfILx0pE5_NFoZ8q1Qf8dbawje26J-45avg/s470/john%20the%20angelic.webp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="470" data-original-width="313" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdO_r0hpoqcD18UJBO_7Ca-v-K_fVsMBcsglaCby981BVFCGGSVokfgrQHUmgWjnJ3npkHyhHd5ZXZuEb0-kihgWT4uYIRTYB85ZXhe9VRF1P8TY0KkLmIlTU3ZoYb3ZnfiZyvV6pXNzau5GTCwyr_FlPpfILx0pE5_NFoZ8q1Qf8dbawje26J-45avg/s320/john%20the%20angelic.webp" width="213" /></a></div><br /></span><div><span> </span>As usual, we start with how we came upon the book. In this case, I met the author through work. He had made vague references to his book(s) in conversation, and later sent a couple e-mails about how it was available, in what format, etc. I knew he happened to live along the same route I would be taking to visit my parents, so I stopped by his house one chilly Sunday afternoon a couple months ago, and requested a signed copy. <div><br /></div><div><span> </span>I had known enough about it back in July of 2021, shortly before I went to Italy--enough to ask if he wanted me to do any particular research, if I got the chance, going to the Vatican and everything. He said no, but I looked for remnants of Pope Joan (referred to as Pope Johannes, I'd imagine), and I do not recall any. I regret that I did not read this book before that, because I would have had a better idea of where I was looking (at least which century).</div><div><br /></div><div><span> </span>So the subject of the book is a female pope that was effectively erased from history. Just here, looking up Pope Joan on Wikipedia, I am amazed to see that a bust of her (among all of the other pontiffs) had been featured in the Siena Cathedral, but was removed in 1600 after protest. I remember seeing all of those busts when I visited the Siena Cathedral and specifically looking for Pope Joan (or Ioannes), so I had some presence of mind at the time. There was another list of all of the Popes at the Vatican, which she was not on. Perhaps I will attempt to post photos of these. </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhwWuJ5gUmeGZCcbzR0vHkFsspU9uUDI_a0JI2eYDbHU5pTDsz-yKQDjdVcMkPNvVgJdoA9eARViXADEz5_MGHmq4SufZh5ULtqhOkq0UGLHuKBmiaoZ6GFvOJ979XObwgOsiHjqSweMvH0M_W8PSFsCEuI4_FhPvJTRhkFGvLvVQ4mivFbbtCvdafZw/s8000/20210731_210937.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="8000" data-original-width="6000" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhwWuJ5gUmeGZCcbzR0vHkFsspU9uUDI_a0JI2eYDbHU5pTDsz-yKQDjdVcMkPNvVgJdoA9eARViXADEz5_MGHmq4SufZh5ULtqhOkq0UGLHuKBmiaoZ6GFvOJ979XObwgOsiHjqSweMvH0M_W8PSFsCEuI4_FhPvJTRhkFGvLvVQ4mivFbbtCvdafZw/s320/20210731_210937.jpg" width="240" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRQRNF0NqH_Fgp6rpI5mtU55yeiSEg_88fNdIPpb9tEZ-0ePRDYGWLkCens442ItT1wQrFJTI_NYHxfowk9LDDD8nSo0QARfOXr1LCGvWu-mwDfHekopqWKyesW1dmg5QjuYZOYwZeBoNDISgTgRsmMSXr7DUySN9a7UKGNpp57S9HuaURgr71u3RVFg/s4000/20210802_164925.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="4000" data-original-width="2250" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRQRNF0NqH_Fgp6rpI5mtU55yeiSEg_88fNdIPpb9tEZ-0ePRDYGWLkCens442ItT1wQrFJTI_NYHxfowk9LDDD8nSo0QARfOXr1LCGvWu-mwDfHekopqWKyesW1dmg5QjuYZOYwZeBoNDISgTgRsmMSXr7DUySN9a7UKGNpp57S9HuaURgr71u3RVFg/s320/20210802_164925.jpg" width="180" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_ER5j1ole_jGSrmR0XT0jfjIAJ69DHIXQxYTDFL6t0mjjZFu3T1IIKpyduc3O6c14ZiO7hZKL3y3tpTUPIMFIyhv3kTjBXSUzvyBJ4YzTQ1OpKzIZkoSDioTvVjJq12J6lTrbiBBLIjHyz2d9DOQhnsdc1La5P_cFJkhT3XA_ssqwEGd7RHQ6O8SP6A/s4000/20210802_165009.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="4000" data-original-width="2250" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_ER5j1ole_jGSrmR0XT0jfjIAJ69DHIXQxYTDFL6t0mjjZFu3T1IIKpyduc3O6c14ZiO7hZKL3y3tpTUPIMFIyhv3kTjBXSUzvyBJ4YzTQ1OpKzIZkoSDioTvVjJq12J6lTrbiBBLIjHyz2d9DOQhnsdc1La5P_cFJkhT3XA_ssqwEGd7RHQ6O8SP6A/s320/20210802_165009.jpg" width="180" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhkszG9QcBR1gkR5tB8WPe_q1KeApSROJR2SUdo4WOZl9Jg5YRRyx2gdVN9NZfkXmVfSaQcGg5Vts5NrATeavOLWGjIPI15NX8yx5XdqzGr2qSBHWeMNj-Pmi0Kjpz5m1S1mXQo7l1ISK1wpYbnE-0j_RcypzhO1CRFBp4T0AGr4cK6aXn3LbDXYFxJw/s4000/20210802_172803.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="4000" data-original-width="2250" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhkszG9QcBR1gkR5tB8WPe_q1KeApSROJR2SUdo4WOZl9Jg5YRRyx2gdVN9NZfkXmVfSaQcGg5Vts5NrATeavOLWGjIPI15NX8yx5XdqzGr2qSBHWeMNj-Pmi0Kjpz5m1S1mXQo7l1ISK1wpYbnE-0j_RcypzhO1CRFBp4T0AGr4cK6aXn3LbDXYFxJw/s320/20210802_172803.jpg" width="180" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVuPuJd5ToS3-mg6AWhMLXEis11SaJXbHKx4w5tPsnH1VxOpmuEYoDkSzxfwQcXFdHT4IVPRMWsz4XlmHrC6AHM-PfXMWaZIcutM7C379AkxQg3DkCdrupm4dt4iqdJNhNOL2DZ5kjrQ0frqCWI6DIxfAa8SnNN_fnqrDZ-3lMDptFYFsLuoOGMNZMqQ/s1920/IMG_20210803_155925_800.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1920" data-original-width="1080" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVuPuJd5ToS3-mg6AWhMLXEis11SaJXbHKx4w5tPsnH1VxOpmuEYoDkSzxfwQcXFdHT4IVPRMWsz4XlmHrC6AHM-PfXMWaZIcutM7C379AkxQg3DkCdrupm4dt4iqdJNhNOL2DZ5kjrQ0frqCWI6DIxfAa8SnNN_fnqrDZ-3lMDptFYFsLuoOGMNZMqQ/s320/IMG_20210803_155925_800.jpg" width="180" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQ1wUoLJsZRPnaAR50lq7S5AbbOoMdv5DyijUo6tG1MHauSBpzoi5KFZmqZjztAc8uAOjAR2tWRaKSkyJgGNbh-1SbGtZ9K4iiAMxcx4s1oTdLiFDmc8rv88plA8NHpcOBS7hON2H5ASvq0YMW0bFUtqJL0EGunGLT1HreaNhbW9Nq_CotpDwrk-4Wuw/s1920/IMG_20210803_161429_387.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1920" data-original-width="1080" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQ1wUoLJsZRPnaAR50lq7S5AbbOoMdv5DyijUo6tG1MHauSBpzoi5KFZmqZjztAc8uAOjAR2tWRaKSkyJgGNbh-1SbGtZ9K4iiAMxcx4s1oTdLiFDmc8rv88plA8NHpcOBS7hON2H5ASvq0YMW0bFUtqJL0EGunGLT1HreaNhbW9Nq_CotpDwrk-4Wuw/s320/IMG_20210803_161429_387.jpg" width="180" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgoa0bnnNxQiBK55axuqpAwpM2ojhHslclI5DoVy6_wCdOwHfWlgJv9X6WwqlGgB22AB_9K5iLzPUwNCdbYhAPVa_jgtmxxEVsZZ71ujtSokPvRIz3n6-iA7mUiI7surLdcKud8UL340UNwDxdPGJoQ-axSZnMkDxWF3vI-skIEWqewBaJeGXmD-pgVMw/s1920/IMG_20210803_162839_090.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1920" data-original-width="1080" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgoa0bnnNxQiBK55axuqpAwpM2ojhHslclI5DoVy6_wCdOwHfWlgJv9X6WwqlGgB22AB_9K5iLzPUwNCdbYhAPVa_jgtmxxEVsZZ71ujtSokPvRIz3n6-iA7mUiI7surLdcKud8UL340UNwDxdPGJoQ-axSZnMkDxWF3vI-skIEWqewBaJeGXmD-pgVMw/s320/IMG_20210803_162839_090.jpg" width="180" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-lB0INnadyMEnZcLRb1-FZfCgNlstKiEBtDGMUnW0p5Vs5dwENyqXEJgLUH_lQ8URn73tzC1TfJYQhdGveQaMtPGED6DzqWhgdS6XVi37eZmIUUXtW913_6yFZuele3uhjPFUVEXtVJlkl_0z_0qcj_BFAIfvGb-dCwIA4xrD030sHKg6RxxFj0IXNg/s1920/IMG_20210803_165511_463.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1920" data-original-width="1080" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-lB0INnadyMEnZcLRb1-FZfCgNlstKiEBtDGMUnW0p5Vs5dwENyqXEJgLUH_lQ8URn73tzC1TfJYQhdGveQaMtPGED6DzqWhgdS6XVi37eZmIUUXtW913_6yFZuele3uhjPFUVEXtVJlkl_0z_0qcj_BFAIfvGb-dCwIA4xrD030sHKg6RxxFj0IXNg/s320/IMG_20210803_165511_463.jpg" width="180" /></a></div>(I included some other pictures because I thought more of those two magnificent Basilicas should be seen for context.)<br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span> </span>Actually, from the Wikipedia page, it seems there is a fair amount of recognition of Pope Joan as a figure, whether real or fictional. There have been a number of books either about her, or referencing her, even a couple of films and a video game--but I had never heard of her. I normally do not read historical fiction so I went into it with a certain hesitation. </div><div><br /></div><div><span> </span>After finishing it, I can say that it is a very good debut novel that will shock the reader in several different ways. Its chief virtue is in its retelling of the history of early Christian theology through the narration of Joan, who is particularly scholarly and knowledgeable of the available literature at the time. It is casually profound, and feels deeply and richly researched. And then it shifts to being something else entirely.</div><div><br /></div><div><span> </span>Some of these decisions, in my very humble opinion, are questionable. Sometimes when reviewing books, I am wary of spoilers, and spoilers need to be discussed to enrich the substance of the review, to inform the overall digestion of such. I generally do this with specially denoted asterisks. However, when the first such instance of this experimental element emerges on the second page, it feels pointless to bifurcate.</div><div><br /></div><div>***</div><div><br /></div><div><span> </span>Pope Joan is born somewhere in the early-to-mid 800's, to a drunk brute of a father and a broken mother bent on instilling perfection in their daughter. The novel has a touching (but also gruesome) moment towards its end, where Joan reflects upon an incident that she apparently buried in her subconscious, which shifts her perspective on her mother, to a degree. But early on, Joan is a model student and has a couple run-ins and "puppy love"-type experiences with boys. Notably, Joan interacts with barely any women in this novel at all, save her mother and a lady renting a room. Then, before anything of real import happens in the novel, apart from these picaresque episodes of "normal life," there is a Viking raid on their town and many of the men and women are killed and/or raped. Joan's father is killed, but this seems to traumatize her less than the death of her friend Gawin's father--who is murdered right in front of him, which she also observes. </div><div><br /></div><div><span> </span>This is a bombastic confusing scene that seems to come out of nowhere. As it is the event that sets the story in motion, I would have liked to see a little bit more background on the Vikings and how they came upon Mainz and their general modus operandi. But we learn about as much about the Vikings as we knew before, which is that they pillage and conquer. </div><div><br /></div><div><span> </span>Joan tries to live with her mother, for a couple of years, I think, but when she is 16, she runs away from home, and then the novel (or at least the "hero[ine]'s quest" portion of it) truly advances forward. </div><div><br /></div><div>***</div><div><br /></div><div><span> </span>This happens around page 66 of the novel, however, and by this point the reader has been exposed to two elements which completely have nothing to do with this novel at all. Certainly, one of them <i>may </i>connect a narrative throughline, but I have a hard time imagining what the second is meant to do. I will not spoil it outright, but they jump ahead about 1100 years in time. One of them is an impassioned essay rhapsodizing over (and perhaps overselling) a legendary English post-punk band; the other is a scene taken straight out of <i>Stand by Me (</i>e.g. it involves an eating contest and projectile vomiting).</div><div><br /></div><div><span> </span>I found these things engaging, but this is only because I know the author, and because I too, can appreciate this act of "tricking" the reader--like, "Oh, you thought the book was going to be about this? Well, you're wrong!" But no. The book is really mostly about Pope Joan.</div><div><br /></div><div><span> </span>Just her early life, though. The first page of the novel describes a day later in her life--when she is serving as the Pope--and we never get back to that point. Perhaps this will come in a later volume, though I am unclear if the subsequent iterations of <i>The Latecoming West </i>also serve as a chronological narrative of her life, amongst the other stories I understand them to tell (about the Holocaust, for one). </div><div><br /></div><div>***</div><div><br /></div><div><span> </span>But after Joan leaves Mainz, she sets a plan for survival, and this is the first moment where the novel begins to shine, for it is rather exceptional and extraordinary in its setting and competing concerns. From another angle, this is a novel about finding oneself, trying to set a course for one's life, settling on an occupation, and pursuing passion. This is a treacherous setting for Joan, but a rather simple one for the reader: she does not have many options available to her. In the 800's, it was not nearly as difficult to settle on an occupation, but the options available to women were extremely limited. Joan rather quickly determines that her best chance of survival is to disguise herself as a teenage boy and study at a Benedictine Monastery, for they will provide shelter and food. The monks are also the recorders of history and literature at the time, and given Joan's passions, the monastery is clearly the perfect place for her. So she attempts to head in the direction of one and has a rather amusing episode with a rather unpleasant lady renting a room. Then the next day she has a chance encounter with the other major character in the novel.</div><div><br /></div><div><span> </span>This is Clovis, whom I imagine as a rather hulking man, and who takes Joan under his wing and provides a lay of the land and sets her on a course to Lorsch Abbey. She rather quickly falls in love with him and I question how much detail to provide on their relationship, or the plot going forward.</div><div><br /></div><div><span> </span>Suffice to say, she does eventually settle in at Lorsch Abbey, and this is another strong part of the novel--the description of all of the daily activities. The novel also shifts into a different mode here, and becomes more of a theological treatise than human interest story. And as noted above, for me personally, this is the great value the novel confers.</div><div><br /></div><div>***</div><div><br /></div><div><span> </span>In a sense, this reminded me of <i>Leave Society</i>, with its themes of erasure from history and lost and discredited texts, leaders, worshipped beings, and the manipulations ever-present in a "dominator" society. The dichotomy of the church--as a spiritual ideal and as a corrupt institution determinative of political power--is frequently discussed, along with its desultory attitude towards women. Many excerpts of such sections could be taken, and it is hard to choose a representative one, but as for one:</div><div><br /></div><div><span> </span> "The <i>Historia Ecclesiastica</i>'s standing as one of the seminal works of Christian scholarship is due in no small part to Eusebius's quotations--often at great length--of his sources, thus constituting in many instances the sole extant record of a host of crucial original voices in Christianity. So, for example, the Greek's lengthy citations from a now-lost treatise of an anonymous writer, most likely a Phrygian bishop at the time of its writing, provides the sole surviving connexion to the origins of the ascetic and apocalyptic movement of prophecy in the second century, called the New Prophecy by its followers and known today as Montanism. </div><div><span> </span>Introducing the sect as the 'so-called Phrygian heresy,' the name it was known by in his time, Eusebius quotes at length from the anonymous writer's work, which recounts the origins of Montanism. The bishop had visited the Galatian Church in Ancyra, a Phrygian village, and found it in thrall to this false prophecy, where a 'recent convert' named Montanus with an insatiable desire for leadership became frenzied and ecstatic, babbling in cant and prophesying of miracles to come.