little bit'a everything, whole lotta nuttin

moddidawdi

2011-12-22T11:46:00.000-08:00

I decided to challenge myself a bit more on my reading goal for the year 2012. This present year it was 100 books in a year with the full knowledge that I was gonna count just about anything I could as a book. And thus I met my goal but do not feel adequately stretched. Thus I have crafted a goal that will more stretch and hopefully grow me as a reader and as a I-am-terrible-at-writing-but-do-it-anyways kinda writer. At the time this goal came to mind I was feeling again the self-enforced pressure to finally read some Hemingway and had also just picked up The Grapes of Wrath for a reread, and thus this little reading project popped into being.

It is 12 Modernist (or somehow associated with Modernist) writers in 12 months. I have to read at least one book/play/poem collection in that particular month, but will have some backups in place for reading a bit more. A few of these months will be rougher than others. A few more will be enjoyed more than others. I am sure there are plenty of surprises in store too.

This list is still subject to change and especially July, but also a few others, still need some research. Please give some recommendations if you so desire it.

I also really hope to stretch myself at reading short stories and poetry more than I normally would.

List Symbol Key:

* - required reading

• - reread

§ - especially excited about

January - Ernest Hemingway

Hemingway has been such a vacuum in my reading that I really look forward to finally get some under my belt. Would love to do all four of his most famous works. I don't necessarily expect to love him, but really want to read him.

The Sun Also Rises (1926) *

A Farewell to Arms (1929) *

For Whom the Bell Tolls (1940)

The Old Man and the Sea (1951)

February - F. Scott Fitzgerald

After Great Gatsby, I had no idea what would be good of his to read. But I have to reread Great Gatsby if I'm doing Modernists Literature. And I've been wanting to do a reread for some time.

The Great Gatsby (1925) *•

This Side of Paradise (1920)

Short Stories

March - William Faulkner

So I read As I Lay Dying last year... and absolutely loved it. Faulkner was a huge motivation for me to do this project. So I figured this would help me celebrate my birthday month.

The Sound and the Fury (1929) *§

Absalom! Absalom! (1936) §

As I Lay Dying (1930) •§

Short Stories

April - James Joyce

I kinda dread Ulysses. Maybe unfairly but I do. Still, we're talking Modernists and I've heard it called the beginning of the movement, so... And I figure I need to read it some day.

Ulysses (1922) *

Dubliners (1914)

Finnegans Wake (1939)

May - T.S. Elliot

I am definitely not an avid reader of poetry so it'll be nice to use this project to stretch me in this area. His collected poems don't span too many pages so I would really like to get a play in as well.

Collected Poems *

Murder in the Cathedral (1935)

June - Mikhail Bulgakov

So I'd heard about this book and then saw it loosely connected with Modernists so I decided to lump this in. Hopefully I will get to a point where I actually remember Bulgakov's name so I don't refer to this month as the Russian guy.

The Master and the Margarita (1928-1967) *

July - Samuel Beckett

Seems a stretch but supposedly he's a later modernist. Though he feels more post-modern in Waiting for Godot. Oh well, I want to read more. Just don't know what yet.

Still need to research *

Waiting for Godot (1953) •

August - Virginia Woolf

Okay, so this month does not excite me, but that is more out of ignorance than substance. I should give Ms. Woolf a shot.

Mrs. Dalloway (1925) *

To the Lighthouse (1927)

Orlando (1928)

September - Robert Frost

Lots of poems. Not sure how much I'll read. Would be nice to read a play or something besides.

Collected Poems * (probably won't require the whole thing)

October - Franz Kafka

Not sure how Modernist he is but I saw him on a list so here he is. I may do more research into what people recommend.

The Trial (1925) *

The Metamorphosis (1915) •

Other Short Stories

November - Joseph Conrad

So Conrad is considered a forerunner of Modernism. Well, it gives me an excuse to read him, so I'll use it.

Lord Jim (1900) *

Heart of Darkness (1899) •§

December - John Steinbeck

And then there's this fellow. The Grapes of Wrath and East of Eden are amazing works. I will love to delve into more of his stuff.

Tortilla Flat (1935) *§

Of Mice and Men (1937) *§

Cannery Row (1945) *

The Pearl (1947)

The Red Pony (1933)

The Moon is Down (1942)

If anyone is feeling the desire to join in on any of the frolicking fun, even if to a lesser extent, please let me know. It would perhaps help push me on and insulate the burnout a little. Or you can just choose to bug me and make fun of me over it. I will try and keep up a little widget up updating my status and progress. Feel free to ask me how it is going. Bring it on.

mud

2011-12-09T00:14:00.000-08:00

I walk in fearful steps below a sky which threatens me with day. I would hurry my pace for fear of the coming light that would bring me into the world’s vision. Yet I would hurry to what? Judgement? Chains and execution? Why do I follow this path tasked to me? Why do I not run away once more? As the hare, I have flitted and flown to forget and to feast away this stain. But the wolf has discovered me in the very pit of my escape.

There in my pit I was found, sleeping under the smoke and tangles of sin. A man, a golden man in the fog of my waking, made instrument of a platter, striking it as a gong. Heads raised, heads slept, I shrunk. But it was to me he brought his proclamation. I lost many of his words to my illness, but this I took in: the King’s man awaits me at my home. He had come during the day and finding me out had sent to find me. He lays in wait for my coming. And this hunter had thus tracked me. Through the worlds of my vice he had pursued me. An untraceable trail this seeker had taken and there before me he stood. He stood amidst and yet separate from the room about him. There was a wrath I could feel under his presence, a wrath upon my scene. I did not speak and he did not ask a promise. He divulged his duty and departed, or so I assume. In my stupor he merely disappeared. I was caught yet free.

I am the hare, and the black wolf calls.

***

The sky begins to break under the strain of the coming sun. I have not seen the world under the assault of light for many months. I dare not expose my hands to the sun. I cross my arms to cover my hands, and I begin to run to the extent my troubled body lets me. Why do I run home? Am I so weary that I simply want an end? The King’s man, a judge no doubt, sits in my home. The place of my blood. The place of my guilt. I now run to the site that condemns me along with my waiting judge. I feel the fangs already in my pelt.

Before my home I find a spectacle. And fear puts it’s cold dead hand on my heart. Four royal guards await me: attentive but a sign of dismissal in their posture. They look a farce amidst the poor hovels here about. Far more ridiculous are the three apparent courtiers in heated debate before my door. Fine robes scraping the dirt, faces in a constant snarl from the disease of this land, they cast their haughtiness as a stage from which to look down on these mean dwellings. I stop and desire to flee, but I see the creeping point of the sun chasing me at my back. I must seek shelter. And so I go forward, hiding my hands and my eyes from those upon my doorstep.

Their notice brings them to silence. Without looking at them I see all their eyes, all their questions. Of what worth is this worm? They have been here all night! Of what worth am I? I cast a fearful gaze to the guard before the door; a bolt of sun hits the top of my home. I twitch in anticipation. And the guard steps out of my way, with a stern question in his glance. With shaking hands I open the door, rush in, and close it behind me; collapsing upon the door. I burn with tears.

“I greet you.”

I lose my air. I startle around. A man, a boy, a wise youth, stands before me. The judge? The prince... Upon his finger is the royal ring. I reposition my collapse into a prostrate bow.

This is not the black wolf of my dreams but a noble beast of whitened gold. Far more dreadful than my terrible nightmare is the thing in flesh; in my foolishness I had feared the judgement of a will and desire. Far great peril I find in this child’s eyes, for in them Truth I see, and with this Truth he sees me.

“Rise.”

“Master.” I remain.

“Rise.” A laugh in his voice.

“Master.” I remain.

“This is your home, here are not you master?” He waits a response but then continues. “My Father has sent me. I do His work. As I believe you see, I bear his seal.” He crouches to touch me but I shrink away. Though I am forced out of my prostrate position, I stay kneeling, but like a rabbit ever prepared to run.

“In my task I could use your talents.” He remains restfully crouched ever gazing at me.

I do not understand his words.

“My Father has tasked me with a great endeavor. The King would use you to help me. Would you assent?”

“Assent?”

“In aiding me.”

“You are my liege... Why do you ask of me? You could command.”

“Do you assent?”

“A-a-assuredly.”

“Why do you fear me?”

“Oh noble prince, you speak to the lowest of your slaves. You should not stain yourself by my presence nor my hospitality.” My eyes flash to the back room, the room it very much appears the Prince may have just come from. The room where...

“You fear my judgement. You fear my hand lifted against you. I have stayed this day in your home. I have prepared it for your return. I have cleaned it for your coming. You shall need it for what lies ahead. You fear my judgement. I have seen every corner of your dwelling. I have found all of the dust and ash that has touched this home. The man who sought you out and found you returned here first to inform me of your being discovered. He instructed me in your journey these past months. He intended to warn me. But my Father already knew and so did I. We do not turn to you in ignorance. I do not beseech you in folly. I know you. I know the story of the room behind me.” He points as I cry. “I know what your hands wrought. I know the escapes that you pursue.”

He pauses. I can no longer run. All of me is known. All of my hiding has been fruitless. All of me is known to my King, the holder of the laws. And His son stands before me, my dirt on his royalty. I see a cut, a rip, his blood exposed for his labor upon my home.

“Come.” He beckons, but I cannot move. “Come.” He approaches. With a smile, “Come.” And he lifts me to my feet. I slump but walk with him. I lose myself. I lose my knowing, my understanding, my senses. We journey and wander. I lose all time. And I sleep.

Water. I am sinking. I am drowning. No. I return to myself.

He is bathing me. He merely walked me to the basin. He is bathing me. Assured and gentle. He bathes me. My prince bathes me. He casts a cloth into the basin, soaking up water and strikes the water upon my flesh, breaking the dirt and blood of my skin. I shake in the fear of it; the awe of it. He toils and strains. It hurts me. In my nakedness, I tremble. In my shame I despair. But he does not falter. Upon the floor, I see the mud of me drifting towards a drain. I weep openly under his care. He is long about his work. Until all at once, I feel his loving scrape no more. Instead it is his hand upon my shoulder.

“Rise.”

I stand up in trembling. In cold and newness I shudder. It is my hand my eyes seek first, though with timidity. A timidity that turns into disbelief. I lift my hand above my head, looking up at it.

And in through the Western window breaks a beam of sunlight; upon my hand and against my face.

safety

2011-08-06T14:14:00.000-07:00

Tasked with writing something purely as dialogue, I created the below texty stuff. Humorously, this story spawned while reading The Wind in the Willows. I don't think my brain functions properly. I did not spend much time on it, so please do not judge it too harshly.

"I cannot believe we made it."

"Have we? Are we really safe?"

"We are on the train. This is as safe as it gets. Look, I have us right next to the TraiSec car. This is neutral ground. They would have to be desperate and crazy to hit us here. And I can only wish we had them scared enough to be desperate. We're safer here than we'll be back home, even. Look, sorry. Just use this time to relax. We have three days of safety until our next stage. Just appreciate that our present task is just to sit tight. We've done better than anyone expected, and survived the worst of it."

"Do you think he survived?"

"I ... Listen, Betts. He made the sacrifice. He decided you were worth saving. And you are. Your safety, your life is the mission. What you know..."