</div><div> Among others, two women, named Priscilla and Maximilla, were brought to possession by this vision, and they spoke and behaved as incoherently as he had. Before long all his followers were banished from the Church and denied communion. </div><div><span> </span>Montanism questioned the moral authority of the Church hierarchy and of bishops impure in spirit to lead the masses to God, emphasising instead the people's communion with the Holy Spirit. I confess these words thrilled my soul, for they spoke directly to qualities I had long felt lacking in Church leaders. Priscilla and Maximilla, Montanus's acolytes, left their husbands and families to follow him, lending a more 'demonic' aspect to the New Prophecy by way of the sweeping powers they shared with their founder in the movement--roles the leaders of the Christian Church found blasphemous. </div><div> The fact two women assumed such key roles within this movement and drew the ire of the Church elevated my excitement even more. Alas, my hopes were dashed not long after, for I learnt Montanus conveniently identified himself as the Paraclete prophesied in John 14:26 through which the Holy Spirit would convey Christ's kingdom, Heavenly Jerusalem, in the Phrygian town of Pepuza, the site for his church,. </div><div><span> </span>Epiphanius, to whom I was led after Eusebius, in his <i>Panarion </i>or 'medicine chest' of remedies to counteract the ills of heresy, cites Montanus's own words:<br /><br /><span> </span>I am the Lord God omnipotent, who have descended into<br /><span> </span>Man. [...] neither an angel, nor an ambassador, but I, the Lord,</div><div><span> </span>the Father, am come." (171-173)</div><div><br /></div><div><span> </span>Or another, shortly thereafter:</div><div><span> </span>"Of the dozens of gospels in currency prior to Constantine, only four were adopted into the Biblical canon. At some point the question must arise: when is the 'heretical' passage heretical, and when does it merely transmit the vagaries of human perception that lend credibility and authenticity to a collective experience? For the exclusion of the latter debases it in the realm of consensus and uniformity for the sheer sake of convenience and control.</div><div><span> </span>When I dwelt upon it, I realised further that Acts of John could not but be deemed heretical. A God who invites us to dance, as Christ does earlier in Acts, a God in need of our love and devotion to Him in order to achieve His true divinity--and ours--what kind of God would that be? No more than His Son would be by the loins of Man. I was discovering there were irreconcilable hypocrisies in ecclesiastical doctrine which had nothing to do with content or value and everything to do with preserving power." (176)</div><div><br /></div><div><span> </span>Sections such as these serve to further educate the reader on such arcane items, knowledge that they might never come across despite the omnipresence of Christianity in our world today, due perhaps to the machinations of the Church, banning censored texts that seem to allow for divergent interpretations. Regardless, quotations are often exhumed from the Bible in support of various propositions that do not exist in harmony with the teachings of Christ. It happens anyways, but if we knew more about texts such as the Acts of John, we would at least have a wider prism through which to investigate Christianity. Because <i>John the Angelic </i>refers to some of the substance of such texts, we are all the richer for its existence. Surely, all of this information must be kept somewhere, but that would generally be within the ambit of scholars and theologians, not lay readers. </div><div><br /></div><div>***</div><div><br /></div><div><span> </span>Further word need be said about the experimental elements of this novel before this review is concluded. The first is the interpolation of the music-journalism text. While I did not understand the connection between the narratives, it would have been less jarring without the interpolation, and felt that it might have worked better as a separate chapter. Perhaps a series of essays, because this mostly seems to be one, about one song. As it stands, it gives the reader the feeling of channel-switching between VH-1 and the History Channel. So, we might refer to this as the "VH-1 element." </div><div><br /></div><div><span> </span>There is also the "<i>Stand by Me</i>-episode," which does not interpolate text, nor separate as a chapter, and I have a harder time understanding where this lends depth or substance to the work. I <i>can </i>understand how the VH-1 element <i>could </i>work--for it seems to posit the cultural figure in question as a kind of spiritual descendent of Pope Joan--but while the <i>Stand by Me</i>-episode was probably the most amusing part of the book, I did not sense its connection to the larger narrative. Perhaps it is metaphorical--the foolish and unhealthy ways people compete with one another to win questionable acclaim--but I did not "see Joan" in any of the contestants in the episode. Perhaps it demands a closer reading but to be perfectly honest, it is not an analysis I want to undertake at this time. </div><div><br /></div><div>***</div><div><br /></div><div><span> </span>Then, there is the experiment that works: the Socrates chapter. This comes towards the end of the novel, and I would say from this point forward, it is at its strongest, though it ends at an anticlimax. But the Socrates chapter is completely separate, and serves as a coda to Plato's <i>Phaedo. </i>The<i> Phaedo </i>may be one of the most profound works in the history of Western Literature and so composing a kind of addendum to it is a dangerous and ambitious task. It is to the author's credit that it comes off. It bears a certain resemblance to the "Penelope" section of <i>Ulysses </i>(i.e. Molly Bloom's 80-page stream-of-consciousness fever dream, shorn of punctuation or any spacing of text), but thankfully there are actual sentences, and it probably works just as well as that section of that novel, because it feels like an accurate representation of the inner working of Socrates's mind after drinking the hemlock. In particular, there is a vision of Theseus and his ship. Now I had heard vague rumblings about Theseus's ship, as an intellectual-philosophical exercise (even Elon Musk <a href="https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1508356357967122434?s=20&t=CZijhGUS7BjcPkibXLkLcg" target="_blank">tweeted</a> a reference to it recently), but the way it is presented here feels surreal and otherworldly, profound; it is arguably the most powerful moment in the novel. To give some sense of it:</div><div><br /></div><div><span> </span>"The death of his father transformed Theseus from a hero-prince into a founder-king. Something spirited the ancient light away, and Socrates was returned to his cell, dizzy from the enormity and detail of the vision that had just been pushed through his mind and his senses. How could he know these things? And were they all true? The vivid succession of dreams that had throttled Theseus's heart where he lay in grief over the death of his father was as real as any actual event Socrates had experienced himself. Had the hemlock caused this, or something greater working in and through him in these closing moments of his life? And why Theseus? Perhaps to remind him of the nexus between the history of this ship to Delos and his own fate, a confluence of ceremony and destiny to afford him insight into the nature of both? And what of that tempest off the coast of Cyprus, if not the will of the gods and the destiny of Athens in inheriting a new leader? Do we see what we see because they are revealed to us, or are they revealed to us because we see them? Which is the mover and which the thing moved? At the brink of death, in this final embrace of the living with its own flawed boundary, the philosopher thought at last to himself: <i>How much I will miss this</i>. For the world of the question not only embodied desire, it constituted the very body desired itself. The philosopher's being dwelt not in the answer but in the voluptuous contours of the question." (146-147)</div><div><br /></div><div><span> </span>This is not a perfect novel, but as noted previously, in this review and others, a perfect literary debut is extraordinary, especially a self-published one. While I disagree with a few of the choices, the author accomplished a great deal with this text, and at the very least it piqued my interest to see what comes next in <i>The Latecoming West</i>. Ultimately, it stands for the proposition that history is a cycle, and that a great many questions we have about living and how to do it best have already been asked and answered for centuries. Too many of these lessons from history continue to be lost, and it is to the credit of books like this that they are brought into the light. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div></div>JKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16199023801433187878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3851264164198134050.post-27381579108396066492022-02-08T14:35:00.002-05:002022-02-08T14:35:56.019-05:00Crying in H Mart - Michelle Zauner (2021)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhU0WQDOmFiwxWPE17oZC8mkAqxka8ZuZIS2FT7arbo6kH3xshG95QEmPyii_55itxXnnWDzU7ImUq4j5cl5RbhZaOX-KyWNgMiKedJKKUsRoQCcecLEHBDkGQ5ERmrKpLHDKtiBlsMztdx9bLwIl_MAkrDjD4jQ3a6tLLAnpd4BTnrJTeSa3icag7UTw=s2000" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2000" data-original-width="1353" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhU0WQDOmFiwxWPE17oZC8mkAqxka8ZuZIS2FT7arbo6kH3xshG95QEmPyii_55itxXnnWDzU7ImUq4j5cl5RbhZaOX-KyWNgMiKedJKKUsRoQCcecLEHBDkGQ5ERmrKpLHDKtiBlsMztdx9bLwIl_MAkrDjD4jQ3a6tLLAnpd4BTnrJTeSa3icag7UTw=s320" width="216" /></a></div><p>We do not need to run through all of the so-called indie rock memoirs reviewed on Flying Houses. Suffice to say, there are many, and if I happen to do another in the near future, I will make a separate post compiling them for easy access, rather than needlessly clutter this review with links and comparisons. Because this is a very different type of memoir from those.</p><p>With <i>Crying in H Mart</i>, Michelle Zauner has established herself as one of the preeminent artists of today, probably because this book is not really about the music. I am sure many other musicians are hobbyists in some other discipline and possess redoubtable knowledge on certain topics--but they never choose to write about them at length. </p><p>Zauner's material on Japanese Breakfast and her earlier band, Little Big League, comprise 10 or maybe 15 pages out of this 239-page narrative. This isn't a book about her travails in trying to "make it." It does, however, reflect upon her meteoric rise in beautiful fashion. And this was one of the many, many pages that brought tears to my eyes--of sadness, happiness (for others) and hope. This is to say, I often begrudge others their success, particularly when they are quite a bit younger than me. But Zauner isn't really <i>that much</i> younger than me, and one cannot help but see her success as hard-earned, beautiful and touching.</p><p>This book took me quite a long time to read--perhaps six weeks--owing as always to other life events, but also because, this is very heavy reading. It's not leavened with photographs (clearly, there could be many, as evidenced by one of its final episodes) or sprinkled with clever asides or footnotes. There clearly could have been footnotes in this, but they would have detracted from its overall power. There is levity in this book, but it is juxtaposed against heartbreaking anguish, and the overall mood is honorary and respectful towards its true subject, which is Zauner's mother. </p><p>I cannot locate her proper name in this book, which probably is best written in Korean, though one of the many things Zauner does well is translate Korean into English as "Konglish." We know her mother's sisters are Eunmi and Nami. Michelle doesn't speak Korean particularly well, but she was born in Seoul; her mother was from there and her father was American. </p><p>The book opens up like <i>The Stranger</i>, as it should:<br /></p><p>"Ever since my mom died, I cry in H Mart." (3)</p><p>From there, she launches into a description of the H Mart franchise and the magic she feels upon stepping into one, tinged with nostalgia and sadness: she cries in several places in the store, and apparently does this often. The opening is kind of a delusive move, because it makes the book seem like it will be an exercise in dark humor, or irony--and while it has such moments, it is more closely about the absurdity of grief that many of us have endured or must endure, at some point. Really though, it's all about the food.</p><p>***</p><p>Our previous subject, <a href="http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2022/01/youre-on-airplane-parker-posey-2018.html" target="_blank">Parker Posey</a>, included several recipes in her memoir. These were kooky but not unwelcome. Here, Zauner could clearly justify an appendix of recipes. So why does she not? Perhaps it is to maintain the sanctity of the dishes, or perhaps because she doesn't want to cheapen it by offering facile instruction. The text itself should be sufficient for anyone seeking to replicate these recipes. </p><p>We need more books like this, about food from other parts of the world. We have every kind of food imaginable in a big city, but there is nothing better than <i>authentic </i>cuisine, recipes passed down through generations, tied to homeland traditions and memories of being together, intrinsic to one's identity. I knew about H Mart but I haven't been in one. The first time I go, I might just cry. I'm actually feeling pretty emotional today. I finished this last night. Maybe I'll go today. </p><p>***</p><p>Briefly, the book concerns the period between 2013 and 2014, in which Zauner lived in Philadelphia, playing smaller shows with her smaller band, Little Big League, for a few years after graduating from Bryn Mawr College.</p><p>Now then, she does write a bit about her high school years, and the bad relationship she had with her mother at the time, and how poorly she performed in school, and how it was a miracle she got into college at all, later graduating with honors--but she downplays Bryn Mawr's prestige. While there may have been personal issues, clearly her parents did something right with her education, and this book is proof that she contains multitudes and can do these things at a high level. She is the only person that can get a "Best New Music" designation on Pitchfork, publish a NY Times Bestseller, and make a proper bowl of nurungji, or galbi, or jatjuk, or <i>authentic </i>kimchi.</p><p>There are certainly moments of ridiculous "culture-specific" humor:</p><p>"I was afraid of my grandmother. She spoke harshly and loudly and knew maybe fifteen words in English, so it always seemed like she was angry. She never smiled in pictures and her laugh was like a cackle that ended in loud hacking and coughing. She was as hunched over as an umbrella handle and always wore plaid pajama pants and shirts with glittering, rough fabrics. But I was chiefly afraid of one particular weapon she brandished--the ddongchim. Ddongchim literally means <i>poop needle</i>. It involves clasping your hands in the shape of a gun, index fingers pressed together to create a needle used to penetrate an unsuspecting anus. As horrifying as it sounds, it's a common cultural thing, something akin to a Korean wedgie and not some unique form of sexual assault. Whenever she was near, I constantly hid behind my mother or Seong Young, or scooted by her furtively with my butt pressed against the wall, anxiously expecting my halmoni to prod her index fingers through my pants, cackling and then hacking at my surprise and terror." (28-29)</p><p>There is <i>some </i>material on indie rock, and it was heartening to read that the first song Zauner learned how to play on guitar was "Carry the Zero" by Built to Spill (an impressive start, especially if she could do the solo). She rhapsodizes about Modest Mouse as the keystone to the regional scene. She waxes poetic about seeing Karen O and the Yeah Yeah Yeahs, and how she gave her the confidence to believe that someone that looked like her could be in a band like that. But she was also ambivalent and cynical: maybe Karen O had fulfilled the demographic quota, and there was no space for another half-white, half-Korean indie rock icon:</p><p>"Back then, I didn't know what a scarcity mentality was. The dialogue surrounding representation in music was in its nascent stages, and because I didn't personally know any other girls who played music, I didn't know there were others like me struggling with the same feelings. I didn't have the analogical capacity to imagine a white boy in the same situation, watching a live DVD of say, the Stooges, and thinking, if there's already an Iggy Pop, how could there possibly be room for another white guy in music?" (55)</p><p>So, there is a little bit about music, but that's just her career, and she does not have many anxieties about deciding what she wants to do with her life, though she does later work at a pizza restaurant as a way of distracting herself from grief. I am not sure if the phrase "tiger mom" appears in print here, but a word need be said about this.</p><p>Now I do not know what it is like to grow up with an Asian or Asian-American mother, but they are apparently very tough on their kids and hold very high expectations for them. Some consider this brutal treatment, and this entered the cultural conversation when Amy Chua published her book <i>The Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. </i>But Chua's mother was Chinese and I wouldn't want to conflate the cultures. Regardless, it's impossible to avoid that disambiguation in America, unless it's part of your own identity, or has become your adopted identity. I can try to be sensitive to these differences, but I will inevitably stick my foot in my mouth. </p><p>Zauner's mother is harsh, but lovely in that harshness. She only wants to steel Michelle against the innumerable criticisms of the world, so that she may transcend them. She criticizes her extensively, and the relationship is so bad that at one point, in a fit of anger, she instigates physical abuse, asks her husband to overpower their daughter, and loses it:</p><p>"'Why are you doing this to us? After everything we have given you, how can you treat us this way?' she yelled, her tears and spit falling onto my face. She smelled like olive oil and citrus. Her hands felt soft and slick, greased with cream, as they pushed my wrists against the coarse carpet. The weight of her on me began to ache like a bruise. My father hovered over us, unsure of his place in it all, searching for a reason why a kid like me could wind up so miserable.<br />'I had an abortion after you because you were such a terrible child!'<br />Her grip went slack and she shifted her weight off me to leave the room. She let out a little cluck, the kind of sound let out when you think something is a real shame, like passing a dilapidated building with beautiful architecture." (65)</p><p>This is the major thread running through the book--Zauner's regret over the wasted years of her upbringing, when she couldn't properly appreciate her mother's form of love. She could appreciate the food, but little beyond that. By the end it is clear that she has made good, and they are about as close as a mother and daughter can be. </p><p>***</p><p>There was one surprising element to this book, and I will not spoil it, but I will just say there is a kind of <i><a href="http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2018/06/the-house-of-broken-angels-luis-alberto.html" target="_blank">House of Broken Angels</a>-</i>vibe to it. Of course, as a grief memoir, there is plenty of material about hospitals, chemotherapy, hair loss, nausea, bodily fluids, humiliation, thankless caretaking, dreaded phone calls, and magical thinking. </p><p>But there is more about love in here, and food. Zauner does not shy away from graphic details, and while she conveys the horror of the events in question, she prefers to remember her mother at the height of her powers, focusing on the knowledge and the memories that she hopes to preserve. </p><p>But God, the crying. I am not sure this book will make you cry, but it definitely made me cry. Like, a lot. Like, I had tears welling up for maybe 15-20% of the pages I read. This is why it was a heavy read for me, because I felt that every time I picked it up, it would remind me of things, things that didn't even have to do with death, such as the trip to Seoul she takes with her husband Peter. The book is also an account of their relationship, from a certain remove, and it seems so effortless, we can only imagine how much more difficult the grieving process must be without a good, supportive partner. If anything, this thread shows all the elements that comprise a good relationship. Those of us with less impressive partners (or delusional crushes) may find deeper longing in it.</p><p>The true beauty of the book, however, comes at its end, and while it is something of a spoiler, I cannot help myself:</p><p>"I hadn't believed in a god since I was about ten, and still envisioned Mr. Rogers when I prayed, but the years that followed my mother's passing were suspiciously charmed. I had been playing in bands since I was sixteen, dreamt of succeeding as an artist practically my whole life, and as an American, I felt entitled to it in spite of my mother's aggrieved forewarnings. I had fought for that dream thanklessly for eight long years, and only after she died did things, as if magically, begin to happen.<br />If there was a god, it seemed my mother must have had her foot on his neck, demanding good things come my way. That if we had to be ripped apart right at our turning point, just when things were really starting to get good, the least god could do was make a few of her daughter's pipe dreams come true.<br />She would have been tickled to have seen the past few years, me dressed up and shot for a fashion magazine, watching the first South Korean director win an Academy Award, YouTube channels with millions of views dedicated to fifteen-step skin-care regimens. And though it felt contrary to my beliefs, I had to believe that she could. And that she was glad I had finally found a place where I belonged." (233)</p><p>Sometimes, success brings the unfortunate tragedy, and sometimes the unfortunate tragedy brings success. The only problem with this book is that it will make other writers want to give up. There's a span of a few pages towards the end, which I will not excerpt, where she puts some redoubtable vocabulary on display. There's poetry in the language, and she writes about taste sensations with such precise detail that she could easily moonlight as a restaurant critic. The book ultimately hits every nerve of the human experience and imbues it with truth. As such, it is one of the Best Books reviewed on this blog. </p><p>Grade: A</p><p>****APPENDIX****</p><p>For my own personal perusing, I want to include one recipe. I won't do the kimchi (pp. 214-216), because that would be a long excerpt, but that may be the most instructional one in the book. She writes a bit about Maangchi, who does videos on YouTube and who seems almost like an avatar for her mother. She seems to consult the videos for verification purposes. Maangchi does do a video for jatjuk:</p><p>"The recipe was simple--pine nuts, rice, salt and water, all ingredients we already had on hand. Per Maangchi's instructions, I soaked a third of a cup of rice and set it aside for two hours. I measured out two tablespoons of pine nuts, and began removing the tips, then tossed the soft, picked kernels into the blender. When the rice was finished soaking, I rinsed it under the faucet and added it to the pine nuts with two cups of water. I closed the lid and ran the blender on high, then emptied the liquid into a small pot on the stove.</p><p>'You don't need many ingredients, but as you can see it takes time. That's why jatjuk is very precious. Like, for example, one of your family members is sick, nothing much you can do. When we visit the hospital we usually make this jatjuk because patients can't eat like normal food. Pine nuts has protein and good fat for body so this is perfect food for patients who are recovering from their illness,' Maangchi explained.</p><p>The mixture was a beautiful milky-white color. On medium heat I stirred it with a wooden spoon. At first, impatient for it to thicken, I was afraid I'd used too much water. Then, as its consistency turned from skim milk to peanut butter, I was afraid I hadn't added enough. I lowered the heat and continued to stir, hoping it would thin as Maangchi's had. When the pot began to sizzle, I took it off the heat and added salt, then poured it into a small bowl. </p><p>I cut chonggak kimchi into small disks and ladled some of the brine over the radish pieces. The soup was creamy and nutty, and felt soft and soothing as I swallowed. I ate a few more spoonfuls before crunching into some kimchi to break up the rich flavor with something spicy and tart. That wasn't so hard, I thought to myselff, happy to have conquered the dish that Kye had mystified. </p><p>This was all I wanted, I realized, after so many days of decadent filets and pricey crustaceans, potatoes slathered in the many glorious permutations that ratios of butter, cheese, and cream can take. This plain porridge was the first dish to make me feel full. Maangchi supplied the secrets to its composition step by step, like a digital guardian I could always turn to, delivering the knowledge that had been withheld from me, that was my birthright. I closed my eyes and spooned the last of the soup into my mouth, picturing the soft mixture coating my mother's blistered tongue, the warm liquid traveling slowly into my stomach as I tried to savor the aftertaste." (189-191)</p>JKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16199023801433187878noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3851264164198134050.post-33534283420492320472022-01-17T16:15:00.003-05:002022-01-25T08:40:08.509-05:00You're on an Airplane - Parker Posey (2018)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjet0fRtaIiIlHxNhYWskktEYnlj-Yyq5robNBXoIC0ahfqKOHMEEV0b9HISy9bSh4eUjaVnLXLWsYmWx8vul_byi-tnD-Soig23PgokcdIE7RjAiaXMdV6iXEOH5PRTRWQ01ugblGxOoU2ozvqtiICG8ZUYfKVTVObNSAgS5aBF1o-gsU1dz52H5dLmg=s709" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="709" data-original-width="474" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjet0fRtaIiIlHxNhYWskktEYnlj-Yyq5robNBXoIC0ahfqKOHMEEV0b9HISy9bSh4eUjaVnLXLWsYmWx8vul_byi-tnD-Soig23PgokcdIE7RjAiaXMdV6iXEOH5PRTRWQ01ugblGxOoU2ozvqtiICG8ZUYfKVTVObNSAgS5aBF1o-gsU1dz52H5dLmg=s320" width="214" /></a></div><p>This, along with our previous celebrity memoir, were picked up when I randomly browsed what was on the shelves of the local branch of the CPL in advance of a week-long trip to Palm Springs. I didn't realize Parker Posey had written a memoir (I would imagine most people also, did not know this) but I always liked her in anything I saw her in, and appreciated the niche she had carved out for herself in film. It also would be a good book to read on a trip such as this.</p><p>Actually, it was not, because I felt vaguely self-conscious whenever I opened it on one of the 4 different flights I took, irrationally concerned that a fellow passenger might see the cover and consider it too apropos and ironic, as if I was reading it for a reaction. Usually, when a person next to you remarks on your book, it is a welcome exchange (it is for me, at least, given this blog). I remember a particularly positive one, on a flight to New York in 2017, involving <a href="http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-days-of-abandonment-elena-ferrante.html" target="_blank">Elena Ferrante</a>, so hip and "advanced" as New Yorkers continually prove themselves to be, that portended a meaningful return. </p><p>People namecheck Elena Ferrante so they can sound "in the know" (Hollywood did come knocking, more than once, most recently with a film directed by Maggie Gyllenhaal that I liked, but which is apparently very divisive); and certainly, people that namecheck Parker Posey may not be "in the know" to the burgeoning cultural moment, but they are certainly "in the know" about independent film.</p><p>Yet some of us only know an actor's oeuvre in broad strokes, as each performance gets spit out immediately after it has coalesced into a vision. When an actor finishes a role, they are done with it--unless sequels are planned, or it is a TV show. </p><p>My dad has gotten into a number of TV shows lately, and I have tried to watch them on his recommendation. We agreed on <i>Fleabag </i>and <i>The Mandalorian</i>. I enjoyed <i>The Queen's Gambit</i>, but not quite to the same degree (ditto for <i>The Marvelous Ms. Maisel</i>). I have not finished <i>WandaVision</i>, but I have liked what I have seen fine. His latest binge has been on <i>Lost in Space </i>and I had been meaning to start it. Shortly after I checked this out from the CPL, I found out that Parker Posey is the star of that show (or at least its biggest star), and now I will be starting it sooner. I will also get around to seeing <i>Blade: Trinity </i>(which I think also requires watching the first two), because I believe that she is good in everything she does. </p><p>***</p><p>It is perhaps easiest to begin by forming a list of adjectives to describe the book: "quirky," "manic," "irreverent," "disorganized," "messy," "educational," "surprising," "humorous," "ironic," and "cute." It is pretty light reading, yet I found it somewhat difficult to engage with the material until I had locked in for a few pages and could follow the thread of each narrative episode. So, it was not a quick read. </p><p>I was somewhat put-off by the first 50-100 pages, because it seemed like the book was going to be "padded," with all of the cutesy re-purposed photographs in the margins of its pages. By its end, that decision made a certain amount of sense: nearly every biography, and many memoirs, contains a section of pages near the middle (or perhaps several such sections), that consist exclusively of photographs with captions. Now, these are always welcome respites and feel like "shortcuts" through the book, yet they tend to deepen and enliven the material, particularly when the artists themselves are steeped in the art of photography (I am thinking of <a href="http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2016/01/just-kids-patti-smith-2010.html" target="_blank">Patti Smith</a> and <a href="http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2021/01/sontag-benjamin-moser-2019.html" target="_blank">Susan Sontag</a>, here).</p><p>Posey need not do that, because her life's work is on film. Reproducing stills from the films would feel self-congratulatory and unnecessary, and while there might be a few candid photos with other celebrities, these are kept private, because Hollywood is a very dirty place, it seems.</p><p>***</p><p>Before I read this book, I knew Parker Posey to be an actress that did not hog the spotlight, that seemed comfortable being a "character actor." I had recently re-watched <i>Best in Show </i>shortly before I picked this up, and was reminded of her delirious performance in that, which has to be one of her best. I didn't remember her in much else, to be honest, except the film adaptation of the <a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2010/06/closer-dennis-cooper.html" target="_blank">Dennis</a> <a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2008/05/try-dennis-cooper.html" target="_blank">Cooper</a> <a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2021/10/i-wished-dennis-cooper-2021.html" target="_blank">novel</a>, <i>Frisk</i>, because she was also the biggest star in it. She was in <i>Dazed and Confused</i>, but sort of blended into the background with all the other famous actors in their breakout performances. She is in pretty much every Christopher Guest movie since <i>Waiting for Guffman </i>(and always a highlight in each). I am pretty sure I saw <i>Broken English </i>and <i>Fay Grim</i>, but I remember nothing about either. I enjoyed <i>Irrational Man </i>more than I was expecting, but I forgot she was in it. I also forgot she had a character arc on <i>Louie</i>. I don't remember her in <i>Scream 3</i>, but I think I am about to re-watch it, a <i>Scream </i>marathon, for the new one. I'm pretty sure I watched <i>Party Girl </i>(which for some reason, I believe is her "iconic" performance, and the one that gave her the vaguely acknowledged moniker as the "queen of independent cinema"), but I don't remember much about it. I liked <i>Kicking and Screaming</i>, but again, do not remember much about it </p><p>That was Noah Baumbach's debut, which came out in 1995, and only now, in the past couple of years, probably after Greta Gerwig put out <i>Ladybird</i>, is he acknowledged as a marquee director. I could write about other directors referenced here that later "had their moment" (Richard Linklater, though he did that right out of the gates; Greg Mottola; Julian Schnabel; Hal Hartley and Greg Araki, though never major names, but major icons of independent film; Zoe Cassavetes, and it's surprising just how many "acclaimed artists" Netflix has managed to snag). I wanted to make a special note that I loved the movie <i>subUrbia </i>and also did not realize she was in it. I do not remember much at all about <i>Superman Returns </i>except that Kevin Spacey played Lex Luthor and that it failed to generate sequels. There was probably some sketchiness on the set with the director being Bryan Singer, but Posey is not interested in getting any artists "canceled." </p><p>I could write about a lot of things in this review, because this book sort of encompasses everything about Hollywood over the past 30 years, and because Posey feels omnipresent and underappreciated within that, but we should stick to the text.