"I'm a mission?"

"No, no. I'm sorry. He made his choice, made it before the opportunity even arose. I have made the same choice."

"Why are you still here then? Why is he the one we left behind?"

"..."

"I'll give you the data your boss wants! Codes, formulas, maps. Download it all straight to your hem-jack! All of it! And you and your petty power struggles can go burn yourselves to the ground!"

"To answer your question, if he is alive, he is wishing he wasn't. Pray he did not survive. It is the best case."

"And how about my second question, why are you still here, hero?"

"Because the mission isn't complete."

"Back to being a mission."

"Yep."

"I'm going back."

"What do you think he would want you to do? Make his sacrifice pointless? He is a hero. You go back, you put yourself back in their hands, and you undo everything your hero did. Call me heartless, call me dead, I don't care. We stay on this train and take it home."

"You stay on this train. I was telling you the truth, I will give you all the data your boss wants. Go home. Take your reward. You deserve it."

"No. That is not the deal."

"Isn't it? I am know you have contingency orders you are not telling me. Orders if I resist, if I am killed. My safety is not what you need. Only this here in my head. The more willingly the information is given the less corrupted. I know how this works. Your corporation is no better than the one you just rescued me from. You just hope by saving me you can get my assistance willingly. I am simply a temperamental commodity. But I will give you the data freely. Stick out your arm."

"No."

"I am going back."

"Okay."

"What?"

"I am going with you. You don't have a chance alone. Actually we don't really have a chance together. But I am going with you. I will prove you wrong. We are not the same as them. I am not the same."

havok

2011-05-25T15:19:00.000-07:00

X-men #1: Jack Kirby(!)

"It's my job to make a film as good as possible. I need to please a cinema audience,

number one, and a comic book audience, number two. Hopefully I can do both,

but you have to make a film that works."

My blog has been severely lacking any comic book rants of late. Here's the remedy to that problem (I know my loyal reader(s) were getting restless on this front).

The above quotation is from Matthew Vaughn about his work on directing the movie X-Men: First Class. People who have heard me (somewhat jokingly) complain about the butchery being done to the X-Men mythos by this movie may be surprised to learn that I very much agree with the statement (with a disclaimer to come later).

It is common for fans of a written work to be very rabid in their desire for a movie adaptation to be faithful to the utmost degree, and comic book fans even more rabid still. However, it is when a movie is bad that the transgressions in adaptation get the full ire of the fans. When a movie is good in and of itself for some reason the errant translations become far less hazardous to the fan. I think it is common to misplace our reasons in why a movie failed into the categories of poor adaptation and we overlook the movie just being badly written. Moreso, sometimes it is the attempt to being faithful or cater to the fan that can in fact undermine the quality of the movie.

I could list the vast differences between the things they are doing with First Class and the actual comics, but truth be told they are doing exactly what comic book movies need to do, especially now as they become more and more prevalent. For too long comic book movies were predicated upon the origin stories and then hitting the most popular stories/villains of the main character. They were forced to hit all the desired plot points that comic fans want to see. However they miss out on telling their own story, crafting their own world, bleeding their own life into it. For comic books specifically a lot of that has come from not actually respecting the medium as worthwhile stories and seeing it just as a cash cow. Honestly, that is understandable. Comics are silly. But good luck telling a worthy story from something you don't respect.

Honestly, the adaptation that brings nothing new to the work is completely heartless and unnecessary to me.

Now, here's my disclaimer: Vaughn said, "I need to please ... a comic book audience, number two." My disclaimer is that this item still needs to be a priority. Good movie first, most definitely, but do not forget to respect what you are adapting. Otherwise title it something else. I am not saying Vaughn is saying anything differently. I don't believe he is at all. I just want to make sure people (all two of you that have made it this far) understand what I am saying. Although a better way to phrase it would be to respect the source material. Pleasing people can be a bad goal for art. It causes shortcuts and ... well it causes summer blockbuster movies, I suppose. Hmm, never mind. Still, I think the ideal phrasing would be respect the source material.

So what does First Class have going for it? It gets to tell a story that is basically untouched by the comics. It does not fit at all with the continuity presented in the comics, and characters are being greatly altered, etc. But they get to tell the story they want to tell. In fact, in that interview Vaughn specifically said he was allowed great freedom to make the story he wanted, which is highly unusual for these movies as every exec has an idea of how it will make them more money (understandable if you are sinking millions into it that you'd want to put at least your 2¢ into how it will make you more money).

Is a little part of me going to grumble at their choices? Yes, but I'm a curmudgeon. (I really want to bring that word back (if it was ever in fact here in order that it can come back). It's such a cool word.) Ultimately, the quality of the movie itself decides the game. Make a good movie and your twists in the adaptation get lauded. Make a bad movie, and people will blame the fact that the movie in no way represents the comic with the same name.

X-Factor #70: Mike Mignola(!)

A little game I invite you to play: Craft your ideal X-Men team. Write it in the comments section. What makes up your "ideal" is entirely up to you. For me, ideal is a team that I would like to read or write about. As for who you can draw your team from, be creative. It can be from the comics, cartoons, movies, alternate dimensions, villains, non-X-Men. Have fun with it.

mystery

2011-05-21T17:39:00.000-07:00

When telling one's story it is common to start at the beginning, but I have not been born yet. It will be twenty years still before my father will be born to French farmers outside of Paris. Two more until my mother will be first held by her father, a German school teacher soon after enlisted and killed in the Great War. It will be thirty-nine years from today when my parents first meet in Paris and a year after that, they will be married. My parents then will spend the first few years of their marriage merely trying to survive Hitler's assault and occupation of France. Within a year of the Allies victory, my father will take up his law practice and I will be born.

What? A prophet? No. Oh, I suppose these wars are future to you. At my age my tongue begins to slip. And time has always been such a liquid thing for me. You will have to forgive me in this if you indeed want to hear my story. I am going to speak of things which for you have not yet occurred. But this is why you've come. This is why you seek my story. Perhaps I should fear giving you sight into the future. But fears are a funny thing: in youth my fears were many., and now, now I only have one fear. And telling you of events to come is not that fear.

So, yes, two wars will pass before I am yet born. Bigger by far than what you are now imagining. And to me, these wars are inescapable. I have lived forever tied to them, it seems. To me they are not two wars but both one and many.

My earliest memories were peaceful enough. My parents seemed loving and protective in everything I can remember, every one would want. They seem the perfect idea of parents in my head. Yet there was one failure of parenthood that is really my earliest clear memory. It is not the memory of an event so much as the feeling that cast its shadow over my entire childhood..

I could see things that my parents could not see. I would ask them what they were, and ask the name of these beautiful colors and auras composing these strange objects. For what is a parent's job but giving shape and name to the world of their children? But in this my parents failed me. They told me the name of these things was nothing. And there were no colors not found in the rainbow. It grew a constant war between us through out my early age. Which now I can understand their frustration in having a boy so set on stories and fantasies that he believed them to be true to their own shame. Finally a time came when I was so insistent and angered by their dismissals that I pushed my father to hit me, the only time he ever hit me. He struck me across the face. And so I never spoke of the mystery to them again.

I still did not understand that my sight was not their sight. It is actually quite amazing how hard a thing that is to grasp. I had hair on my chin before I finally believed that every man was not merely choosing to ignore the miasmas and streams all around them. But as my parents seemed resolute in ignoring this mystery, I chose to do the same, at least amidst others. When I was alone, however, I began to attempt to teach myself what this hidden world entailed.

I suppose at this point I will need to describe these things to you. I will save the technical names for later, so that you can learn them with the me in my story. For now I will grant you what my sight showed me as a small child. But I warn you, this will be like describing sight to the blind. Oh, forgive the expression. Again, my tongue is old and prone to mistakes. But the world I describe to you does not fit in our words. The objects I would see, as no one else, were like jewels or puzzles or knots or containers. No, not each object being one of those or the other. Each fit all those categories and none of them. And they were of colors you have not seen. Can you comprehend a color you have never seen? And these colors permeate the air around these mysteries in wafting clouds and light. Are they physical? No. We pass through them daily. Yet, they are not altogether untouchable. As I learned, once I gained the courage to touch one. My finger would pass through it, but where my finger passed I would notice a bend or a twist in the facet of the jewel. And so I began to experiment and play with these boxes of wonder where ever I might find them.

And so, on a day of otherwise no special importance, I opened a piece of this mystery for the first time. It was the object that floated a foot above the roots of the old ash tree in my parents yard and had been the most constant patient of my experiments. After a sequence of manipulations of my fingers I had learned over time, the thing began to grow a bit larger and then to vibrate. My breath stopped as the door to this box began to flux in great excitement and then the indescribable colors exploded and I lost consciousness.

I remember I was seven years old that day, because my seventh birthday is the last one I ever celebrated. It was also the last time I ever saw my parents.

sea

2011-04-27T21:36:00.000-07:00

I call the sea by its name. The name it taught to me long ago. A name constructed from no words. It is the name I came to know running along its touch. A name born upon the smells and life of those distant shores. Storms its accent, sunrises its silence. I felt the name as the waves crushed down upon my back, and as the sand dissipated beneath my feet. It is the burn in my lungs, the harsh sun upon my skin. Its instant and eternal name I cry. Voiceless.

Broken and dying upon that black mountain it is the name of the sea that makes up my final thought. Not my quest, now failing alongside my dimming life. Nor she held captive in the traitor's camp below, awaiting my rescuing return. It is not of the free people I now doom to slavery. It is the sea. My mother in nurture. My father in discipline. The great and mighty sea, which in this realm seems remote and impotent.

My eyes failing, I take in the sealess waste about me, I take in my final sight. Black and barren. Muddy clouds hamper far sight from this rising peak. This is my wretched grave. My own life's blood the only water to wash this forsaken land. My eyes take their final rest. I begin to hear the waves in answer to my call. The gentle sound of a sunset's tide. In then out. And in. Then out.

branch

2011-03-13T19:58:00.000-07:00

Tasked with writing a story about this image, here is what came to mind. It is rough and will hopefully be finished tomorrow.

It was in my twelfth day lost that I found the mound that bestowed these visions on me. I came to a place where the trees died and the green seeped away. The ground began to rise to the peaks above me. One particular foothill could be seen directly before my path, ash white and round, yet it sat below the green cliffs of the valley. The contrast was so stark, I felt drawn to search out the mystery of this decay. With my own hope long abandoned, I stepped onto the dust.

And three worlds split before me. In some indescribable way, my mind could see each of these visions independently and completely while all stood stacked upon each other. The same hill was in each of my sights; it was the same land, but in each it was wildly different.

In what I came to call the first world, it was a lush land nestled in a slender rising valley between the mountain feet. And now this land of life and joy held a village of crafted houses and a thriving people. They looked a foreign people to me, teeming with an earthy wisdom and joy beyond my ken. Children played games I had never seen, but caused a smile to swell on my face. Animals were fearless of this people and wildly abundant in my sight. I could not count the creatures I saw. This valley was life painted pristine and innocent. I wept at finding the answer to the question I had never asked.