</p><p>***</p><p>She was born at the tail-end of the 1960's with a fraternal twin brother (the first fact I did not know), and raised in or around Shreveport, Louisiana. And here we have to mention the single best part of this memoir, which is her writing about her father. </p><p>Her father is, frankly, outrageous, and it feels vulnerable to admit this, but I have always been sort of ambivalent about having children (to say nothing of economic barriers) until reading this, because I would love to be the sort of dad that he was to her. In short, more human beings could stand to be like him:</p><p>"My dad brings the 'never met a stranger' phrase [she earlier described him as "a comedian without a venue"] to a whole other level. I've met people on sidewalks in New York who say they had a great time with my dad on a flight or in a restaurant somewhere--they go out of their way to tell me this. He's so charismatic and seductive that he once gave an impromptu chiropractic adjustment to someone he'd just met at a business party, in San Diego. No, he's not a professional chiropractor, he was a car salesman. He got that lady to lie on a table so he could crack her neck. When we saw her rubbing her neck, looking like she was in pain as she walked to her husband, we tiptoed, running, out of there. When he'd try to sell a new car to a potential buyer, he'd put a fake poopy diaper in the trunk to 'break the ice'--that kind of shit. He could sell ice to water." (116)</p><p>I just spent about 30 minutes trying to find the story about a road trip her family took where they stopped at a random convenience store along with the way and bought masks (one of them was Nixon) and how her parents drove with the masks on to freak out other drivers, and how they drank, less, in the car, but it was driving me nuts, so I just had to paraphrase it from memory. </p><p>There are other stories with her dad, but you can see one problem with the text already: it's a blur. That said, flipping through these pages for 30 minutes leads to other things I want to write about, and reminds me that I did, actually, fly through the last 200 pages of the book (maybe because I was waiting around a hospital for hours last week) and cannot situate excerpts. It's a blur, and sometimes there are throwaway lines, throwaway paragraphs--there could have been finer editing, and it seems Posey had total creative control to write this maniacally--yet on the whole this is life in all of its glorious messiness. It is extremely difficult to remain focused when you have lived a storied life and have simply too many intriguing anecdotes to relate. </p><p>***</p><p>There are many threads running throughout this book, but if there is one that sets it apart and make it unique, it is the attention Posey pays to the myriad ways that all of our lives are intertwined. There is some form of cosmic connection, it seems, and when we recognize certain coincidences as being too bizarre for belief, it generally merits mention. </p><p>Like the anecdotes about her father, these would be difficult to locate, but one, at least, should be easy.</p><p>And it's not! What a surprise. The story I can't find involves Wiley Wiggins and Jason London, perhaps 15 or 20 years after co-starring in <i>Dazed and Confused</i>, and I really shouldn't spoil it, anyways.</p><p>Another story I <i>could</i> find involves Shirley MacLaine and <i>Coneheads </i>and UFOs, but that would basically involve copying the entire chapter "Shirley, the Coneheads, and Me," which yes, is one of the standout chapters. </p><p>Posey is a lapsed Catholic, so I could relate to her form of spirituality, which also seems to involve a fair good bit of yoga. The chapter where she describes the entire series of a Sun Salutation ("Garbage on the Beach") was extremely familiar to me, as it likely is for many. The chapter on pottery, however, I did not like nearly as much. It has a moment or two, but felt too much like "inside baseball," despite writing from a beginner's perspective.</p><p>***</p><p>The book is useful for the recipes that Posey includes. Here, I will include the very rare photographic supplement to a review, for two simple recipes and one hard one:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiE4ucR95ePoeCviTx4EJTQp9ovmrpDynQcmzr4I6P-ErzhgUTmjJ4NysAxetAqlyKR75eN6PQSJA1iTI18LnpTwVIKTbvIn4QLTLlVu8EOdMu_qnRYz9SfX7TR4l7F8xiEIAPgYzqaP6qTPxL9AMZu32MYVAS3LoAlhcr81IqA8gSHwPzJRmcEcsC2vA=s2538" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2538" data-original-width="1427" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiE4ucR95ePoeCviTx4EJTQp9ovmrpDynQcmzr4I6P-ErzhgUTmjJ4NysAxetAqlyKR75eN6PQSJA1iTI18LnpTwVIKTbvIn4QLTLlVu8EOdMu_qnRYz9SfX7TR4l7F8xiEIAPgYzqaP6qTPxL9AMZu32MYVAS3LoAlhcr81IqA8gSHwPzJRmcEcsC2vA=w360-h640" width="360" /></a></div><br /><p><br /></p><p>"...the edge of the pie. I think this takes about 45 minutes. May God bless America." is the missing end to the sentence.</p><p>And this one is easy, too:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh0mIcqvUM5RuG-vqHep464K4r4EKCi9BdEiftGCETptcSU792LBhhyhN9A_nEvpgPJWPVsvzwnPU3kK0yulPILexbBBtyzNsUJjS9XCoFehB589k2N2LjrTifjLY9ul5kh2fRGk52MSXAbF9gEjUOaT2VsxSLUGdRSzU_02Zrxx9felDqrxFj3mRyKrw=s2453" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2453" data-original-width="1380" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh0mIcqvUM5RuG-vqHep464K4r4EKCi9BdEiftGCETptcSU792LBhhyhN9A_nEvpgPJWPVsvzwnPU3kK0yulPILexbBBtyzNsUJjS9XCoFehB589k2N2LjrTifjLY9ul5kh2fRGk52MSXAbF9gEjUOaT2VsxSLUGdRSzU_02Zrxx9felDqrxFj3mRyKrw=w360-h640" width="360" /></a></div><br /><p><br /></p><p>And this last one sounds tedious and expensive, but also amazing: </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiB2Ro2XUbIwSegWHdzpBbujCjyZnZCcc-lJVpuTC0q4GCqXpNDMC-xrkpyx-R8x8aHV9t9wrPHy8fOpvG12qvMgPDUdiK6acTYtZ-yQy0LZpAtDBqPFAoDAGB11KKWbpHUBXUBYy-_yp5QC06oHON4N9nXHRITzPcn3qxFelTB1Xo6jjIiZu-w_9lGsA=s2488" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2488" data-original-width="1399" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiB2Ro2XUbIwSegWHdzpBbujCjyZnZCcc-lJVpuTC0q4GCqXpNDMC-xrkpyx-R8x8aHV9t9wrPHy8fOpvG12qvMgPDUdiK6acTYtZ-yQy0LZpAtDBqPFAoDAGB11KKWbpHUBXUBYy-_yp5QC06oHON4N9nXHRITzPcn3qxFelTB1Xo6jjIiZu-w_9lGsA=w360-h640" width="360" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjpscqTMbtfiIOf4Z0_cWaiN50VbY3aoa3cruf70SC7f8kYZc_pjmIXTbgfsnnjh97jrQfpCS6_7LnBWWFgWfUgKzFdoVZxW4wXkGbpSNzDJJcfsTPfhWCYJIRDQfN9IXrn9ogbrbJbJ5Of8U856QVvbgssUwPpeVLBYLvcvqTqhxddaH4z2_KDinXPHQ=s2448" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2448" data-original-width="1377" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjpscqTMbtfiIOf4Z0_cWaiN50VbY3aoa3cruf70SC7f8kYZc_pjmIXTbgfsnnjh97jrQfpCS6_7LnBWWFgWfUgKzFdoVZxW4wXkGbpSNzDJJcfsTPfhWCYJIRDQfN9IXrn9ogbrbJbJ5Of8U856QVvbgssUwPpeVLBYLvcvqTqhxddaH4z2_KDinXPHQ=w360-h640" width="360" /></a></div><br /><p><br /></p><p>I am not including the recipe for Cheese Crisps by Lynda Posey, but the anecdote is quite amusing.</p><p>***</p><p>Posey does not trash anyone in this memoir. It was published in 2018, and so the #metoo movement must have had an impact on its writing. Posey details no meeting with <a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2020/01/short-form-conversations-with-friends.html" target="_blank">Harvey</a> <a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2020/09/catch-and-kill-ronan-farrow-2019.html" target="_blank">Weinstein</a>, and while it does not seem he had any impact on her career (in the Paltrow sense), he may have indirectly supported it by Making Independent Films Big, and I would imagine they had to have met, at some point. </p><p>If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all, and in Hollywood, when you do, you don't use their names. She does this at a few points in the memoir, and one could probably do a little research and figure out who she meant, but again, such anecdotes would be difficult to locate. </p><p>The chapter "Louie" is a turning point for the book, and it comes fairly early on (around page 100). Posey knows that people want to know what the real Louis C.K. is like, and this chapter should give a fair impression, though there is only a line or two that suggest any latent understandings. Ditto for the chapter "Master of Storms" on her experience working with <a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2021/03/apropos-of-nothing-woody-allen-2020.html" target="_blank">Woody Allen</a> on <i>Irrational Man</i>. It seems clear, she has serious respect for Allen (refers to him as the greatest living film director) and would not disown her work on his films. </p><p>She also talks a bit (yes, it should be "writes a bit," but the book is written as a long monologue on an airplane to a seatmate, though the device is not followed religiously) about her dog Gracie and how she got him when she was with her boyfriend Ryan, whose last name is later divulged as Adams. This may have been at the height of his career, or right when it was "taking off," and there are a couple light jabs, but nothing incendiary. </p><p>Basically, for the time this book is published--a book about being a Hollywood actress since the 90's--there is little, if any, reference to #metoo. It was published July 24, 2018, and #metoo became a thing in October 2017. Perhaps nothing bad happened to her, and she felt she couldn't write responsibly on the topic, but I can hardly believe this was the case. We should not expect memoirists to explore all of their deepest, darkest and most painful experiences--and this is certainly not that type of book--and perhaps she felt it was unnecessary and distracting. Whatever the case, it is pointless to conjecture as to her motives or the realities of writing and publishing; just know that when she dishes, it is usually more innocuous than damning. She is not out to get anyone canceled. And perhaps, in a way, because of this, the book does not come off as phony. Some might consider it somewhat superficial (a great deal of space is dedicated to a wrist injury and the perils of home renovation), but there is nothing phony about it. These elements do, unfortunately, make it feel somewhat like a tease, but if a reader is hoping for "dirt," that may say more about them than the author that chooses to make their memoir un-sensational. </p><p>***<br /><br />I had mixed feelings as I waded through the text, but I never felt Posey to be anything less than charming, perhaps most so when she knew she was being annoying by writing an entire chapter about the mechanics of pottery-making. Upon completion, my feelings are more positive than not. The ending, while somewhat appropriate, is a totally random place to finish, and it's clear Posey was trying to do something different with this book. She is not a comedian, but clearly her father's love for comedy was passed down, and it reads more like a comedian's memoir than an actor's memoir. Her writing is effortless, and several rules are broken, but people say you need to learn all of the rules in order to break them, and this book probably would not exist if Posey had focused her efforts on writing rather than acting. It could have used better editing, but I also understand the choice was made to keep it weird. I appreciate that, and this book made me appreciate Parker Posey more than I already did, deepened the pseudo-crush I always had on her, and made me hope that perhaps one day our lives will also intersect. Arguably, they already did when she lived in Janeane Garafalo's building, and I lived across the street at 5th and 10th in 2001 (a dorm--former abode to Mark Twain and apparently Edith Wharton, which I didn't know until reading this); but no "on point" anecdote exists that merits mention, not yet. </p>JKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16199023801433187878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3851264164198134050.post-75324439318671930872022-01-07T14:59:00.000-05:002022-01-07T14:59:13.188-05:00Silver Screen Fiend: Learning about Life from an Addiction to Film - Patton Oswalt (2015)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjNUOi5fY0_jtTJZPrSN8ATFnooHxvryfpwDAVqip62kCqFn1ltkFG-gkDOXOzQP52SxPUjOWrlp0GyO5kYmX0qaYjSeWkLNIxhvL_MRB6eeIhBckHTy2wn-rpeT6t2YkxuO9E_6TxDT5tHJSGPu6fNzH4VYt5njD0reDtitmZ5vUU4PwA__NbgFoS4Mg=s475" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="475" data-original-width="304" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjNUOi5fY0_jtTJZPrSN8ATFnooHxvryfpwDAVqip62kCqFn1ltkFG-gkDOXOzQP52SxPUjOWrlp0GyO5kYmX0qaYjSeWkLNIxhvL_MRB6eeIhBckHTy2wn-rpeT6t2YkxuO9E_6TxDT5tHJSGPu6fNzH4VYt5njD0reDtitmZ5vUU4PwA__NbgFoS4Mg=s320" width="205" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div>This was Patton Oswalt's second book, and I haven't read <i>Zombie Spaceship Wasteland</i>, which was also a memoir. I believe that one is more about stand-up comedy and this one is, obviously, more about cinema. That said, there is a pretty good amount of material on stand-up comedy in it. I would say it is actually about 50/50. <div><br /></div><div>I don't want to go into an exegesis of Oswalt as a cultural figure, but it is inevitable. He is most famous for giving the voice to Remy in <i>Ratatouille </i>and perhaps his role on "King of Queens." However, he is a very good actor in his own right (<i>Big Fan </i>and <i>Young Adult </i>are both excellent). In 2011, he was given the Vanguard Award at the Palm Springs International Film Festival. And of course, as a stand-up comedian, he would be considered A-list. </div><div><br /></div><div>He did contribute to a third book, which was started by his wife Michelle McNamara before her untimely passing, and <i>I'll Be Gone in the Dark </i>seems like it might be better than <i>Silver Screen Fiend</i>, primarily due to the heaviness of the subject matter and context of its publication. (It was also adapted into a documentary for HBO.) It's not ironic that Patton Oswalt went to see <i>Pulp Fiction </i>with Marc Maron (and a third friend, Blaine Capatch), but it feels like it should be. Sometimes things happen and life is just unfair. Sometimes people become successful and get paid, and they pay for it in other ways. No lessons can be learned from such tragedies. Great art, however, can be made as a sort of salve for anyone in the audience whose lives have similarly been devastated by the cruel and arbitrary nature of the universe.