In the second world, the same valley was a scar of fire and madness. I heard the screams of the children I saw playing in my other sight. I saw flashing swords and spears, and torches falling upon the modest houses. Painted men and women seemed to be laying waste to this pristine valley. I saw one defiant mother bring down one of the painted men. She lunged at his spear and disarmed him. I saw another painted man kick and trample an old man who was not fast enough to flee his attacker. All around me was dying, engulfed in flame and agony. I wept to find the loss of my paradise.

And the third world was the ash and decay I had stood in to begin. It was where I believed myself to be. But my visions were so pure that I questioned in which world my feet stood. Perhaps all three of them. Or perhaps I was not there at all. Perhaps in my lost wanderings I had finally reached death in all of its chaos.

With these visions overwhelming me—with a peace beyond knowing, a fear beyond terror, and a consuming silence—I could not but proceed to climb this madness. In all these worlds the hill stood white against the backdrop of the mountains. In the first it was an orderly and perfect cutoff from the white to the green life below; it was as a spherical cap to the slope. In my second vision, it was as a pale eye, looking down upon the destruction of its land and its people; sickened in the firelight, accursed. And in the third it was no longer a marked distinction from the gray stone and dust that rose up to meet this crest; it was a faded crown.

I continued to make my way up. My spirit tearing with the chaos around me. Three worlds ripping at my mind, all full and distinct. Surely, this was my death. And this was the vision of the summation of my life, fractured and retold in some indiscernible allegory.

In my climb, I came to stand before a majestic tree centered at the height of the village, thriving and royal, burning and shadow, a smoldered core. In the first image it was decorated with colors and lights. In its life it was a widespread canopy of white branches with leaves of deepest green. Many people were in the midst of recreation under its outstretched arms. Children playing games, friends resting upon mighty roots, lovers walking under the intertwining shade. This tree was the center and heart of the village. I could see signs of it being a meeting place as well as a holy place. But it was revered with a living love, rather than a solemn worship.

In my second sight, I saw a large host of the ravagers gathered before the tree already aflame at its edges. The throng stood before one man who screamed to them and gestured violently. Not understanding their language, I could still see this man at the center was the leader of this painted host. His diatribe inflamed and spurred his followers. Raised torches met his words, shouts of violence and anger concurrent with his own. And then with a motion and a loud yell, the man silenced the crowd. He turned to a young invader nearby and stretched out his hand in silence. He was granted an axe. With deft skill the man climbed the mighty trunk of the tree, axe in belt. He stepped out onto a mighty branch. A few of the host began to clamor in a rageborn joy, but the man angrily motioned for silence again. His eyes were intense with passion as he looked down upon a leg sized shoot, hands clenching the axe. There appeared a struggle in his mind. And then his blow struck. The silence held as the man battled with hewing the branch off, flames dancing on the leaves around him. The sound of his grunts of hatred echoed through his followers. Finally, the length of the branch fell to the ground, and the painted ones erupted in the midst of their passion. More began to climb the tree to ravage it in irreverence. One grabbed the fallen branch and held it aloft to strong praise. The leader admired his army for a time, and then finished breaking off an already shattered piece of branch, about an arms length long. Then he dropped to the ground, disappearing into the flowing masses below.

I pushed through the crowd, upwards, upwards, heartsick and choking. I do not know if I could physically touch these people. I suppose I would have noticed the crushing of the crowd in its rolling movement. But their irreverent and bloody manner struck me physically, regardless. If they could not hit me, they still beat me. I looked to the hill as my escape. Finally I passed to the upwards slope of the great tree's clearing, and I took a last look back at the terrible scene. The tree was beginning to fire in earnest now. Disgusting merriment lit the night along with the flames. Yet in the flowing bodies, I saw a shadow steal out and upwards as well. The shadowy figure walked with dread purpose one arm holding a rough club of near arms length.

(still to be continued)

nymph

2011-02-16T23:32:00.000-08:00

In a nowhere land upon a noname lake, a fisherman made a modest living. He and his new wife lived along the shore with a humble joy in work and rest, alone together. Their days of youth were spent in happy peace. Each day the fisherman would ride out his small boat. Resting out in the sun, while his nets snared wandering fish, he would craft songs to sing his wife upon his return.

One of those days, a water nymph, dancing upon the lake, heard the song the fisherman shaped, and found both his voice and form fair. The fairy maiden danced and joyed to the man's song, she being invisible to eyes. Desire stirred in her breast for this mortal of clay, but sick with the fear of love the nymph could not reveal herself. Instead she watched his happy manner and listened to his songs of adoration, imagining they were for her. Each day she would come to look for him on the water, and each day she would find him, crafting songs and dropping nets. As she learned his task she began to bless him with great bounties of fish. She relished his delight in this amazing success, and believe he worshiped her with his song.

After a month of favoring his nets, the water fairy believed it time to take form before her fisherman. She took the form of a mortal female, but shaped of water and lake weed. She was marvelous and beautiful to behold. And the fisherman, broke his singing in shock and awe at sight of her. She stepped upon the waves and then into the boat, glistening and lovely in the sun. The fisherman knew not what to do, but sat afright upon the small deck of his boat. The nymph took seat across from her love and crafted her own song, an obvious compliment to one of the man's own. It was beyond human skill in shape and sound. It brought the man to tears, and he knelt in admiration to the lady of the lake.

"Why do you gift me with such beauty, my noble lady? Why do you honor me, so?"

She arose in her noble glory. "It is not all I have granted you." And she motioned to the nets. "And it is not all I gift you." She clasped her hands to her breast and stepped towards the fisherman.

The man cowered in fear at her approach. The nymph smiled, thinking it the fear she felt in unison. She reached out and touched his face, weed and water upon flesh. "I grant you my love, now and always."

"I am so greatly undeserving my lady." He shrinked from her touch in abounding confusion. "And what is more, I cannot return your offering with my own. My love is bound to another and it will not falter. I know not how you could favor me great lady. And just as I am undeserving, I also cannot return your love."

"You jest, my love. Your songs to me: each day I have danced to them. Each day I brushed your lips with my wind. And you'd inhale the sweet fragrance. I am the one you love." Her beauteous voice began to crack with doubt.

"Nay. I never knew you. I meant no trickery, and I knew not your touch. I have the sorrow of nations for bringing you deceipt, but you are not the lady of my love, though greatly you may deserve adoration." The fisherman saw his doom in the fairy's eyes, but could not relent in telling her truth.

A cry broke out as a squeal of wind that broke the shaped water and weed. It expanded and exploded but then with a quick sucking inhale the water nymph once more took her shape, but this time haughty and fierce.

"You spurn me? I lower myself to you, grant you a love so high, and you say I am not worthy? Oh, you trembling little crab. You shall make a bloody pop as I crush you in the waves. You shall love me in your agony. You shall know my power as you die." She approached him once more across the deck of his boat. The fisherman knelt and bowed his head to her approach. Tears were on his face, but his body found peace. The water around the boat began to shake and rise with great noise. It built as a rising storm to accompany her approach. As she stood a reach away from her spurned love, the water lady stopped. Then a smile creased her water-made lips and the water again settled to a calm.

"No. No, I shall grant you one more reward. And greater still than what I have yet given. You too shall be immortal. You shall live forever, as long as this lake lasts. Yes. See, I am a merciful love. Love me not and I grant you still more." The lady reached down gracefully and lifted the man's chin until he looked straight at her sunlit eyes. She gently knelt down and kissed him upon the forehead.

As she kissed him the man lost his breath, and then her form again exploded but in greater force. It crushed him down into the boat. Then he felt the boat shatter against her blow. Everything around him stirred and spun. He cried out in the harshest pain but all came out silence. He closed his eyes and waited to stop his turning. Finally he came to a rest. Everything felt wrong. But he seemed alive. The fisherman opened his eyes and found his sight was not his sight. He inhaled in shock, and found the water sweet. He twisted his neck to see his body, but it twisted wrong and all he found was a fish's tail.

(to be continued... hopefully)

madman

2011-02-16T21:37:00.000-08:00

A mad king with no crown wanders our city. He speaks about his foreign kingdom of strange custom and dance. We laugh and we spit at this foul and muddy creature. He asks our allegiance, the pauper lord. Weathless and scarred, he calls us to his courts. His royal robes tattered, his noble feet blackened and cut. He is our amusement and fear. He speaks with the certainty of the crazed; we beat him with the care of the civil.

Paradox and nonsense he deals: To lose is to gain; to fall is to fly. We abide him until he calls us by name. He has been cast from the city seven times. This king of the wild is a master of not but disturbance. He unsettles our lives. He breaks our peace. With his tongue he speaks love, but stirs only a conflict. He calls us to follow, but his royal nibs never picks up and leaves.

Why must we suffer his wisdoms? Is it so much to ask for the silence? He will rewrite our laws in order that we can end his tongue. Or else a mob will deal him his justice. There is only so far you can push good people. And this ruler of worms tries even the patience of our saints. Let us live our lives. Tell your mad tales to the trees and the birds. This man's kingdom is the realm of clouds and dreams. Though soon he may be able to be a king over a grave. May the dead call him master.

birthday

2011-02-05T21:23:00.000-08:00

If I just stand still, no one sees me. They talk and laugh and smile. They enter under my name. But if I stand still, they don't see me.

The man with the large wrinkled smile cheered loud at me after he almost sat on me and I jumped up. He shook my hand, and told me the man I would be. He told me my dreams and my plans, and how he had already achieved them all for me. And his eyes never wrinkled.

Before that the woman, who doesn't hear good, saw me while I was trying to get some food. She asked me my age, again. And told me what her son was like at that age. And told me what she had done that day. And told me how she didn't like children. I stopped moving and when she couldn't see me any longer her talking moved to a man nearby. I left the food.

When the people first started to enter, I tried to escape, but one kid caught me moving. He asked me where my games were. I have not seen him again and I do no know who he was.

Before the strangers came, my parents were busy around the house. I sat on a chair in the room by the door. And they could not see me as they ran about screaming and yelling. They cleaned and put up a colorful paper, with my name on it, over the door. They told each other what to do and what each stranger wanted. They dressed up like they were leaving but they stayed. And I made sure not to move.

Now I stand against the wall between two conversations. People are standing in circles or sitting at tables. The noise is loud and feels like a wave in my head. I am tired. I see two people leave my parents small couch. I don't see anyone looking, so I move.

I reach the couch, but mother sees me first. She shouts. The loudness stops. I am scared so I can't stand still. They all see me now. I am not allowed to sit on the couch, she tells me. It is for adults. They need places to sit. I am disrupting the party. I don't know what disrupt means, but she is angry. She sends me off. I hold my breath. All the heads turn away.

And I stay standing next to the couch. If I don't move, they will not see me.

Okay, this is more depressing than my normal fare (and that's saying something), but it isn't my fault, honestly. Well, it is my fault. But it also isn't. I had to write a story with "a boy who's only visible when he moves" and "a disrupted celebration." I wish I had made the disruption better, but I just made sure to put the word, itself, in there to make sure I qualified. So... okay, I made it depressing. I'm sorry. But honestly, the combination was perfect.