</div><div><br /></div><div>But back in the good ol' days of 2015, life was better than we appreciated it being, and Oswalt put out this book about self-education in cinema, which was undertaken in the hopes that it would magically transform him into a film director. </div><div><br /></div><div>***</div><div><br /></div><div>Immediately, the concept is appealing to me. I did a similar thing when I was 18, but it was with Blockbuster's $30 for 30 days deal, and I did a new movie every night. When I was about to start NYU, I wanted to be a film director (or a critic, secondarily). I probably watched most of the Woody Allen catalog, perhaps to prepare for the move to NYC. And while my interest in making films soon waned, after appearing in one and experiencing the enormous obligations and extent of collaboration with tech personnel, I wanted to work on my own, because I didn't have the confidence to say, "this story is good enough to film, and good enough to ask you all to give me a huge chunk of your time to work on it with me." As an older person now, I recognize that spirit of collaboration as a beautiful thing, and that if tech personnel are actually being <i>paid </i>for their time, it is less daunting to ask for it. </div><div><br /></div><div>But I was young and dumb for many years (that continue to this day...), and I would not abandon wanting to make movies, such that six years after those first forays into cinema, I would move to California to try to insinuate myself into Hollywood. When I went to the movies, it was mostly to the bigger chains to see bigger films (<i>Into the Wild</i>, <i>No Country for Old Men</i>, <i>There Will be Blood</i>, <i>Wall-E</i>, <i>The Dark Knight</i>) but one night, I went by myself to see the new movie about Joy Division, <i>Control</i>, at the NuArt Theatre in Santa Monica.</div><div><br /></div><div>***</div><div><br /></div><div>It feels appropriate to mention Peter Bogdanovich, as I just finished listening to his WTF Interview in memoriam. One of his films must be referenced here. It does not feel <i>as </i>appropriate to mention Roman Polanski, who is definitely referenced at least once or twice (<i>Knife in the Water </i>and <i>Repulsion). </i>Bogdanovich was very close with Orson Welles. As I listened, I followed along on his Wikipedia page. I haven't seen <i>The Last Picture Show</i>, <i>Paper Moon</i>, or pretty much any of his other films (actually I have not seen <i>any </i>of them and now I feel like a fraud for thinking I had a decent education). The best parts of the interview were anecdotes about Welles, who is certainly one of the greatest filmmakers of all time, though ended his career in rather sad fashion (his final performance, five days before his death, was in <i>Transformers: the Movie</i>, one of my early favorites, as the voice of the super-villain Unicron, which is pretty perfect in a way). </div><div><br /></div><div>There is no index to <i>Silver Screen Fiend</i>, perhaps because this is not an academic volume, but there is an Appendix which lists all of the films Oswalt saw over the four years of his "addiction," from 1995 to 1999. The period starts with a double feature of <i>Sunset Boulevard </i>and <i>Ace in the Hole </i>at the New Beverly Cinema, which was an institution, until its owner, Sherman Torgan, passed away; Quentin Tarantino (an offspring of Bogdanovich, in a way) has recently restored it and taken over management. It ends with <i>Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, </i>which is quite fitting.</div><div><br /></div><div>In those four years, he saw 51 movies at the NuArt; I think I saw 2 in my one year nearby (<i>Smiley Face </i>after <i>Control</i>). But I went to the NuArt on my own, by myself, and it felt sort of special to me because nobody had ever really mentioned it and I had never really thought about it until I saw it written about in here. So that part of the book is personal to me, also. </div><div><br /></div><div>***</div><div><br /></div><div>One could not do much better than starting off an education in cinema with Billy Wilder. I've seen <i>Sunset Boulevard </i>a handful of times, and <i>Ace in the Hole </i>once, fairly recently (it didn't move me nearly as much as <i>Sunset</i>, <i>The Apartment</i>, <i>The Lost Weekend</i>, <i>Witness for the Prosecution</i>, or what I consider his ultimate masterpiece, <i>Double Indemnity</i>--but it was on par with <i>Some Like it Hot; </i>I probably need to see it again, along with many others of his yet unseen). Donald Trump's most redeeming quality was his appreciation for <i>Sunset</i>, as he felt a kinship with Norma Desmond (his results bore more fruit, rotten as it may have been). It is an essential film, and perhaps the greatest on the subject of Hollywood. I don't think I have ever seen a silent film (further fraudulence) but at least I have seen Buster Keaton in that. William Holden and I are birthday buddies, so I felt connected to his element as well. It's beautifully shot, amusing and moving; one could not do better than start their education here. </div><div><br /></div><div>Oswalt weaves in and out of anecdotes from the actual moviegoing experiences. One of the best is a story about watching <i>Citizen Kane </i>at the New Beverly with Lawrence Tierney in the audience:<br /><br />"For about fifteen minutes he sat there, talking to the screen as if he were just out of view to the other characters, admonishing Kane. 'Don't clap for that squawking bitch, she can't sing. Siddown, ya chump!' 'Aw Jesus, what's he staring at? You gonna cry, fancy man?' It was the best DVD commentary I've ever heard." (96)</div><div><br /></div><div>He weaves in and out, talking about his burgeoning career in stand-up, television and film (I never had any desire to see <i>Down Periscope</i>, but now, I think I will). He primarily does this through his "Night Cafe" motif. </div><div><br />Briefly, "The Night Cafe" is a painting by Vincent van Gogh, which came out of a moment of inspiration where he sort of locked in and figured out what he was trying to do with his art. The idea of the Night Cafe is a place where you go, and having been there, your life is changed forever. Oswalt goes through six such venues, one of which is the New Beverly Cinema (a few other comedy clubs mostly fill out the six). This is not a bad framing mechanism for the memoir and seems like a truism for anyone in the arts: there will always be certain spaces where a particular person will enter, find inspiration, and start from a new beginning. </div><div><br /></div><div>So, a lot of this is about working out a stand-up routine, and making the transition between regional comic on the Mid-Atlantic Coast to featured act on the West Coast. I do not do stand-up comedy (though I have wanted to try, against my better instincts) and so writing about it may expose further fraudulence. And frankly, even though <i>none </i>of this material is <i>bad </i>(probably the most beautiful writing comes out of these sections), I felt it detracted from the exercise that is this book, perhaps in the name of readability or entertainment. I would rather read an arch, academic, scholarly text on cinema by Patton Oswalt than a hybrid stand-up/film memoir. Clearly, with all of the knowledge Oswalt displays at random moments in the text, along with the intellectual pedigree he also exhibits, he is capable of writing that book. But it probably would not sell as well. And perhaps, there is the comedian's impulse, to turn every observation or anecdote or explanation into a punchline, and so a more serious book is improbable (I have not read his section of <i>I'll Be Gone in the Dark</i>, and I would imagine there are not many punchlines, but I would not be surprised if there are a couple). </div><div><br /></div><div>He starts his education, after seeing <i>Sunset Boulevard </i>and <i>Ace in the Hole</i>, by going through five of his books on film and reading up on those he has seen: <i>The Film Noir Encyclopedia</i>, <i>Cult Movies </i>(three volumes), and <i>Psychotronic Encyclopedia of Film. </i>He then decides to see as many of the movies in these books as he can, marking an asterisk next to each, and the dates and places he saw them. That is the "plot." </div><div><br /></div><div>***</div><div><br /></div><div>I'm not sure what else to say, except that the book is very good and anyone who appreciates cinema or stand-up comedy should find something to admire in it. It made me laugh out loud at several points. It will probably refer you to a film or two that you haven't seen. </div><div><br /></div><div>For me, this was <i>La Jetee, </i>which I had seen in Paris while studying abroad as part of a course on film, but which I had forgotten about completely. This reminded me that it provides some inspiration for <i>12 Monkeys</i>: <br /><br />"Chris Marker's moody, near-motionless meditation on the costs of time travel and nostalgia--barely half an hour long but leaving you feeling like you'd just been dragged through a lifetime's worth of emotion and loss. This must have been showing with other movies--<i>Sans Soleil</i>? Maybe a Tarkovsky? But all I wrote down was La Jetee." (103)</div><div><br /></div><div>I remember feeling sort of bored and confused when I saw it the first time, so now I feel like I need to again. It's not a huge investment of time. Just now I have reserved the DVD at CPL, and yes, it is packaged together with <i>Sans Soleil</i>. </div><div><br /></div><div>Sure, I would have liked for <i>Silver Screen Fiend </i>to be more <i><a href="http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2021/10/against-interpretation-susan-sontag.html" target="_blank">Against Interpretation</a> </i>than <a href="http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2016/09/bossypants-tina-fey-2011.html" style="font-style: italic;">Bossypants</a>, but I also probably enjoyed the experience of reading the latter more than I enjoyed the experience of pretending like I understood the former. So overall, Oswalt did well with this. With these two under his belt, it is inevitable there must be a third. He is in the very rare category of artist that can do pretty much whatever he wants, now; he is one of those people that is pretty much great in everything he's done, and I don't doubt it would be compelling. </div><div><br /></div><div>Writing this review though, I am dismayed. Having written the word "Oswalt" this many times, with Batman on my mind (which is frequently the case), it is enormously sad that he will not be playing The Penguin in <i>The Batman</i>. Jonah Hill would have made a pretty good Penguin, and I am sure that Colin Farrell will do a totally decent Penguin, but a Patton Oswalt Penguin (where Robert Pattinson is Batman)....perhaps that would be too close to a Jim Carrey Riddler (a movie that does show up in the text)....but it would be brilliant casting, nonetheless. It's too bad there are no time machines. Yet. </div>JKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16199023801433187878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3851264164198134050.post-7773899150505731962022-01-04T11:44:00.001-05:002022-01-04T11:44:16.200-05:00As Summer's Mask Slips and other Disruptions - Gordon B. White (2020)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg2oipBUOppF8dCZ9ym9f5svbxmM70zNhOFWDqvIqyaQYR0J9mdANV1DzSjzz9q0_ygUh6yPEkGUlx_p6nymEq7uA8-jTZ8wn8QePhtIhZAqeb7P9EY24sat9mDxUekzMdTaRrBUahEyqrsgYJ4YTcLv1elO8Qmj2FPPnIN794B4HoPQoWtNf1e0jt7ZA=s306" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="306" data-original-width="204" height="306" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg2oipBUOppF8dCZ9ym9f5svbxmM70zNhOFWDqvIqyaQYR0J9mdANV1DzSjzz9q0_ygUh6yPEkGUlx_p6nymEq7uA8-jTZ8wn8QePhtIhZAqeb7P9EY24sat9mDxUekzMdTaRrBUahEyqrsgYJ4YTcLv1elO8Qmj2FPPnIN794B4HoPQoWtNf1e0jt7ZA" width="204" /></a></div><p>Full disclosure: I have known Gordon White for about 18 years. We met in our dorm and shared many friends and acquaintances. Towards the end of our time, I heard he was pretty serious about his writing, but I had no occasion to peruse his work. Then, about six years ago, I think, he invited me to be part of his friend's writing workshop, which was conducted online via Google Hangouts. I wrote a long 2-part story about my experiences in city government that I will probably never unearth again. I was trying to find old edits from that workshop on files saved from old computers, but I cannot at the moment. However, I am relatively sure that I saw early versions of two, or maybe three stories in this volume. Those are: the story that opens the collection, "Hair Shirt Drag;" the title story; and "Birds of Passage." (Note that I am only positive on the middle one.) </p><p>A note on genre: if anything, this review should be an exploration of the divide between so-called "speculative fiction" and so-called "literary fiction." Because I almost never read "speculative fiction." When I entered the writing workshop, I thought I might try my hand at one story in that genre, but I couldn't. Certainly, there are many inexplicable things that happen in the world that inspire awe and possibility; however, as I've gotten older and more cynical, I am less apt to believe in things such as aliens, to say nothing of witches, vampires and ghosts*. There are no aliens here; this is not science fiction. These are horror stories, but some of them are not supposed to be scary at all, but rather, wide-eyed at the mysteries of the unseen world. </p><p>This is put to greatest effect in the story that closes the collection, which I have to believe most people think is the best, "Birds of Passage." The story is a memory of an overnight camping trip a 10-year-old boy takes with his father, canoeing through a stream of shifting features, ending up in a sort of otherworldly place that is completely silent and subsumed totally by nature, without a shred of humanity in view. Something happens over the course of the night that changes the way both feel about the world (though it seems as though the father is not very surprised, and has experienced something similar in his past, camping in the same spot with an old friend). The story is written as a remembrance, after the father has recently passed away, and it is hard to see this as anything but an elegy. It's extremely powerful. The problem I have with "speculative fiction" is the unbelievability factor, but this piece <i>has </i>to be autobiographical, to one degree or another. It's written with such a convincing sense of reality, portraying the way strange alien things can only be glimpsed for a moment, obscured by a veiling effect to dissemble the truth that there is more to the world than it seems. It is also a heartwarming story of bonding with one's father. I believe it won an award or two, and it is, if anything, the real beginning of his career as a serious writer of fiction.</p><p>Or a serious writer of speculative fiction? There is a great deal of snobbery around genre fiction, and I am well aware because I am one of those snobs. Romance novels? Please. Science-fiction? I've enjoyed it in the past, it's probably my favorite "genre," but I don't ever reach for new ones (certainly I loved H.G. Wells and Kurt Vonnegut when I was younger; but never really read Isaac Asimov or Douglas Adams, or Octavia Butler, for that matter). Mystery novels, whodunits or true crime? Just <a href="http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-granite-moth-erica-wright-2015.html" target="_blank">this</a>, from another friend. Horror? Maybe when I was younger. My mom used to say that the book of <i>The Exorcist </i>was quite good, and that the scariest book she ever read was <i>Ghost Story </i>by Peter Straub. Yes, I read a fair amount of <a href="http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2010/06/on-writing-stephen-king.html" target="_blank">Stephen King</a> growing up, too. But also, <i>Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark</i>, which probably had the biggest effect on me, and which feels closer to some of the stories in this collection (albeit less "adult," though these stories are not especially lurid or exploitative, despite often gruesome subject matter). </p><p>A few of the other stories worked for me. After "Birds of Passage," "The Buchanan Boys Ride Again" is probably my favorite, because it feels like a true "blockbuster" that could easily be made into a movie, or at the very least a short film in some one-off <i>Black Mirror</i>-like anthology series. It concerns a son and a father fighting off monsters coming out of plumbing fixtures in an old, cheap motel. It sounds ridiculous, but the pacing and descriptive language of the action<i> </i>made it both very frightening and compelling. <i> </i></p><p><i>***</i></p><p>Two of the stories feel more ambitious: "Mise en Abyme" and "Eight Affirmations for the Revolting Body Confiscated from the Prisoners of Bunk 17." The former is more interesting than the latter. The latter reminded me of <i><a href="http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-power-naomi-alderman-2016.html" target="_blank">The Power</a></i>, except the sequel to it where the woman-ruled world is invaded and overtaken by aliens that seemingly resemble humans and have a taste for flesh. "Mise en Abyme" is a deeper sketch of a dystopian society wherein several citizens are executed live on television each night, and the editor assigned the task of "censoring" the videos, which involves putting a black box over their eyes, deals with a rogue agent that is broadcasting the videos uncensored. She is also involved with (married to?) the Overseer, who seems to be the dictator of the society. </p><p>Ultimately, she is summoned into a world of infinite reflection, with a small dot of light at the very far end; she has some kind of special purpose, and I will not spoil the plot, but I did not really understand it, either. </p><p>There is also a smattering of flash fiction here, with several stories weighing in at 2-3 pages. I have zero issues with flash fiction except that it more closely approximates poetry than fiction. One of those very short stories ("The Hollow," which opens up with a lawyer being summoned for testamentary purposes by two sisters who may be drug addicts and/or close to dying and have to do something with the family home, I think) shows a lot of promise, before quickly devolving into the grotesque. These sorts of things tend to happen frequently in this collection, there is some form of terrible transformation.</p><p>"Open Fight Night at the Dirtbag Casino" is the last story to highlight, because it also seems to be set up as part of a longer piece. This is a type of "Groundhog Day" story, except it's not the same day, just the same place and the same opponent in a fight to the death, with the main character fighting as different bodies they have overtaken each night. It's a satisfying story on its own, but I think it encapsulates the way I feel about most of the others: these characters are blank slates. They seem to represent "everymen" or "everywomen" and do not seem to have idiosyncratic personal backgrounds/experiences--the lived-in feel, that is present in the best of them. I skimmed around some of the stories when I felt I sensed the general vibe of what was happening, or perhaps because I wasn't being grabbed by the neck. </p><p>It is a lot to ask of an author for their first publication to be a masterpiece, particularly when working in this genre, without major funding from an institutional patron. This is a passion project, and for the most part, it is a successful one. There is great promise in it, and talents such as Gordon's (and his "fraternal writing twin" Rebecca Allred, who was also part of that online workshop) seemed destined to blossom into genius, particularly when they are capable of beautiful passages such as this:</p><p>"'I feel it,' I said, although the description of it wouldn't come to me for years. But the way I said it, my dad knew. He nodded.<br />'I don't know what you'd call it,' he finally said. With a slender stick, he prodded the embers on our low fire and sent the shadows skipping like water bugs. 'Maybe the bigness of nature, or a great spirituality. Something, though, you don't feel at home.'<br />He looked out for a moment at the darkness, at the stars above. 'Sometimes,' he said, 'I think about all the possible worlds we could have lived in, but that we're in the one that makes you my son and me your father and brings us here. It sounds stupid'--he paused--'but sometimes I look at you and I think, 'Are you real?'<br />'Yeah,' I said. He laughed and I smiled, even though I don't know if he saw me do it, there in the shadow just beyond the fire's light. For a while, we just sat and listened to the world.<br />'Do you feel it everywhere?' I eventually asked, meaning the thing he had talked about and meaning everywhere outdoors; but even though I didn't clarify, my father knew. He and I shared a wavelength like that.<br />'Maybe if you try real hard, but I've never felt it quite like I feel it here.' He leaned back, caught between the orange light below and the silver light above. 'Just think,' he went on, 'that outside of our fire light, it's miles to the nearest town. Straight up and out above us, for millions of miles, is nothing but empty space. Beneath our skin, hidden deeper from sight, run rivers of blood and cells and atoms and, deeper still, the empty spaces between them. You and I and everything else are just thin layers between space and distances, just skins between mysteries we could never know.'<br />He stopped, probably wondering if he'd gone too far or said too much. Then he looked at me and asked, 'Are you scared?'<br />'No,' I said, 'but it is a little scary.'<br />'Yeah,' he nodded as he spoke, 'but it's also kind of awesome.'" (160-161)</p><p>This is also sort of the way I feel about this collection: a little scary, and kind of awesome. At the very least, it is a portent of greater things to come. And I do believe Gordon has just published his second book, which I hope to check out soon.<br /><br /><br /></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p><i>*</i>It is possible that aliens exist, and sometimes I think I might believe in ghosts, but I find it hard to believe that witches or vampires are real--though obviously witches could be. </p>JKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16199023801433187878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3851264164198134050.post-30844749632331633792021-12-20T14:00:00.004-05:002021-12-21T11:35:10.393-05:00A Calling for Charlie Barnes - Joshua Ferris (2021) <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEizgJoMiKALND4ErK9pXY9ByUyU79Fuw52lruCZff-QeCBmKk6d9zYM_1HTgbNoUqe1-c8MSI3EF7yKWrsO8GMluWWo1FgLoBV9C-nfQUqToLLqkZ5DmX3D_A2pusBUJy-4Mt40FMYWWPmwTvlS1xD7PrAUDVC829Lh7sG4x2eNLNeKDKxMDoVJMB-XMQ=s2560" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2560" data-original-width="1663" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEizgJoMiKALND4ErK9pXY9ByUyU79Fuw52lruCZff-QeCBmKk6d9zYM_1HTgbNoUqe1-c8MSI3EF7yKWrsO8GMluWWo1FgLoBV9C-nfQUqToLLqkZ5DmX3D_A2pusBUJy-4Mt40FMYWWPmwTvlS1xD7PrAUDVC829Lh7sG4x2eNLNeKDKxMDoVJMB-XMQ=s320" width="208" /></a></div><p>Oeuvre rule: Joshua Ferris has a manageable bibliography. He has 5 books, and I have now read 2 of them. Whether I read the other three (two novels--<i>To Rise Again at a Decent Hour </i>and <i>The Unnamed</i>--and a short story collection--<i>The Dinner Party</i>) is an open question. Of course, his debut, <i><a href="http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2016/08/then-we-came-to-end-joshua-ferris-2007.html" target="_blank">Then We Came to End</a></i>, was a borderline selection for the Best Books list here, and while it is still his most famous book, his other work has also been honored, to varying degrees.</p><p>For some reason, I didn't hear as much about those other books (maybe their plotlines or themes defied easier categorization) as I did about <i>A Calling for Charlie Barnes,</i> or his debut. I could point specifically to an article I read on my phone, in the lobby of a hotel in Rome, on or around August 14th, waiting for a driver to take us back to the airport, which also listed <i><a href="http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2021/10/the-magician-colm-toibin-2021.html" target="_blank">The Magician</a> </i>and <i><a href="http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2021/10/i-wished-dennis-cooper-2021.html" target="_blank">I Wished</a> </i>as novels to anticipate in the Fall of 2021. I added those to my Holds list at CPL, along with this book, which I imagined was getting more publicity because it was a "comeback" of sorts for Ferris. As for a final assessment, it is not as good as either of those books (though it was brisker than <i>The Magician</i>, it took me almost twice as long, perhaps due to other distressing elements in my life, which made me care less about literature), nor is it better than <i>Then We Came to the End</i>. It is, however, a very interesting book "philosophically" that turns into a certain puzzle for the reader, and legitimately surprised me. I cannot say I loved it, but it did cause me to reflect upon the nature of art, truth, storytelling, and how we choose our subjects.</p><p>***</p><p>The first thing to mention is the opening, because it shoots out of the gates like a rocket. The first 30 pages set an impossibly high bar for comedy, and what follows is a convoluted history of a man and his various wives and the family that springs up around.</p><p>It feels telling when the book uses, as its epigraph, the acknowledgements page from <i>The Glass Castle. </i>Now I have not read that book, but I know it was very popular many years ago and is about a crazy family with an abusive (alcoholic?) father. Of course, the acknowledgements thank everyone in the family <i>except </i>the father, and so one may conclude this, too, will be a story about a bad father. </p><p>The father in question is Charlie Barnes, who is 68 years old in the Fall of 2008, where the novel begins. Once again, because a thorough examination of the book requires a discussion of spoilers, that section of the review will be denoted below. There are, in fact, 68 chapters in this book. The "turn" of the book happens around page 200, chapter 43, and the "second turn" comes at the very end, around page 329 and Chapter 67. Thus, everything after page 200 should be withheld from the reader. But the first part of the book feels less interesting to discuss. </p><p>Because this is a character study, and it seems to be about Charlie Barnes, and Charlie Barnes alone. But then we realize that his family is rather expansive and confusing, owing to the five wives, and the narrator soon becomes slightly cheeky, until we find that this is a book being written by Jake Barnes, youngest son of Charlie Barnes, and something of a foster kid, which continued to confuse me (perhaps the child of an ex-wife with a different father, that Charlie treats as his own). </p><p>Charlie believes he has cancer and is something a hypochondriac. Bear Stearns has recently declared bankruptcy, and because he worked there in the 1980s, he tries to contact an old colleague, while railing against their former boss. He tells everyone he has pancreatic cancer and that it is basically a death sentence, and excruciatingly painful, so he sets out to put his affairs in order, it seems. Charle is a very disillusioned figure who has come up with half a dozen business ideas, all of which are enormous failures, and who cannot not stick with a job for more than a few months or a year at best. His career is a mish-mash of failed dreams, and he has settled into a sort of niche as a financial advisor and fiduciary for the investments of a small number of clients, one of which has just died, whose son wants $10,000 of unpaid proceeds from the account. </p><p>He makes these phone calls, and yes, the beginning of the book is fantastic, broadly comic and charismatic. But soon Charlie learns that he does not, in fact, have cancer, and he has told his children that he does, and then has to consider telling them he was wrong, and they consider him a liar, and then he does, actually, have cancer (certainly <i>The Royal Tenenbaums </i>cannot be the only story to utilize this trope, but it is the first thing that comes to mind--but Charlie is no Royal). </p><p>***</p><p>Really, it is just the phone calls at the beginning that set the tone, such as when he tries to call his daughter Marcy, finds her unavailable at the office, and talks to her colleague Bethany, asking if she knew anything about pancreatic cancer:</p><p>"'I don't know anything about it,' she said.<br />'Well, I can tell you this: it's not good. People with pancreatic cancer go to their graves as if shot out of a cannon, okay? Hospital personnel can hardly collect a gurney quickly enough to send that particular patient off to hospice care before he keels over right there in the lobby of the hospital. You want to know what it's like?'<br />There was a long pause.<br />'I'm sorry, are you asking--'<br />'It's like priority mail,' he said. 'It gets you where you're going faster than the other methods, but you have to pay extra--in fear, I mean, and the surprise factor, and physical devastation. There's no time to make amends or settle your accounts. You just die.'<br />'I will be sure to give Marcy this message right away,' Bethany said." (19)</p><p>This is in "Farce, or 105 Rust Road," which is what we expect the novel to be--that is, this plot of "I have cancer, I don't have cancer, I have cancer,"--and is 175 pages long. From there, it goes to "While Under," which is relatively short, about 20 pages, and then there is "Fiction, or 906 Harmony Drive," which is about 125 pages, and then "The Facts," which is about 20 pages. So, there are 4 big chapters, basically, and the opening is very good, and while there is a real payoff at the ending, I cannot say it ends on a high note. The ending "redeems" the book and renders it much more meaningful, though it doesn't transform the book into a masterpiece, necessarily, just a very strong "position statement" of sorts, an unveiling of a r'aison d'etre, and I see I am becoming vague and unmoored, so we should just talk about the ending and segregate that section of the review with double asterisks, so you are doubly aware not to read below, unless that sort of thing doesn't bother you</p><p>***<br />***</p><p>So, there is obviously a big twist in this book that happens somewhere around the surgery scene of "While Under," and what happens in "Fiction, or 906 Harmony Drive." So right there, Ferris is basically telling the reader what he is doing, but they probably will not be aware until "The Facts." This is probably the deftest move in the book, where even a seemingly impossible turnaround is rendered totally believable. Maybe I am naive or stupid, but I believed it was real. I'm curious about other people, and I feel like I am not alone, here. Basically, the reader does not yet realize the book is something of a puzzle until the end, and that was not apparent to me (the only "puzzle" was assembling their family tree).