I have a single sentence I like from it; see if you can guess which one.

ring

2011-01-30T00:19:00.000-08:00

I long for the day I will hear my name called atrue. To hear, unfettered, the voice of the one who knows it as it bleeds upon His hand. He calls it even now but I stop my ears. One day water shall cleanse my ears of their deafness. One day I shall know my name from the lips of my namer.

I have long sought my name—my true name. I go from door to door as a beggar, needing the food from each table. And people have gifted me names. Oh I have so many names: names of a lord, names of a tyrant, names born of spring, names dying in winter. There are names that I fancy and flourish, and names I fear and hide. True and false, they are not my name. And still I seek, unsated.

And I hear not His tears as He watches my quest. He would grant what I seek as I beg from another. How long will I listen to liars? How long will I feast from the waste? How long shall I dress in the clothes of a fool?

Grant me my name as a ring of redemption. Grant me my name as the robe of a son. Turn my feet from my infantile wandering. Turn my eyes to Your unquenchable sun. In Your courts shall I know my answers. In Your house will I finally be home.

2011-01-27T17:36:00.000-08:00

Whose hands are these?

wanderer

2011-01-12T20:03:00.000-08:00

I have walked a hundred years, and slept one hundred more. I was given a dream in youth which has fed me all these days: a feast of wishes, longings, and straw. A golden vision of twisted sunlight which yet cast a shadow upon my face. An idea that lies deeper in me than I can bring to bear in words. Deeper still is this ache within me than my ancient heart. The almost grasped like the secrets of life that fade in the midst of waking. A slender song dancing upon the wind behind me. I have sought you all these suns, cried to every moon. I rent open hallowed peace in search. I tranquil laid in torture and endurance, waiting for your word.

I stood upon the Aithoran when it was still dry and wild. The lost fields of white gave me a name. I rode upon the gates of Hiedoroth, and alone I lived but not for courage. Upon the heroes' blood I received a curse. I climbed the walls of King Bezhon and stole his Silver Flame. Yes, the treacherous thief who started the War of the Sands, it was me. And for the countless dead, I received a promise unfulfilled. I hid in the Hollow Caves and found their Secret long buried. It could break the world if unleashed, but I simply told it my quest. And I was granted a riddle. Do you know all this?

I have seen history unfold, I have crossed all the maps of this world, I have mapped yet more, but still your fey steps allude me. I can hear the ringing of your feet, and your gentle laugh as a gift in my turmoil. I have surrendered my hope of you every night. And then I remember my thirst at the break of the sun. A lie or a truth: you are both, I see that now.

And upon this wall I sit, my beard upon my knees. Cliffs before me; the Long Valley below me. I consider falling to end this forever quest. But then I hear my name upon your lips called from the trail below. And I rise to follow.

copper

2011-01-05T20:31:00.000-08:00

I brought a penny to the market and found it could not buy a thing. I begged and bargained but my copper was denied by all and every man. I could not purchase the merry dolls who dance and wave about. I could not afford the happy pigs who snuffle at my feet. I received a strike upon my head for the request of a hat. I could not win the pretty coats for a cent upon my hand. To food I sought but once more denied was this, my sum worth.

As all I have is this little penny, immersed within my grip. To offer it is to give my all, yet none will take it in. Turned away, run about, sunken on the ground. I have no more to give, I cry, and people glance but walk on by. I gaze at this thing, my only coin, worthless just as one. Who will take it, this tiny thing? What can such a thing win me? Nothing. Nothing, I realize. It is all I have and it will get me nothing.

And so I give the token of my life to a passing boy with an outstretched penny. And I walk away.

entwine

2010-12-20T20:42:00.000-08:00

Walking in the old forest one will hear whispers in the cold dense air.

The words will turn you around and about in an attempt to locate the speaker. But they come from no tongue: long forgotten words, ancient bred. Lost in time, to sweep and wind their paths through the forest trees. Those who hear are granted images and stories of vast beauties and deep betrayals, but all vision passes like a dream in waking. Like attempting to seize water, the gift of the words falls, and leaves the hearer in mourning, but for what, they cannot recall.

Many are lost to the forest as they search for these fay winds. They wander as if seeking a lost lover in the bramble and the root. Lost to the world for the muttering of deeper things. Far into the unmapped forest they descend. To realms still young when the earth broke. Perhaps to find wonders and treasure as promised by the quiet voices upon the air.

It is not with treachery that the forest utters its song. It is not to feast upon prey that it acts the Siren. It is as the man breathes the forest calls. The spell that grants the trees life is this thin soft melody. The song bears the wisdom of the root, the folly of the leaf, the tranquil of the stream, the fury of the storm. It contains the quiet love of the deer, the striking death of the serpent, the freedom of the bird, the bindings of the spider. Incomprehensible and simple; the old forest utters its longing and its content.

Walk within this forest and know peace to your own unmaking.

ink

2010-12-15T18:40:00.000-08:00

Ink in drops upon the paper. A shadow, a shade amongst bright snow. A scar. Then a blot. Into a hungry maw. Now a fount in torrent black, the ink. Tendrils and wings of charcoal's breath in liquid movement. A feast upon the fields of white. A march, a crash, an onslaught upon the innocence. Dirge of black water. The stain of death upon the day. To all ends, the reach of dark. One last bastion. A moon within the night. The fount in victory, a drop, a drop. Into a point of light. A drop. A glimmer. The final drop in height. But not of black. A tear of blood. A crown of death. Upon the page.

It splashes into the black wash, that inkéd blood.

And no more day. All the page of night. Death. The silence of sight. But then a murmur. A glint. The whisper of a light in dance. A sparkling flurry. The page in prismatic glory eats upon the prison of dark. Cascading celebration in riotous abandon. Lights, oh marvelous lights, in living display. The page reborn with wings of refracting daylight. Infant and ancient, it is phoenix crowned in all spectrum. All darkness transformed into liquid light. Into beauty it flies, evermore.

muse

2010-11-01T19:53:00.000-07:00

Any art I have is granted from your hands, oh Lord. The thirst in my chest to scratch beauty on paper is my longing for Your waters everlasting. The song in my ear Your whispers.

May my work bless Your name. May it ring joyfully in Your ears. Grant my tongue the release of Your praise, Crafter of Skills. Mighty Father, hear Your adopted son. Bless me with a story to tell: one of Your mercy and grace, Your redemption and love. May it magnify and praise You.

Humble my pride; crush my arrogance. Let me see Your hand in the gifting, in the coincidence. I have proven in the distance of time that my strength is not permitting. Let me instead trust in Yours, oh mighty God. Fill my lungs with Your breath of life, that it fuels my every move, my every thought, and is expelled with my every breath.

May I do this not for my glory, but Yours, Creator God.

streetlight

2010-10-22T13:06:00.000-07:00

He crossed the street with the collar of his coat pulled up and clutched around his neck. The pooling of water made mirrors upon the asphalt, mirrors marred by the occasional drop of water the winds knocked off the towering buildings. His foot broke one mirror, an explosion of stars spreading cold water across his shoes. You could hear a mutter as he gave his legs an extra shake before exiting the street with a hop onto the curb.

The street concentrated the night's darkness with the glitter of the moon off all that was wet. The streetlights seemed to echo the moon as younger brothers. A pure whiteness in the midst of the asphalt and towers, a naive light. The man passed as a shadow beneath one light. Shifting his hands from his collar down to his pockets, shoulders lifted to hold his upturned collar high. His breath shone as bright smoke coming from shadow. His pace took him from under the streetlight, and you could best mark his movement with the gentle clap of his shoes upon the concrete.

As his steps came upon an intersection, the street went quiet. Suddenly, you could see a shine from his eyes as they were cast up. The light from his eyes did not flicker as he gazed across the street. He seemed to be looking at the window of an apartment building found across the street. Which window you could not say, but his determination proved that he knew which. The street remained held in silence for several breaths. Then a name was whispered into the wind, and the eyes blinked out. Once more his steps could be heard, now turned to follow the turn in the sidewalk.

And the man passed on, all movement disappearing into the blackness of the street.

replicant

2010-10-21T03:37:00.000-07:00

Apparently, I am cheap plastic. I don't even make for a fun child's toy. I am the unmoving kind. I won't break, but I have no hinges. I just stand in one single pose. A rigid upright stance of no emotion.

I get told to be made of this, and look like that. I am told I have no heart. That human is this condition over there, while I am just this thing of limits. Merely a cold rock in a world of molten warmth.

Are they wrong? Do I have life in these veins? Can I feel the wind or the pull of the stars? Am I just an image with no substance? A house that isn't a home? The dead in the world of life? What am I?

pride

2010-10-17T17:57:00.000-07:00

I tried to hold the river tight, obstruct it with earth and stones. To hold it with my limits and bounds and call its path my own. The water would speak my name in wash and crash aloud. And all would wonder at the majestic sight, of my river tamed and wild.

Yet the water would not heed my hand, nor respect my name in choir. It broke my dam and crushed my bridge, and washed away my aisle. I was rent and soon fell in and fought against its pull. But it held me strong and held me final, unless I released its bridle.

And so I freed the raging river, I surrendered my master dreams. And soon I found it had washed me clear of my boundaries and my schemes. As I had clutched and steered the free, I had strangled myself. It was my hand that held me back, it was my freedom bound.

The river was a wild beast far great than myself. Yet I had sought to contains its wash, within the glory from my mouth. It dashed me, it broke me. It dragged me undertow. Til I released my grip upon the labor of my soul.

It did not calm, it did not ease, it washed me on to die. But die in peace and rise in life, and drink from water's white. In loss I won, in weakness strong, I was made alive. Released and free, like river wild, I am he who died.

121

2010-10-12T11:42:00.000-07:00

Every time they fall you expect them to be saved. It has occurred so often that you know they will survive. The bright colors will come and save them in the midst of their screams. We have no fear, we've seen it too many times. We might even suffer a yawn.

But this one time... this one time he didn't save her. In fact he might have been the force that killed her. A little snap. Physics are finally given their respect, but at the cost of beauty, and at the cost of love.

He failed. He isn't supposed to fail. Not when he's all dressed up. He always wins. He always saves them. But in this he failed. When it meant more to him than any other time. That is when his debt came due.

And he would abandon everything he stood on, as his love is taken away. He would leave his decaying friend, he would rage upon his enemy, he would break away from any comfort. But in spite of this he hears a gentle tearful click.

errant

2010-10-05T15:14:00.000-07:00

The man rode through the trees and fog in a quiet sad manner. Head bowed, he bore shadows for his eyes and a short wild beard stretched darkness across his face. His cloaked shoulders were sunken under the weakness of his spirit. He swayed loosely at the mercy of his mounts subdued pace. He was as a phantom of the morning fog. A creature left behind by the passing night.

His mount appeared once noble but now long short of rest or care. The spirit of its master had brought that mighty beast low. The horse's coat lay loosely wet and matted upon its diminishing form. It bore a heavy burden that labored each step, but the burden was neither the rider's weight nor the small pack behind his saddle, nor the weapon that slapped upon its flank as it strove on. It share its master's anguish. The creature bore its rider's trial.

The forest remained in silence in company with this intruder. It sat and watched this thing of death as it passed through its branches and across its meadow. All that was heard was the impact of the rider's blade upon his horse, and a quiet chime of some metal upon the beast's saddle. The clop of the hooves were muffled in the sodden earth to the sound of a fading heartbeat.

All sound stopped as the man came upon a gentle river and was forced to halt.

storm

2010-09-30T12:55:00.000-07:00

It was a storm, I hear. Though truth be told it was a drizzle. Our present is always bigger than our past. Unless we need to prove our past is bigger than someone else's. We craft our great adventures in our chosen words. We shape the descent of moisture as a tempest. We see the gentle breeze as our own hurricane. We feast on the pride of our fears. We drink to the mighty conquest of our struggles. Everything is bigger to the small ones, yet we'd claim ourselves mighty.

And that is it: we do not know ourselves. A mouse knows its own size. A tree knows its height. A dog knows who to come to for food. But we do not know our place. We like the questions, but not the answers. Questions can be shaped to make us bigger or smaller as we see fit. Answers don't move. So we will just ask the question and not listen for an answer. We will make our answers as we shaped this storm. That which best fits our story; that which gives our image the glint of the exotic. Our answers are the clothes we buy to dress up in.

We are not who we are, we are who we say we are. We are not who we are, we are who we want to be. That is the story from our lips. That is how we dress up our mirrors. That is how we would would save our lives from truth.

All that to say, it was just a drizzle.

sun

2010-09-28T08:28:00.000-07:00

I am the man who has never held the sun. I have heard its call and been drawn to its feet. Yet to grasp it is to die the death of life. I fear the death and crave the life.

I am a man at war. A war waged with myself as my enemy. I will lose and win or win and lose all under the heat and stress of the sun.

I can run from its sight, but the memory is burned into my mind. I would hope it would fade, but I have done this before... It fades with noise, but the silence brings it ever back. Warm and scorching; burning and living. Crying for me to embrace it, I would hear its echos in my caverns underground. I would stumble in darkness to lose myself, but still see a break of light. And the thirst would return.

I have used lesser stars. I have loved the moon. I have declared the darkness satisfactory. And yet the sun calls me a liar in its complete silence.

I am the fool who has never held the sun.

crown

2010-09-24T08:48:00.000-07:00

His was a curse that he inherited, like his name. It was granted to him when he was born, dictated by his blood. He could not call this thing by name as a child, but he knew the dread of it. He could see it in his father's eyes when he looked upon his son. The sorrow in his joy. He could see it in his mother's tears. Those she tried to hide. He could hear his doom in the distance though it was as silent as a carrion bird and more patient in its approaching.

As he aged it took shape. It grew with him. As he grew strong, it grew stronger still. As he grew wise, it crushed his hope. He never knew whimsy. He never knew fancy. He knew his task, his burden, his curse.

Soon his curse took shape upon his face: his cheeks turned gray; his eyes grew clenched; his brow furrowed. It crafted his form: he grew hard; he became stretched; he was cracked. The curse was upon him. By the time he reached the age of a noon day sun, the curse was all he knew.

It was a curse for which many men desired and strove. But he could not cast it off to these fools. It would not crush only the fool. It was his burden and his doom and his alone. To cast it off was to invite its utter wrath. At least in this he'd die as he stands. But alone.

tube

2010-09-19T17:21:00.000-07:00

"Because you people, and sixty-two million other Americans, are listening to me right now. Because less than three percent of you people read books! Because less than fifteen percent of you read newspapers! Because the only truth you know is what you get over this tube. Right now, there is a whole, an entire generation that never knew anything that didn't come out of this tube! This tube is the gospel, the ultimate revelation. This tube can make or break presidents, popes, prime ministers... This tube is the most awesome [...] force in the whole [...] world, and woe is us if it ever falls in to the hands of the wrong people... "So, you listen to me. Listen to me: Television is not the truth! Television is an [...] amusement park! Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, side-show freaks, lion tamers, and football players. We're in the boredom-killing business! So if you want the truth... Go to God! Go to your gurus! Go to yourselves! Because that's the only place you're ever going to find any real truth.

"But, man, you're never going to get any truth from us. We'll tell you anything you want to hear; we lie like hell. We'll tell you that, uh, Kojak always gets the killer, or that nobody ever gets cancer at Archie Bunker's house, and no matter how much trouble the hero is in, don't worry, just look at your watch; at the end of the hour he's going to win. We'll tell you any[thing] you want to hear. We deal in *illusions*, man! None of it is true! But you people sit there, day after day, night after night, all ages, colors, creeds... We're all you know. You're beginning to believe the illusions we're spinning here. You're beginning to think that the tube is reality, and that your own lives are unreal. You do whatever the tube tells you! You dress like the tube, you eat like the tube, you raise your children like the tube, you even *think* like the tube! This is mass madness, you maniacs! [...] You people are the real thing! *WE* are the illusion! So turn off your television sets. Turn them off now. Turn them off right now. Turn them off and leave them off! Turn them off right in the middle of the sentence I'm speaking to you now! TURN THEM OFF..."
Network (1976)

So, if you survived that quotation, I'd had this movie sitting around for some time due to my Timmverse watchthrough as well as other causes, but finally got around to watching Network. I knew the premise of the movie; knew what they were satirizing. And as the movie started to unfold everything began to fit into what I expected. But then it kept going... And got bigger. And I started feeling this movie in my gut. I started feeling like I was getting assaulted by this movie.

The movie is often designated a comedy. Honestly, you will get more laughs out of many action movies out there. However, a comedy fits better than most genre labels. A dark comedy for sure. It is almost a drama, but things are just askew enough that a comedy is a slightly better designation. It isn't the real world, but it unfortunately too closely is.

And yes, this post has mostly said nothing beyond the above quotation. First off let me warn people about the content of the movie. I don't want people rushing off to see this movie thinking I recommended it. I will talk about it. As for recommending, make up your own mind. Content-wise though, this movie has some fairly profane language (both in particular words and discussion content), adultery, and a sex scene. This movie will not leave you feeling clean afterwards. It shows a messy broken world. Though unfortunately, some people might be amused by my warning due to the lack of content in this movie as compared to other such movies. Yes, it is not the worst movie in these regards, but I am just being up front about what is in it.

With that behind me though, the aspect of this movie that started to get to me was not the lambasting of news-casting and its sensationalized condition. It was the exploration of the impact of a generation raised under a TV. What is worse, this movie was made in 1976... pretty much 35 years ago. Now we have generations raised under a TV, and it is only getting worse.

Humans need stories. They shape us. Culturally, morally, in many ways they shape us. Listen to the questions a child has after watching a movie. You can sometimes hear them being shaped. It is scary (not necessarily bad, it's just scary in its importance). And today, we have more access to stories than ever before. What is more, our stories are even more immersive (and our prime sources involve less personal subcreation (a topic for another time)). We begin to live our stories and not our lives. Please don't read this as me being above this condition. I love the Story. I have very much been affected by this same beast. And please don't take this as I am saying Story is bad. I am just trying to figure out the balance; where our feet should stand.

I wish I could say something psychologically significant about what this is all doing to us. I can't. I puzzle over it frequently, but come up with little. I see effects and would try and connect them, but don't know that I am wise enough. I do think our rise in divorce rates are very much connected with our culture's present version of the Romance Story. I do not think we teach a romantic love that permits the troubles of a marriage. Of course, another cause is our focus on our own wants as opposed to our spouses, as well as many other reasons, most of which I have no business even attempting to discuss considering my lack of relational savvy.

But regardless, the TV is the shaper of our culture today. At least in America. It is the hub of our national worldview. It is how we form ideas of how things should go. What we should pursue. What we should value. The generally pervading morality of our culture is found in the TV. When you hear people say what they think is right and wrong... the most likely source was through their TV whether they know it or not. As an example, one could probably call Oprah the single most important American religious leader. I am sure she would cry foul at such a claim, but it is how she functions. We do not realize the power of this tube.

I have mostly stopped watching broadcast television. It is not out of some self-righteous fast. I am not above the evil beast or some such. In college we never had cable or much of a TV schedule and so I just sort of phased out of watching broadcast TV and have never found the need to resume watching it (I still watch plenty of shows on DVD as well as movies). This does not however keep me free of the beast. Our American religion (what I describe is not Christianity... it is that thing that creeps out all those vaguely spiritual embracing nothing while embracing everything that if you espoused before a general audience they would all applaud you even though you pretty much said nothing sort of talk) is pretty much bound up in our television language. But you see it then carried into everything. It is sad to see people who think they are independent of everyone else's ideas and then they recite to you exactly what every speaker and didactic little message on any show you might tune into on primetime would also tell you. Our culture tells you to be yourself by being just like everyone else.

Okay, I am ranting. [deep breath] As Network (the movie I talked about way back when) is showing though, the TV shows us what we want. If it does not, it gets bad ratings and it gets canned. So it is not like the TV is devoid of the input of its audience. The audience votes every week as to what they like, what they embrace, who they sympathize with. The TV is not an independent force of its audience. And honestly, the TV is the thing of the past. We are deep into the transition into the internet being our culture house. Which introduces new pitfalls and dangers. And blessings. Please don't hear me as pure naysaying.

I suppose the thing I am trying to get at is all of these mediums bring with them their balance. They can be used for good and ill. Network showcased many ills, so those are what are in my mind right now. Our filters are all askew though. We view our world through the TV, not the TV through our world. That is out of balance.

"You're television incarnate, Diana. Indifferent to suffering, insensitive to joy.  All
 of life is reduced to the common rubble of banality.  War, murder, death - all the same
 to you as bottles of beer.  And the daily business of life is a corrupt comedy.  You even
shatter the sensations of time and space into split seconds and instant replays.  You're
madness, Diana. Virulent madness.  And everything you touch dies with you."

tame

2010-09-13T13:32:00.000-07:00

"Safe?" said Mr. Beaver."Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you."
The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe - C. S. Lewis

American spirituality is generally built around what makes one feel good. The choice of what you believe is not made for the sake of truth but rather what best satisfies you and makes you comfortable. We do not find our faith in what we find around us but in what we feel best fulfills who we want to be. Western religion is very focused on 'me'. Thank you, Descartes.

And thus this filters into Christianity by turning a church service into a self-help seminar complete with emotionally uplifting music and self-positivism all abundant. Now, Christianity should not be devoid of all these things. In fact, one of the amazing proofs of Christianity is its wide spectrum and balances. The problem with these things as the center of our worship is... well... we are worshiping ourselves, which sounds great to many a pagan, but should not be so for a follower of Christ.

Sometimes when you hear a gospel presentation you will be left to believe that Jesus's transforming sacrifice makes life for His believers all cherry's and roses (or whatever imagery one accepts as paradisal and happy). But this is a lie (assuming one isn't immediately killed upon conversion, I suppose). Life may in fact get harder in many senses. For your life is no longer your own, just as in a marriage. But our presentation as Jesus for the cureall for all hardships completely ignores our circumstances and looks ignorant and naive, but it caters to our selfish desires.

What we get is a cheapened image of God. One who is everything we want Him to be and nothing that we fear or dislike. We make ourselves a god over God in order to fulfill our desires and ignore His.