</p><p>By the time of "The Facts," the truth is something of a letdown, but it elevates the book into the "noteworthy" category (better than merely "enjoyable," yet not a "masterpiece."). Because the issues the ending addresses are absolutely essential to the nature of literature, they are worth considering. </p><p>In short, we find that the "Fiction" chapter is, in fact, fiction. Charlie does not live long past the procedure known as the "Whipple" (an emergency last minute measure to physically remove cancer that may have already metastasized), maybe a number of hours, whereas "Fiction" shows him in a long recovery period, then finally being reinvigorated by his business idea "Chippin' In," which is a kind of Kickstarter-esque venture, while his wife Barbara the nurse starts medical school in her late 40's, jumping ahead to 2016 when Charles is in his late 70's and now rich and successful, and by this point Jake has also finished a draft of this book, and an electronic version has been leaked to members of the family who question his adherence to reality. </p><p>While this is certainly an incredible chain of events, and an odd way of invoking metafiction, I was not incredulous, I bought it. There is even a reference to 2020, with Charlie's older brother Rudy dying of Covid-19, and Charlie still alive at 81, but then all of that is decimated, and Ferris plays with his own persona:</p><p>"Then we came to the end of another dull and lurid book. Time to wrap things up, give thanks, move on. Important to move on. Fail to move on, you die. Wouldn't want that. Wouldn't want to linger or dwell. No living in the past, either. That's right, let it go. if the past is full of bitterness, the future is always bright. Right? How good does this feel? Eh? Feels pretty good, am I right?" (329)</p><p>"The Facts" serves as a true acknowledgments section as well as an author's note--but is it, in fact, true? There is probably some fact to it (on his wikipedia page, it does say that Ferris was born in Danville, IL, which is one of the major settings over the course of the book) but just as much twisting of reality. </p><p>So, we don't quite know how much stock to put into passages such as the following, which is on the second-to-last page of the book: </p><p>"I began writing this book in 2009, in the thick of grief. A year later, I'd taken the facts as far as they would go--up to the day of his surgery. For the next ten years, I banged my head bloody against a wall of truth, searching for a way out. There was none--unless I defied his request that I stick to the facts and got a little fancy, gave him the ending he deserved. If he was not the angel Barbara believed him to be, he was a better man than most people knew. Suddenly, the color came back to me, the music resumed. It was the end of grief. I could play again. He's right: it's a silly occupation for a grown man. I had bowed out of an impossible situation, but without losing my mind. Turns out, he was <i>my </i>calling." (341-342)</p><p>But it seems pretty clear this book is an exercise in grief. We do not know if Charlie Barnes, or Steady Boy, was really Ferris's father. Excuse me, he is the father of Jake Barnes, which is also the main character from <a href="http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-sun-also-rises-ernest-hemingway-1926.html" target="_blank">a famous novel by Ernest Hemingway</a>, an author with an award named for him that Ferris has received. Hemingway is invoked at one other point in the narrative, but there is nothing of his literary style here. No, but Hemingway was born in Oak Park, IL, and this novel lives in the western suburbs of Chicago. It reminded me of my father too, born not far from there and not much younger than Charlie Barnes, working in the financial industry, similarly re-inventing himself (but not with the "Doolander" or "Clown in Your Town," or four additional marriages). There is something in the character of that locale in that era that felt shared. Invoking that deeper truth about humanity--through this sort of very specific psychological profile--is one of the greatest successes an author can attain. </p><p>So yes, this book is flawed, and so is the character of Charlie Barnes. If Ferris is truly writing a tribute to his father, it is about as fine as one could expect. It's not a hagiography, and plenty of people seem only to see the flaws in Charlie, but Jake sees him as a whole person, and one that had an almost uniformly positive effect on him. Perhaps he was not the greatest husband, or the greatest father or role model, but still at the end of the day, he was a good father when it mattered. And so it is with this book, when the ending finally comes. </p>JKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16199023801433187878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3851264164198134050.post-89511838727558675942021-11-16T13:37:00.004-05:002021-11-17T13:36:14.129-05:00The Contrarian: Peter Thiel and Silicon Valley's Pursuit of Power - Max Chafkin (2021)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcpdEtwI0w5gdkmO-5lH-bHUiakx_ub_gKpf_OK2AogIAEiyIR-67fmYn3PLu2V6oSdKJcOIUGOdvKPqU1FWib8mK-mG-Vb6Nncm_39oAqyE3nh6gJFymS-8VVM_stMCLP_siMBt_u8hmu/s475/contrarian.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="475" data-original-width="312" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcpdEtwI0w5gdkmO-5lH-bHUiakx_ub_gKpf_OK2AogIAEiyIR-67fmYn3PLu2V6oSdKJcOIUGOdvKPqU1FWib8mK-mG-Vb6Nncm_39oAqyE3nh6gJFymS-8VVM_stMCLP_siMBt_u8hmu/s320/contrarian.jpg" width="210" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div>Peter Thiel founded PayPal, invested early in Facebook and sits on their Board of Directors, and also started Palantir, to say nothing of his other companies (AbCellera Biologics, anyone?). I had heard the name, I knew he had something to do with Gawker, that he was responsible for its demise, I knew he was very rich, but I didn't particularly care to inquire more deeply because he didn't affect my life. Until I bought Palantir stock. <div><div><br /></div><div>SO I read this book to determine if I should retain my PLTR stock. Yesterday, shortly before I finished reading <i>The Contrarian</i>, I sold it all at a loss of $311.69. This was shortly after I learned that PLTR had won multiple ICE contracts, realizing that a former client of mine, who protested renewal of the ICE contract for a detention center in McHenry, IL, would be disappointed in me for supporting their company. Then I read that Palantir's software was very helpful (though it could have been better utilized, it seems) for COVID-19 contact-tracing. It's a weird technology but it was used to locate terrorist targets in combat zones; I'm probably off but I think it serves as a kind of geo-location device for individuals that do not already have a GPS signal on them that can be hacked, using data analytics--and it's very precise. PLTR may, or may not, have played any role in the capture and execution of Osama Bin Laden; it seems more likely they did not, but it played to say they did.</div><div><br /></div><div>***</div><div><br /></div><div>It seems this book mostly gets negative reviews for being a kind of "liberal hack job," but I strongly disagree. For as much as it demonizes Thiel, it also glorifies him. <i>The Contrarian </i>in the 2020's<i> </i>could be what <i>Wall Street </i>was in the 1980s, if only kids today read more; Gordon Gekko is a villain in the film, but also a cultural hero, as a fictional archetype. Peter Thiel is kind of like a real-life version of him--but he is also so much more, and that is why he should not burn this book, but put it in a prominent place on his bookshelf: we should all be so lucky to be the subject of such an excellent book, even if much of it is critical. </div><div><br /></div><div>Because as much as Chafkin does criticize Thiel as inconsistent, befuddling, xenophobic, misogynistic, vindictive, etc., not all of those are bad, and he acknowledges him as a brilliant maneuverer. In fact, when Thiel is vindictive, it is more humorous than not (against Google, for one). Perhaps that is not funny to the many Gawker employees who had to find new jobs, but Chafkin fairly portrays Gawker as the trashy institute of tabloid journalism it was. Perhaps Bloomberg has better morals, or integrity. (I do not fault paparazzi for their life choices, but one must know that making a living by breaking into people's private lives is a risky proposition.)</div><div><br /></div><div>And maybe it is interesting that Chafkin works for Bloomberg. We have Bloomberg and Stacey Abrams to thank for the Biden administration, but one could not call Michael Bloomberg the antithesis of Peter Thiel; their politics may differ, but Bloomberg is older now, he may have shifted in his political beliefs (I don't know enough about him, even though he was my Mayor for many years), and he generally seems more "hands off" than other media moguls, i.e. Rupert Murdoch or Jeff Bezos. It would behoove Bloomberg to be on Thiel's good side, and it would behoove most people in general: you do not want to fuck with this man, and I think Chafkin walks a fine line where Thiel could still be on speaking terms with him after this book, because its clear--though he has retreated more recently from the public-eye--he will continue to hold our country in his vice grip, and Chafkin respects that power.</div><div><br /></div><div>Of course, that's overstated. Peter Thiel is not Donald Trump--he is an actual billionaire that went to Stanford and Stanford Law, that rejected the practice of law after failing to secure a Supreme Court clerkship, that loves to read <i>The Prince </i>and other classics, and has written several books that are inflammatory to liberals. He is not a technologist, but he has controlled a large swathe of Silicon Valley for the past two decades. </div><div><br /></div><div>There are too many things to discuss in this book, suffice to say it should be dissected theme-by-theme, for Chafkin's book reads like a streaming-network television series: Season 1 is in Germany, South Africa, Ohio, California, and New York, and ends with Thiel quitting his white-shoe firm job at Sullivan & Cromwell, but that's only 40 pages; Season 2 has Thiel making his first moves in Silicon Valley, eventually starting PayPal with support from X.com guest-star Elon Musk--it ends with 9/11; Season 3 would include the sale of PayPal to eBay, Palantir's origins, Thiel's ascendance as a member of the moneyed elite and embracing his burgeoning eccentricities--it ends with Gawker outing him as gay; Season 4 would be comprised of the entire timeline of that case, along with the Thiel fellows ("20 under 20"), sea-steading, increasing embrace of alt-right radicals, investments in life extension, etc., ending with Trump's campaign announcement; Season 5 would cover Thiel's role in the administration, and end with the pandemic, which proved Thiel right when he often wrote that the apocalypse was upon us. Maybe my timelines are screwed up, but that seems like a pretty good show to me, and it would not be unheard of because Thiel has already turned up as himself in <i>The Social Network </i>and as a parody in <i>Silicon Valley</i>. </div><div><br /></div><div>***<br /><br />Thiel is often portrayed as cold, calculating and humorless, a person with few friends, many enemies, and scores of sycophants. His work on <i>The Stanford Review</i>, a conservative newspaper he founded while in undergrad, is unearthed in this book (not for the first time), and it is apparent that many of the ideas of the alt-right (though Thiel was not nearly as extreme, he later sees value in such alliances) are nothing new; it is important to recall the "PC" movement in the 1990s to see that the "woke movement" in the late 2010's is simply a more virulent version of the same. The mobs may have descended in the 90's if Twitter had been available but back then they needed to put themselves out there in person with their real name. One of Thiel's proteges, Keith Rabois, two years younger and a writer on the <i>Review</i>, once shouted "Faggot, you are going to die of AIDS. You're going to get what's coming to you, damn faggot!" (34) as a stunt in order to try to get kicked out of student housing so he could say the school did not protect freedom of speech. This is the type of trolling that still goes on today, just online where people have no guts. Thiel would not be nearly as crass, but he would couch similar ideas in his polemics. He's not quite a troll himself (at least not an "in-your-face" one, <a href="https://twitter.com/donmoyn/status/1459984638701678600?s=20" target="_blank">unlike his co-founder</a>), but he doesn't denounce any of this because it plays into his agenda. </div><div><br /></div><div>Though his politics may be odious to many, his business-sense was spot-on, if somewhat nefarious and manipulative. For example, PayPal marketed itself to eBay sellers as a more efficient way of being paid, enticing them to open accounts with a complimentary $10 balance, so that sellers would encourage the buyers to also use PayPal:</div><div><br /></div><div>"In November [1999], PayPal's user count was a few thousand. By January, the World Domination Index [a software app the company used to track new sign-ups] had risen to 100,000, and just three months later, it was up to 1 million. That was a more or less unprecedented rate of growth, even in Silicon Valley, but it meant that PayPal had spent something like $20 million on referral fees out of the $28 million raised so far. Early employees tell stories of walking in and seeing that thousands of users had signed up overnight--and feeling a sense of awe and terror." (60)</div><div><br /></div><div>Around this time, eBay begins courting PayPal for an acquisition, first offering $300 million for the company in late 2000, then $900 million in 2002. By July, the deal was done, and Thiel owned 4% of the company after its IPO (the first after 9/11), which meant he was due stock "worth more than $50 million." (90) Now, I believe that Chafkin means $50 million in 2002, when PayPal was trading around $20. Today it's at $214. </div><div><br /></div><div>But Thiel had been lucky:</div><div><br /></div><div>"As PayPal was preparing to file to go public, Thiel traveled to New York with chief financial officer Roelof Botha for a meeting with banks from Morgan Stanley. It was September 10, 2001. The meeting that afternoon was a total failure. PayPal confused the bankers--was it a technology company or an unlicensed bank, they wanted to know--and neither man cut an especially impressive figure. Thiel was a thirty-three-year-old conservative political wannabe; Botha was, at twenty-seven, absurdly young and inexperienced for a public company CFO. <br />The Morgan Stanley bankers indicated they weren't interested, and Thiel and Botha took a car to John F. Kennedy International Airport in the rain, feeling dejected. Their sense of misery grew when their plane, the last United flight of the day, was delayed for hours on the tarmac. Eventually, the crew offered passengers the option to disembark and take a morning flight, but Thiel and Botha opted to sit, grimly, and wait while several passengers elected to get off.<br />They eventually made it home to San Francisco very early the next morning. Hours later, Thiel learned that a San Francisco-bound United aircraft from Newark airport--flight number UA 93--had been hijacked and had crashed in a field in Pennsylvania. It seemed possible that at least some of the people they'd been with the night before were now dead." (87-88)</div><div><br /></div><div>***</div><div><br /></div><div>The subject of death in Thiel's mind is simple: it is evil, and we should do everything we can to fight against it, and eliminate it. The descriptions of his interest in the life-extension industry comprise some of the most amusing sections of the book. I love one passage in particular so much that it is necessary to excerpt:</div><div><br /></div><div>"In 2008, Founders Fund had invested around $500,000 into Halcyon Molecular, a startup founded by William Andregg, who'd started the company with his brother Michael when he was just nineteen, with a modest plan of developing inexpensive genomic sequencing technology in order to cure aging. In 2009, during his freak-flag stage, Thiel met with the Andreggs and was almost instantly enamored with their enthusiasm and approach. Thiel is not normally emotive, but was on this occasion. 'He actually jumped up and down,' William Andregg recalled. 'He was like, "We have to solve this or we're all gonna die." That was the first conversation.'<br />Thiel would personally invest $5 million in the live-forever company and was a constant presence at the company's offices, with Founders Fund kicking in another $5 million on top of that. 'He was spending so much, it was like, 'Okay there's only so much advice you can give,' Andregg said. 