Christian radio stations are often very much immersed in this blind vision of Christianity. I have taken to cringing whenever I hear the word 'safe' used as the most important adjective for their ministry. Safe? Is that what we desire to be? It is certainly not how Jesus lived or what he preached about. But it is what we live... and what we too often preach about. And it is also empty. I realize when they say safe they are trying to say that you will feel comfortable letting your children listen to it. But again, if they are speaking truth, if they are uttering the words of Christ, should safety be the most important result of their ministry? There are many times when I read the words of Jesus and feel anything but safe. Or when I feel His call in my life to something, I don't know that it has ever been into a situation I would deem safe.

Why do we value safety?

Again, I need to remark that I am not throwing out all the beauty and comfort of the Cross. I am not saying we need to turn to self-flagellation in order to follow Jesus. That leads to yet another pitfall, and one I can sometimes more easily fit into (well, I like my safety for sure, but I've never felt it fit with the gospel, or at least am long removed from that thought) which perhaps makes me feel more self-righteous in throwing stones at the other folly.

But we would try to tame Jesus into saying only what makes us feel comfortable. Not what changes us. Not what truly frees us. And not what truly turns us into the beacon of hope we are called to be.

fall

2010-08-26T13:15:00.000-07:00

A palace, as it felt. Though I knew it was not. But it melted all my longings. A face of beauty lit upon the stairs, the tall bright walls and open space of light. My heart saw rest. It saw the end. And it rejoiced.

Now a house of labor. It holds pain and frustration, but shelter. It was not the proclamation of glory but it was a stanchion of stone. It was a food of substance. Sustaining and growing. If with sweat and aches.

I have ten steps to make. That is all this place can contain. Dirty and stained it covers me. Enclosed and caged. It is all I have and it is not mine. I am as nothing as the sound of joy under these walls.

I wish the street light would go out. Then perhaps I could sleep. I fight the hungry cold with a coarse blanket. I could move down the road. Find better cover from the wind. But I don't. This is my place. This is my home.

chester

2010-08-22T21:47:00.000-07:00

Thoroughly worldly people never understand even the world; they rely altogether on a few cynical maxims which are not true. Once I remember walking with a prosperous publisher, who made a remark which I had often heard before; it is, indeed, almost a motto of the modern world. Yet I had heard it once too often, and I saw suddenly that there was nothing in it. The publisher said of somebody, “That man will get on; he believes in himself.” And I remember that as I lifted my head to listen, my eye caught an omnibus on which was written “Hanwell.” I said to him, “Shall I tell you where the men are who believe most in themselves? For I can tell you. I know of men who believe in themselves more colossally than Napoleon or Caesar. I know where flames the fixed star of certainty and success. I can guide you to the thrones of the Super-men. The men who really believe in themselves are all in lunatic asylums.” He said mildly that there were a good many men after all who believed in themselves and who were not in lunatic asylums. “Yes, there are,” I retorted, “and you of all men ought to know them. That drunken poet from whom you would not take a dreary tragedy, he believed in himself. That elderly minister with an epic from whom you were hiding in a back room, he believed in himself. If you consulted your business experience instead of your ugly individualistic philosophy, you would know that believing in himself is one of the commonest signs of a rotter. Actors who can’t act believe in themselves; and debtors who won’t pay. It would be much truer to say that a man will certainly fail, because he believes in himself. Complete self-confidence is not merely a sin; complete self-confidence is a weakness. Believing utterly in one’s self is a hysterical and superstitious belief like believing in Joanna Southcote: the man who has it has ‘Hanwell’ written on his face as plain as it is written on that omnibus.”

Orthodoxy - G. K. Chesterton

rose

2010-07-20T13:09:00.000-07:00

Fables #100: Cover by Joao Ruas

I miss James Jean... It isn't a terrible cover, but it just looks like typical fantasy fair. Crazy to think this series is going to hit #100. Seems like only yesteryear I was on my reading binge sitting on the floor of my apartment reading the big events of #50. It'll be interesting to see where Willingham takes this.

soups

2010-07-12T09:07:00.000-07:00

Alright, here's a list of my top 5 episodes (or more accurately, top 5 stories) of Superman or Superman: The Animated Series. I have found an interesting theme among them.

I am not a big fan of this intro. The producers said they wanted to make an original opening like they did for Batman, but just never had the time. They also informed me that a good Superman theme song needs to be able to support the repeated lyric of "Superman" within the music. So now Ben and I break into singing "Superman" every time we hear this theme play.

5. Brave New Metropolis
Alternate dimensions or dark futures can be tiresome. However I think with a character as idealized as Superman, seeing him fall is an interesting dichotomy from his regular character. The episode also showcases and moves Lois more than they had before (Dana Delaney is a great great Lois). I think their gradual push towards building a relationship between Supes and Lois was a good idea and it works well for this episode because it gives them something lasting to give the audience, which is often the downfall of an alternate dimension story. This story did however fall into a the trap of a hohum 3rd act. Which as I began to think about it more, boring and standard third acts is quite common. In this show as well as the other Timmverse shows, but honestly this is a fairly universal ailment. 3rd acts seem to be just pushing down the dominoes you've set up with no attempt to make your dominoes zig or zag or provide an especially effectual thud. Especially with as well versed as our culture is in the 3-act system, most people could pretty much fill out the script for the 3rd act after they've seen the first two, whether they do it consciously or instinctively.

4. The Last Son of Krypton
The rest of my picks are all multi-parters. The Last Son of Krypton was the origin story. This specifically gets picked for the first part which takes place entirely on Krypton. They actually succeed at making a story that most everyone knows (or at least the nerds you'd expect to be watching this) interesting and compelling. They create a whole and distinct world for a 22-minute episode. They made complete characters out of Jor-El and Lara and wrapped Brainiac effectively into the Kryptonian mythos. The rest of the origin story is good and effective, but the first episode especially stands out. It also has the best animation of the three episodes if I recall.

3. World's Finest
Normally teamup stories don't work. They sell well, but are uninteresting. Now this rule gets proven wrong plenty often, but at the same time this series also reinforced the rule many times over. They did many teamups, but most were not great. The only sell was getting to see the new character get introduced. But for World's Finest they worked hard at putting a worthwhile story together and then they let the dynamic characters do the rest. Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill immediately raised the voice acting quality of the whole show. Clancy Brown is a great Luthor, and Tim Daly is an effective Superman. But Bruce Timm told the story of Daly first hearing Conroy do his Batman voice and Daly's jaw just dropped (and he proceeded to drop Superman's voice an octave and gave it a bit of gravel). All told, the character interactions really set this story off. The Lois bit at first seems forced, but as the story unfolds it proves very effective at pushing all the different ties that bind these characters. I would say the final 3rd act again proved boring. The first episode is probably again the best of the bunch. It definitely had the best animation.

2. Legacy
Well this is rated higher for perhaps the opposite reason of some of these other stories. It is specifically in the third act that this episode shines. In fact it keeps growing on me. It will perhaps overtake number 1 on this list at some point as I sit on it. I am realizing that parts of what make this 3rd act good is that they have an ending that moves and effects things. The series as a whole would have been greatly different if this had not proved to be the series finale. Timm mentions how TV shows at this time (live action or otherwise) did not bother to do season finales. And thus everything was extremely episodic and everything had to be neatly wrapped up. This series moreso than Batman or Batman Beyond really started pushing a bit of a bigger story feel. Legacy is perhaps their best example of this. Or would have been if they had proceeded to make any more episodes.

I keep thinking through this story because it plays with the key attributes to my current puzzling over the Superman icon. This story has Superman pushed to the brink. He begins to give into the darkness. He begins to turn. He begins to fall. Many people have a problem with Superman being too good, too perfect. I have had this problem. But now I am more intrigued by it; moreso I am intrigued by how people react to it. One who defends Superman's perfection may have trouble with Legacy. But I like it as the story sits in my head longer. Timm said something about how he liked that they ended the series on almost a darker note which is counterintuitive of what you'd expect from a Superman series. I however saw it as darkness that ended with the first steps towards redemption. To me that is actually a very positive ending. Redemption requires darkness. I think Timm's specific point was that it shows Superman fail (even when he gives in to the darkness he still fails). But again, the dawn that comes from this night I think replaces it. Not only that, but the steps Superman will have to undertake to undergo his redemption is harder than any of the other battles he's fought. Yes, most of it is projected, as the episode ends with only hints of what is to come, but you know where this thing is going... err would go.

The following clip is the final battle. It actually takes out the parts that redeem this ending. This part is actually storyboarded by Bruce Timm himself. In his words, he can't storyboard a fight scene to save his life unless the combatants absolutely hate each other. The thing I found most striking is considering how much of this series turned into a Jack Kirby lovefest, this last fight and specifically the ending brought Frank Miller to mind many many times in the art. I don't know if that was intentional. Timm never said it was. It actually works for me quite a bit, however, if at first a little distracting. I don't know that any of you would actually want to watch this as you are probably split between people who would rather see the entire story or could care less.

And again, all that redemptive stuff comes after this. Or is read into the cracks by me.

1. Apokolips ... Now!
The amount I just talked about Legacy is gonna make it look like it should be listed #1... Oh well. Hopefully I can make this sound good. I am more specifically referring to part 2 of Apokolips ... Now! The show had been building towards something with Darkseid for quite some time. And I knew of Darkseid, but I just knew he was a big bad. Beyond that, all I knew was what they slowly began to show in this show. Apokolips ... Now! is when Darkseid gets his full reveal in terms of plans, power, motivation... err well sort of. Some of those details are still a bit vague, but you learn, if ever so briefly about New Genesis and its war/truce with Apokolips. Orion gets some air time and Earth gets invaded. Before this point, the Superman series was just these guys finally getting to do sci fi after keeping Batman "down to Earth". Well in this story, they get to do something else that just wouldn't work for Batman, and that is fending off an invading army.

What they pull off though is that you can feel this invasion. As they begin to tear apart Metropolis you feel the impact. It easy in these shows, with all the careless wreckage and destruction going on, that you just kinda grow numb to it. But in this episode you feel the dread. And the burning red skies, along with the swarms of parademons, you just can't see how the world could stay the same after this episode. Admittedly this still lacks the scope that they would better serve in the Justice League series, but you may actually have a stronger sympathetic connection to it because of it.

What is more, they could have fended off the invasion and then Metropolis just goes back to normal. But instead they make sure their is a cost. You think the day is won and victory is decided (and it is) but Darkseid has one last gift. It twists and turns the characters in new directions. Seeing an enraged Superman proves how deep Darkseid had truly cut him. More so than any of his other threats.

What is more, they fittingly dedicate the whole story to Jack Kirby, creator of all of the Fourth World stories (Darkseid, New Genesis, Apokolips, all this junk I've been rambling on and on about, along with many many other wonderful works of imagination). I think the thing about this episode was just how shocking it all was. They had never done something like this before. It was not in all ways perfect, but it was a shock. I remember the first time I saw it I was left a bit amazed by what I had just seen in a Superman cartoon.

Again, a good 3rd act elevates this episode above the rest.

Concluding comments: For someone who is not immediately drawn to the Superman mythos, this series does a lot to change my opinion of the property. Will he ever be a favorite, no. But he can be the vehicle for good/entertaining stories.

Moving into Justice League I am already frustrated by the way he is drawn... It was also a stark contrast between where Superman left off and Justice League picks up as to the public sentiment towards the Supes. And the voice actor changed... So it is a bit of an adjustment. We'll see how it goes.

aesthete

2010-07-08T08:14:00.000-07:00

So Roger Ebert recently stepped in a hornet's nest. He attempted to back his claim that no video game has ever been, or will ever be art. Do not worry, this not going to be a post trying to defend video games as art. Hopefully it will not end up being all that much about video games.

Ebert has made a profession at being a critiquer of movies, most would argue a form of art. In today's world it is perhaps the most impactful form of art. It would seem he should know something about art. And he throws out some loose ideas in his initial post, mostly in a contrary form, to say why it is video games do not function as art, but he does not fall on a definition. He then makes a later post trying to back himself out of the argument entirely stating that he had no business jumping into this debate without 1) having played a video game and 2) having a working definition of art.

Now this seems almost scary that a man who is the biggest name in the profession of judging the artistry of our country's and most of the world's most widespread and perhaps powerful artistic medium would not having a functional definition of art. To me it is almost comforting. I have been working at what is art for a long time and I know it is a journey I will never complete this side of mortality (and quite possibly will still be a journey after death as well... I kinda hope it is).

A definition of art is a funny thing. I know a lot of people have never given it overly much thought. I remember a discussion in college with a guy who's major at the time was film wherein I introduced the idea to him that art was not just drawing/sculpting/painting/etc. The thought of a movie being art was completely foreign to him (and again, he was a film student). He had never even considered it. He though art was just what you did when you were in an "art" class (and he had a very limited idea of an art class as well, obviously). I do not know how common this is. Part of me fears it is widespread (and another part of me feels prideful and arrogant that it might be widespread and therefore make me more intelligent than all of these masses (within the confines of my opinion of what could be art, I suppose) but that is a bad part of me) and a part of me suspects that this extreme is perhaps uncommon although lesser versions probably abound.

What is more, to many people the word "art" is actually derogatory. Which I think to a large degree is a counter attack of their pride against something that would act superior. If someone does not 'get' art, they would rather not feel inferior so they would then attack art in order to build themselves up. On the flipside, many who embrace a world of art do so to build up their own pride as well. It elevates them above the philistines and barbarians. To not be accepted is the very best of circumstances for these. Ah, pride... you are a powerful little beastie.

So to the person who loves their popcorn flicks, or their feel good movies, or their shallow comedies, but could not care a whit for anything the Oscar's would promote as the best representation of art in the medium, are these people less in tune with what true art is? Is there truly this ratio between the descent of accessibility to larger audiences and the rise of artistic form? (I realize that few would argue that accessibility is the cause of art I am just seeing it as an effect from the attributes of what gets more commonly called a higher form of art.) I am actually growing more and more inclined towards what many would term as artsy fair (though there is much 'artsier' out there, but I think I would still be on the further end of the spectrum than average) (at this point my reader looks down at my most recent posts about my TV viewings and scoffs at my silly claims). So it would be easy for me to try and diminish those who would never be caught dead seeing an Oscar nominated movie (and the Oscars aren't actually a very good judge of the 'artsy' either, but I am just using this as a simple tool that I think is easily understandable) or would read a fluff novel over anything Dickens.

Yet, I wonder if that distinction is truly so. I came up with the puzzle in college, that if someone accidentally dropped a load of paint on a canvas and it accidentally formed the Mona Lisa, would this be art? Part of me wants to argue no, because there was no intentionality in the artist, but is art actually found in the viewer? If it moves them in whatever means you feel is the movement of art, is this accident or art? But what if a creator puts all he can into a work but his audience does not in anyway comprehend it. To the audience it is not art in any form, but to this creator it is his highest work of art he could ever produce. Is this still art? You could argue that he is himself an audience, but I feel this is a bit contrived. So basically my questions focus on what is the function of the creator and the audience in making something art.

I have actually come a long ways since asking myself these questions, and they can seem a bit silly now, but they were an important stepping stone for me. There is a part of me that wants art to be this universal characteristic of an object/thing/product. The concept of art being in any way relative to an individual of course bites against the Evangelical Christian indoctrination against the idea of anything being relative (Which is a blindly reactionary position. The concept of relativity has some truth which is why people accept it. How much truth and where that truth lies is the problem. It is like the Greek problem of whether the world is water/fluid/ever-changing or solid/permanent/unchanging, to which Plato just said, "you're both right." (always the easiest way to answer an argument)). "If God says it is art it is art." I want to stand on that. However what if what God says something like art is that movement (for lack of a better word) in us?

Then you have to figure out what that movement is. Or if movement is even the right word. I have heard what I am terming movement defined as many different things. Some feel art needs to inform you intellectually. Some feel art should be an entirely emotional experience. My guess is both view points have very much to do with what kind of people are stating these beliefs. Again, informing our beliefs on what we want to believe rather than truth, which is entertaining when it becomes argument time. I would say both sides are wrong, that's my argument.

Please don't read this as any sort of cemented idea of what art is. This is still me just playing around with things. My purpose here (in this paragraph at least), however, is to try and say perhaps those who's ideal movie is what many would claim is not art, is perhaps what stirs the artness in them. How then do you measure art? Umm, is it by the reaction of the viewer? That sounds really scary. I want some quantifiable form of art, but what I am perhaps beginning to state is so subjective that any discussion just turns into how this thing affected me. But perhaps that is the purpose of art.

I would also say there is another relationship between a creator and his/her art. Many creators are just filling out a formula. To them they have completely 'sold out' and there is no artistry in what they do. To them their product is not art (whoops, objective claim about what is or is not art) even if they say otherwise. And yet an audience could both have the reaction I state above, or even perhaps get the art community in an uproar about the unequaled quality of their artistic voice. I want to say something is seriously wrong here. But how do I? Do we always have to know the intention of the creator in order to know if something is art? That severely limits us to probably never knowing if something is truly art. But I still would prefer this art gets some kind of demerit for coming from an entirely undeserving soul.

To better clarify, I bet many creators would say some of their best work has often started with an accident or a mistake. I know in my doodling, sometimes the coolest looking doodles were intended to be something else entirely. I am not saying that every part of art must be intentional to a creator. Likewise, many creators do not wish to share the meaning behind their work specifically so that their audience can grow it and find what they will in it, completely separate from their original intention. Is this wrong? Sometimes it is just an artist not wanting to stand on something or because it really is shallow and they don't want to explain it. But there is a place for the audience to actively interpret art. That is certainly part of the process. So again, is intentionality completely independent of somethings artfulness?

So where does all this unknowing leave us?

Well, if you've read enough of this, you can probably guess I am not going to answer that question. I would pose another idea though. I would probably broaden art beyond many other peoples descriptions. Many people see art as reflections on nature (it could be the common concept of nature, or human nature, or the nature of dreams, etc). Whereas I would see art in nature itself. This comes from a large degree because I see a Creator behind this. I do certainly feel that a creator is a requirement for art, and I do think a creator should be meaning to instruct and move its audience. Seeing art in a sunset is easy because it easily fits with one of our most common ideas of art (even if it can be harder to describe why it is art). Seeing art in the orderings of our life, all the happenings, all the natural laws to which we are subject, that is perhaps where people would never see art, but it is perhaps the greatest work. Our lesser art seems to just be a play at that which the greater Artist would have us experience. Perhaps, art is not dependent on learning the intention of its subcreator, but in actually learning about its true Creator.

(I keep saying learning and instructing but have also claimed to disqualify the necessity for art to be rationally instructive. This is a bit of failure at English on my part. I think God does great works in us through nonrational means as well, and I think art plays on this. I am just simplifying my language poorly. (I find it funny that I just said simplifying my language considering all of my distracting paranthetical references that I do so love. (Yes, I use paranthetical references abundantly. It is somewhat jokingly. I used to feel a strong impulse to actually make my writing more readable and do away with these evil things, but they are just too much fun. So now I use them somewhat intentionally over much.)))

And so right as I get to the important stuff, I sign off. So long.

hearth

2010-07-07T15:53:00.000-07:00

The High Widow: "... so you see. The Hearth stands ready for a siege that lasts until the end of time if need be. If we must, we will wait until Death himself dies. But we will not recognize his claims, we will not face nor fight him. That struggle cannot be won. We will instead a world create wherein he is unwelcome. No more knights. No more children. No more brave captains. No more of our best will be lost to the labyrinth. Hearth is the home at the end of all journeys."

Joe: "But what happened to the stars? The sky's just black."

The High Widow: "The people don't need stars. They have you. The Dying Boy is real. According to their simple beliefs, that means they are saved."

Joe the Barbarian #6: Grant Morrison

Morrison is finally hitting on what I've been hoping for. Hopefully he pulls the conclusion off.

ten

2010-07-06T08:50:00.000-07:00

One more down. Well except for the Return of the Joker movie. I will watch that again at some point, but for now I have moved on. (Return of the Joker is actually quite good, and a large part of why I like Batman Beyond as much as I do).

This viewing was my first time seeing quite a few of these episodes. The first season I had seen all of many times over. After that it started to go a bit haywire, what with going to college and all that. That sort of disrupted my Saturday morning cartoons routine.

Going into this series I had both high hopes but with an undercurrent of some doubt. I knew conceptually the Timmfolks had some great ideas and characters running around in this series, though I was pretty sure it would not always be the most solid of results. I think I was also hoping for some degree of conclusions on things even knowing that there was no strict conclusion to the show.

As it turns out though, conclusion was hardly in the books. I suppose you get some closure on the Al Ghul family as well as the Big S (but this is closure for other series, not the Beyond story), but Blight gets forgotten, as does the fate of Wayne Powers. The Royal Flush Gang gets resolution. But you kinda hope for something more for Ten. Now, I say all this without having ever seen the episode of Justice League Unlimited titled Epilogue. It apparently touches on the Beyond world a bit more. I was not surprised by all of this, knowing that the show just sort of ended, but it was still a little disappointing. I was surprised that Blight never showed up again, though. I just assumed he'd be back in.

However, they explained this shift away from Blight in some of the interviews on the DVD. Basically they were told by the studio to take the stories away from the corporate sector and bring it more to the high school. This is not surprising considering the original intent of Beyond was to skew towards a younger demographic. They also did push the corporate corruption deal far too strongly in the first season, but I think they then reacted too strongly against it and erred in the opposite direction for the second season.

Timm also commented about how he learned from Beyond to always end each season with a grand conclusion, never knowing if it could be the last episode made. It makes me all the more disappointed that Timm has gone to movies and away from shows, hearing him talk about the things that they have learned and watching him begin to play with serialized storytelling a bit more as well as growing characters throughout a show. I think he is enjoying the freedom of producing movies however.

Do not read this as being mostly disappointed in the show however. I enjoyed it quite a bit. Most of the episodes were at the very least entertaining. And any episode that pushed and dug at the relationship between the old and new Batman was quite good. I loved their dynamic. This show would have been incredibly boring if they had not made Bruce Wayne still a major part (along with bringing back Kevin Conroy of course) but at the same time still keeping him weak and dependent. It is a great progression of the idea of Batman and what his life would be in the end.