'We had to start doing actual work.'" (138)</div><div><br /></div><div>There is also some discussion of parabiosis, which is the procedure of transferring blood from a younger person to an older person for a rejuvenating effect, and Thiel was asked, "true or not true?" by Andrew Ross Sorkin, in the last interview he gave before the pandemic, and he responded, "I want to publicly tell you I am not a vampire." </div><div><br /></div><div>And there are other cheeky moments throughout the book. When Palantir went public, one of the requirements of California law included at least one female board member, and Palantir settled on Alexandra Wolfe Schiff, a longtime friend and author of a flattering book about the Thiel fellowship:</div><div><br /></div><div>"To those who knew Thiel well, the nomination of Wolfe Schiff seemed particularly brazen. Wolfe Schiff, who lives in New York, had often stayed at Thiel's house during visits to the West Coast, and during the mid-2000s, before Thiel was fully out, she'd posed as Thiel's girlfriend at Davos, according to the journalist Felix Salmon. Shortly after the announcement, an associate sent Thiel a text asking if he'd intended the Wolfe Schiff appointment as a troll. After all, offering Wolfe Schiff as the first woman on the Palantir board was quite the fuck-you to the PC police. Thiel's response: a winking emoji with its tongue sticking out." (312)</div><div><br /></div><div>***</div><div><br /></div><div>It's very difficult to know how to end this review. Whenever I flip back through the book to find an excerpt, I find myself wanting to include the paragraph before, and the one before that, etc. Most of this book is gold. My only criticism is that it sometimes gets repetitive: we can only hear that Peter Thiel is a contrarian so many times. Chafkin asserts this in several different formulations, but perhaps most potently near the end:</div><div><br /></div><div>"The contrast between Thiel's professed hatred of death and his apparent indifference to the many hundreds of thousands of deaths from COVID was one of the many examples that I encountered in the reporting of this book where Thiel's most deeply held beliefs seemed at odds with his Machiavellian actions. That these inconsistencies have mostly gone unnoticed, and that Thiel is regarded as a contrarian free-thinker rather than a calculating operator, is a testament to his singular facility for personal branding. He is self-created, a Silicon Valley Oz, who has, through networking and a capacity for storytelling, constructed an image so compelling that it has come to obscure the man behind it....<br />The Thiel mythology contains a good deal of truth: He has created companies that have defined our culture and economy over the past quarter century. The industry that Thiel helped build is responsible for trillions of dollars of wealth creation and hundreds of thousands of jobs. He has been the rare futurist who actually managed to accelerate the future--and for that, at least, he deserves history's respect.<br />And yet this is only half the story because Thiel has also contributed to a reactionary turn in our politics and society that has left the United States in a much more uncertain place than he found it when he went into business for himself in the mid-1990s. He is a critic of big tech who has done more to increase the dominance of big tech than perhaps any living person. He is a self-proclaimed privacy advocate who founded one of the world's largest surveillance companies. He is a champion of meritocracy and intellectual diversity who has surrounded himself with a self-proclaimed mafia of loyalists. And he is a champion of free speech who secretly killed a major U.S. media outlet. 'He's a nihilist, a really smart nihilist,' said Matt Stoller, the anti-monopoly activist and author of <i>Goliath: The 100-Year War Between Monopoly Power and Democracy</i>. 'He's entirely about power--it's the law of the jungle. "I'm a predator and the predators win."' That, more than anything, may be the lesson that Thiel's followers have learned--the real meaning of "move fast and break things." (329-330)<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>So in a way, <i>The Contrarian </i>could be seen as a much shorter modern day <i>Power Broker </i>(a comparison I probably should not make without having read the latter, but one that feels accurate). It is probably not destined to be a timeless classic, but it's an engaging text and gets to the heart of Thiel's success, which is not unlike the success stories of many other people in power today: surround yourself with the "Right" people (lame pun intended). Play into people's insecurities and fears. Disdain democracy and regard America as a corporation in need of a CEO-Dictator. Have wild ideas and get people's attention. Take things personally and vow revenge. Reject progressive immigration policies. Donate to Super PACs and get friendly Senators elected. Deny, downplay or minimize climate change. Respect the right to freedom of speech and look away when it veers closer to "hate speech." Read Ayn Rand and be an Individual. Value yourself above all others.</div><div><br /></div><div>Chafkin acknowledges that Thiel has created hundreds of thousands of jobs. Unlike Trump, he did not control the American response to the pandemic, and did not contribute to hundreds of thousands of deaths. Trump may be evil, but certainly does not see himself as such. Thiel may be evil, but really not <i>very </i>evil, and probably sees himself as such. That self-awareness is his strength, and the depiction of how he turned various personal weaknesses into advantages makes <i>The Contrarian </i>an important book for any would-be entrepreneurs with outsized ambitions. We are often counseled to Think Big and this book shows one way--perhaps <i>the way</i> in our present era--to do that. </div><div><br /></div></div><div>Grade: A</div>JKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16199023801433187878noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3851264164198134050.post-43967316426360420962021-10-28T11:41:00.001-04:002021-10-28T11:41:38.479-04:00I Wished - Dennis Cooper (2021)<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtZR9yzAZUmxXO6yCM7JsAkeekiaGtayLyD2nAAmBSjUzFB_lpF0yxjLuAkMgFLH_7FXPePh43cv9laFqtG-tIfgsnu2WCRI2yiLLLaNGtAqSx5NOAumZuDi9gYMkEwd3mc7A8qpu1tDxp/s400/iwished.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="300" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtZR9yzAZUmxXO6yCM7JsAkeekiaGtayLyD2nAAmBSjUzFB_lpF0yxjLuAkMgFLH_7FXPePh43cv9laFqtG-tIfgsnu2WCRI2yiLLLaNGtAqSx5NOAumZuDi9gYMkEwd3mc7A8qpu1tDxp/s320/iwished.jpg" width="240" /></a></div><i><br /></i><p></p><p><i>I Wished </i>is like a "greatest hits" collection of Dennis Cooper's novels. It is a meta-commentary on the entirety of his work, but mostly it is about the so-called George Miles Cycle (five novels). Beyond those five novels, however, his entire oeuvre may also be about George Miles, and <i>I Wished </i>is Cooper's most confessional work. I am not sure it is his most accessible, but it appears that he wanted that to be the case, judging from the opening, "Overture (2021)":</p><p>"I guess because I want someone who knew my friend to read this book and find me. I want this book to be more public than my others so it will find people who don't normally read novels or who don't give a shit about some weird cult writer's books because it seems like everyone who either knew him or used to know me doesn't.<br />I want to know that all my love for him is worth it or find someone who'll convince me he was no one much, or who'll say, 'He never mentioned you,' or that he referenced me offhandedly enough that it's clear I didn't mean that much to him, and that's the hope, and that's the fear, and I know that's only semi-interesting to read, but it's very hard for me to even do this." (6)</p><p>In short, a masterful opening. However, from there it goes into "Torn From Something," which is vintage Cooper, and will probably make a lot of people (who aren't familiar with his work) throw the book away. In short, if there was a question of <a href="http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2021/10/the-magician-colm-toibin-2021.html" target="_blank">banning Thomas Mann or the book about him</a>, there is no question this would be banned. It's as sick and gross as anything he's ever written, at least the first part of it. But it feels like a delusive move because after that rough first part, which is either a twisted reality or fantasy, it goes into a rather conventional "novel" about George Miles, the actual person--for certain stretches, at least. </p><p>Cooper's work is easy to read and difficult to understand. Certainly, there is nothing else like it (as far as mainstream options go). But finally in <i>I Wished</i>, he pulls back the curtain, he writes as himself, he is completely confessional about his r'aison d'etre, and as a result his work seems less sketchy as a whole. Like the early readers of <i><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2009/02/annotated-lolita-vladimir-nabokov-ed.html" target="_blank">Lolita</a>, </i>if you read his work out of prurience, it may say more about you than it does about him--but there's no judging here. Because Cooper is a modern-day Marquis de Sade, or at least an adherent of his philosophy. </p><p>There is a certain genre that Cooper fits into--indeed, he may have created his own genre, his own style of writing, of which there are now many admirers and imitators--and it is time that he is recognized for his contributions to American literature (though it is likely he'd rather be associated with the movement of the <i>nouveau roman </i>in mid-20th century France). He is almost pushing 70 but there's no pretense about "being a mature adult," practicing moderation, growing wise with age; he flatly admits that he can't really get over events that happened 30-55 years ago. Maybe it's all part of an act, but it feels way too real to be that. </p><p>***</p><p>Many of Cooper's books are essentially plotless, but they tend to follow a single narrative thread. That is not the case here. While there is a callback later on to scenes the reader may perceive as "reality," this comprises about 1/3 of the book; another 1/3 of it is also "reality," but the one inside of Cooper's mind, his "wishes" and fantasies; the remaining 1/3 of the book is rather impressionistic and abstract, sometimes humorous, and mostly inspiring a reader-response of "WTF?" These parts did not work as well for me, but they also need to be in the book, because they add another dimension to the work and further expands character development and enlivens the search for meaning in the loss of his friend.</p><p>Obviously I am talking about the "chapters" of "X-Mas (1970)" and "The Crater" (the first of the two), which feature Santa Claus, or the idea of him, and a talking natural landscape in Arizona that is being ravaged as part of an ambitious art project (The <a href="https://rodencrater.com/about/" target="_blank">Roden Crater</a>, which I now want to visit). Later there is another inanimate "crater" that speaks and it's questionable how interrelated these two chapters really are. </p><p>Apart from the two variations of craters, there are two variations of "The Heart is a Lonely Hunter" (the movie, not the book). The former ("Thialh") is a kind of longer-form review of the movie, or a distillation of its story, whose main character may be Dennis (on IMDB, the character's name is John Singer), who is deaf-mute and serves as a "confessor" for a number of friends that he helps. One of these is a younger woman whom he falls madly in love with, and she serves as a kind of avatar for George Miles. The description of the eternal hope for and impossibility of real love with her is particularly affecting:<br /><br />"He fell in love with her. It was so stupid. He was agonized and embarrassed by this love since he knew he was unworthy, but he tried to let himself believe she visited so often because she cared or even loved him or, at the very least, had missed him. He knew this theory made no sense, and that their closeness was a technicality, and that she'd never fall in love with someone whose body sucked, but he wanted her to love him so badly, and he understood that love, at least in theories proffered by the church, etc., was supposed to be extremely flexible.<br />Sometimes, he thought, She wouldn't let me be so kind and giving and devoted if she didn't love me. He thought, She has to know I wouldn't be so giving and devoted to her unless I was in love. He thought, She wouldn't let me be so obviously in love with her unless she was in love with me in some way. He thought, If she didn't love me, she would tell me to stop doing all these things for her because the fact that she gives nothing but her presence in return would make her feel uncomfortable.<br />He loved her so incredibly much. When she needed something, no matter how peripherally or trivial, he would spend days on the phone [This seems impossible for a deaf-mute-Ed.] or negotiating streets and local stores with great difficulty, trying to find someone to help him give her what she needed. When she needed money, he lied to her and said he had a lot of money and went deeply into debt so he could give her everything that anyone could ever give another person." (34-35)</p><p>Later, "The Heart is a Lonely Hunter" details Dennis's first meeting with George, who is 12 and freaking out on an acid trip. This is a very brief chapter that then leads into "I Wished," which is the closest bit of self-examination in the book. It's only about 21 pages--I'm not sure if it's the longest chapter--but it feels like the center of the book. The book ends with "Finale (1976)," which is also very short, and along this timeline, it seems that this is the period when Dennis actually had something approaching an actual romantic relationship with George, for a brief window of time when the latter gets on a medication that curtails his manic-depression. Yet there is nothing distinct about that (that period is referenced earlier), and it feels more like "Overture (2021)" in that it seems to come from a present-day perspective.</p><p>***<br /><br />The "Cycle" consists of <i><a href="http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2010/06/closer-dennis-cooper.html" target="_blank">Closer</a></i>, <i>Frisk</i>, <i><a href="http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2008/05/try-dennis-cooper.html">Try</a></i>, <i>Guide</i>, and <i>Period</i>. Is this the 6th? I don't think so; this is more memoir than novel. <i><a href="https://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/search?q=marbled+swarm" target="_blank">The Marbled Swarm </a></i>was Cooper's previous novel and came out 10 years ago. This is probably better than that, because it's more concise, and as confusing as it is at points, makes a great deal more sense. Having read the five novels in the Cycle, and now reading this, I want to revisit the other three that have not been reviewed here yet. I remember <i>Period </i>making almost no sense at all and I feel like this book contextualizes it. <i>Guide </i>is not as good as <i>Frisk </i>but I remember getting through it quickly, also in Paris about 18 years ago, after <i>Try</i>. <i>Frisk </i>was made into an average film at best, mostly notable for an excellent performance by the always-good Parker Posey; I mention this because adapting Cooper's work seems very difficult, but <i>Frisk </i>is a pretty straightforward serial killer narrative that is mostly engaging and served as proof that he was not a flash-in-the-pan after <i>Closer</i>. </p><p>I am not sure where Cooper's career goes from here. One imagines he could write a magnum opus yet, that would be even more "public" than this one, but it seems hard to imagine that he has much more to say on this topic. Perhaps it could be an exploration of his later life, with Miles in the back of his mind, post-1987 or so, and how he has supported himself through his writing, and other artistic endeavors, which have more recently included stage and screen. But that seems rather basic. In any case, his oeuvre is a testament to the love that he fully examines in <i>I Wished</i>. If there were a way that Miles could know the books that he had inspired, I imagine that he would be flattered and enamored with the idea that his abbreviated life could have spawned such a mythology. One hopes that Cooper's "wish" with this book comes true, and that someone may contact him; one also hopes that he found some measure of happiness and satisfaction with this life where he spent so much time ruminating on the hopelessness of loving someone that he could only bring back into existence on the page. This book should be good for anyone that can relate. </p><p>Grade: A-</p>JKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16199023801433187878noreply@blogger.com0