The series also takes on one other super hero archetype that never really fit with Batman's story before. It very obviously pulls a great deal from the Spider-Man stories. Terry is in many ways more a Peter Parker (though a bit more hard edged and punkish) than he is a Bruce Wayne Batman. But this still works. It definitely seems that they pull from Spider-Man's rogue gallery as well. Which is not bad in trying to create an all new rogue gallery where you are trying to mostly avoid precise Batman rogue parallels, why not go to the super hero with the second greatest set of rogues.

Speaking of rogues, they did a pretty decent job with most of them. Which considering their very short production time to begin this series, this is an impressive feat. Trying to create villain after villain in a very short order usually produces really bad quality. That is perhaps the most amazing thing about the early Spider-Man run of Lee and Ditko. Especially considering in that case it was just two people creating all of these villains that have lived on through the years. Beyond's gallery obviously will never be as famous, but if the series had somehow continued, it could easily have continued to grow a number of these villains. Yes, a lot of them were derivative but still, for such short production time, and honestly little experience doing this, as usually they were using premade characters, I would say they did a pretty quality job in this department. They really did not need to bring in Kobra though... That was definitely the villain that bored/annoyed me the most. Yes, I know it was yet another plug for Jack Kirby. And I do love me some Jack Kirby. But I just don't feel that the fit was there between Kobra and Beyond's world.

(On a side note, in one of the interview panel deals they talk about having to introduce a bunch of their new artists to Jack Kirby. They would say something about Kirby and get the response back, "Kirby who?" I don't know how an animator couldn't know who Jack Kirby is. They said it was at least fun to introduce these guys to Kirby, but you could still hear a bit of sadness in their voice. You can just look at Bruce Timm's art and see his love for Jack Kirby. And then comes all the ways he manages to work Kirby's material into his products.)

So all in all, yet another well produced series. The difference being this was a truly original series for these guys. More so than anything else they've ever done. But they took it and made it far better than you would have expected. Especially considering their original task was just to take Batman and set him in High School. If I heard that premise I would have had no hope of it being good. But these guys pulled it off. I always tend to give all credit to Bruce Timm, but it actually seems that Glen Murakami might be the one who was most responsible for the series overall. I mean when you get right down to it, the series is Cyberpunk Batman. What could be better than that?

Now on to Superman and the slow infusion of some Kirby-goodness.

ace

2010-06-29T23:00:00.000-07:00

"Very good then, Mr. McGinnis. Welcome to my world."

red

2010-06-28T09:50:00.000-07:00

So apparently the post office ate that delivery I was awaiting. Or the seller lied to me, but I am perfectly willing to blame the post office. The seller was kind enough to resend one of the items but says the other item is now out of stock... and this particular item is the one that was stalling my Batman watchthrough. So... with the news that I would not be receiving this item from the hoped for means I went back online and remembered why I jumped on this deal to begin with. So pretty much Volume 3 of the man of bat is out of the price range that I am looking for and thus, my watchthrough has stalled. Okay, no, it just means I moved on to Volume 4 which has been sitting here for a while waiting.

Before speaking of Volume 4, I went to shed a tear for not getting to watch through 3 as intended. I wanted my Ra's Al Ghul fix (his being my favorite Batbaddy and all) but no love. The boring and mispronounced Ra's in Batman Begins is a major reason I am not as high on that movie as many other people are. Okay, tear shed. Moving on.

Volume 4 is where the series got a serious overhaul and was lumped with the Superman Animated Series and began to play on Saturday mornings. The animation styling change was made to fit the Superman style and would go on to be pretty much the standard that the next two Timm series would follow (Batman Beyond and Justice League). I am experiencing the animation (and story) shift with a bit of mixed emotions.

The animation style they go with is a far cleaner and polished style; the style that they used for the Superman Animated series. It ends up making for a far more consistent product from their overseas animators. There are far fewer breaks from character models. They also shifted the look to a more vivid color output rather than seriously darkening the image (for which they were called crazy initially) like they originally did. The new look takes away the nod to the Fleischer Superman cartoons that Timm and Radomski originally pulled from. And it is sad. I am usually all for a vivid but dark color scheme, the red skies definitely touch off the image well, but overall it seems to take away from some of the magic of the original look of the series. Just the dirty film look alone had a rather striking look. I am certain these changes made it all much easier to produce however. It also begins to see the shift into some digital work. I am not certain to what extent computers began to be used, but I have seen little touches here and there that were pretty obviously computer handled.

What is perhaps the greatest crime is that Gotham and its technology begins to lose a bit of its neo-40's charm. It is not completely gone, but it is seriously dampened. They also begin to really loosen up on showing color tvs (they wanted to only have black and white tvs to hold on to the vintage look, but they broke that rule many times even before the revamp). A lot of these changes do help them fit the world of Gotham in with the world they crafted for Metropolis, but it is bringing Gotham towards a median, an average, rather than the exception that it was originally.

What is more is the stories take a major shift in focus. The original animated series was very focused on its main character. Robin was hardly in the series and even some episodes he was in, it was the briefest of parts. Many of the episodes he did play a key role in were often some of the poorer ones (as well as the animation quality for some reason (probably they knew it was a bit of a stinker so they gave it to a lesser studio to produce)). But the New Adventures shift increases the profile of Batgirl, introduces the Tim Drake Robin and puts him in just about every episode, and also graduates Dick Grayson on to Nightwing. The Batman stories end up being much more about a team rather than the solo show it was before. It takes away more of the noir lonerness of the original and gives it more of a comic book superhero feel. Not all of these are uniformly terrible. They are just differences. I perhaps prefer a lot of what the original run included, but the second take has its fun and merit.

Oh but then they do the grave injustice of replacing the intro sequence. The original Batman The Animated Series intro is probably my favorite opening sequence for a show, live action or otherwise (and yes I am saving it for a better post). So there's just no way this intro can stand up to it. But even ignoring that it is a fairly boring sequence. I'm sure some college students could edit something better together. The music is decent though. I think it kinda stresses the Superman portion of the title however.

Okay, so hopefully a quick word on some of the redesigns:

Batman: I like the loss of the yellow. I was never a big fan of yellow on the batsuit. However I miss the complete abandoning of the blue. I liked in the original series the play between the black and the blue of the cowl. They also don't seem nearly as inclined to do some of the cool looks with the shadows as they liked to do in the original take. Maybe they lost their good storyboarders... I also am not big on how much they beefed up the bat. They slim him down a bit for Justice League I believe. Overall it is a very Frank Miller design. The more military looking belt is both odd, but I think better again than the yellow.

Robin: Okay, so Tim Drake has become my favorite Robin from my limited exposure and concept of him in the comics. But at the time of this shift I had no idea who he was. The design of the costume and its coloring is immensely better than their original Robin costume. Removing the green and the sleeves and all that junk was huge. Making Robin a little boy again always makes you think that Bats is a seriously deranged man to allow a child to do these things, but if you can remove yourself from reality it is a fun dynamic, especially with Nightwing and Barbara to fill the age gap. The one problem with the new Robin is the voice actor is not great.

Nightwing: Again, I had no concept of the Nightwing identity before this shift in the cartoon. It took a while for me to grasp, but once I did, I liked the dynamic, as well as the relational split from Bruce. The character design is good ignoring the pony tail mullet thing. Now that I know his costumes more it seems like a nod to the original but with the simpler look of the newer. Again, ignoring his hair, I think Nightwing is a good touch. His attitude gets a little tiring, but oh well. One of those times it was a fake attitude anyways.

Batgirl: Well I can't really comment on the costume changes... Volume 3 starts out with the Batgirl story. Obviously I have seen it before, but not recently. I don't think the changes are overly extreme. As for her far more pronounced inclusion into the team... If they are going for a team atmosphere then she needs to be in it. And she is. I like her well enough. The costume is fine. I think the reason they don't make Bats blue is so that she can be the blue one of the bunch.

Gordon: They made him look so much older and weaker. I do not know if it was necessary.

Joker: I can't exactly describe why, but the redesign seems to rob his character of ... well... character. I think they removed a lot of expression out of his face. Admittedly this was a character the animators had a terribly time trying to make uniformal, so I am sure that was part of the redesign, but still. Mark Hamill is still as great as ever though.

Catwoman: This redesign seriously bothers me. They make her look like zombie catwoman (I realize Returns made her a zombie catwoman but that was also a stupid idea) because she apparently puts extraordinarily pale makeup on when she is in costume for some reason. Everyone knows her identity. It isn't like she needs to hide it. Oh and in at least one episode her head looked to weigh more than the rest of her body. It was huge ("like an orange on a toothpick"). I don't know how her tiny little neck could support a head that large. Oh and her character didn't seem to fit with the Selina from the earlier run unless I missed an important episode in Volume 3 that I am forgetting.

Poison Ivy: What's with the white skin again? I don't get it. Not better for the redesign.

Croc: I liked the albino crocodile look better than the green. There was just a creepiness to the albino look. So the redesign isn't terrible, but I prefer the original.

Penguin: This is an odd redesign for me. They went away from the Batman Returns look which they used for the original take (which is good) and went with a more classical comic look (which should be good) but I don't feel like his look fits with everything else. The original look would almost go with the new style better than the redesign did. As for the new take on Penguin being a "legitimate" club owner: that's great stuff. One of the few things that upped the noir quality in the revamp. I wouldn't mind seeing a similar take in the Nolan movie as had been rumored.

Riddler: Heh, okay so he only appeared briefly, but his costume was atrocious. The change in greens, and the tights... terrible. Maybe intentionally so.

Mad Hatter: More stylized. Fits the shift. I like both takes.

Scarecrow: I thought I liked the revamp better, but it appears my mind has changed. He looked a little silly in the original series; certainly not scary. The revamp tried to make him look scary, which it did, but... meh. Not as interesting as I remember. And his mask looks like a Mignola skull, which is not necessarily bad, but the art style is not Mignolaish.

Batmobile: I'm never a big fan of bat vehicles, but this redesign was made with one thing in mind. No more elasto car. The original series had serious trouble with the animators bending the body of the batmobile to make it fit around corners because it was such a long car body. So they shrunk it considerably for the revamp. The original stood out better, the newer one is perhaps a bit more practical, but overall, it is still a Batmobile so a part of me cringes.

Hmm, I may recall some more later... If you care check back.

illumination

2010-06-22T23:28:00.000-07:00

A journey of a hundred steps and a thousand
To walk along the shore of the forest of night
A hunger though fed, a light except shadow
All the longing in his stride, the pain before his eye
It is there before him but beyond his grasp
Beyond his sight, beyond his knowing

He hopes upon it. He tries to rest upon it
But his doubts and his curse confuse
And muster a cloud in his head
He walks in the steps before him
But not in faith or trust
He walks them because it is before him

And yet a crack of lightning a smash of thunder
And the echoing silence in pale light illumines
He sees not what comes before him
The light strikes from where he has come
And he sees his steps, his path, his past
He sees through what he has passed

And hope is renewed.

elisa

2010-06-17T09:02:00.000-07:00

So yes, my present binge is animation. The post office appears to have eaten some DVDs of other 90s animated TV goodness and so while waiting (and having finished Avatar) I decided to start watching one of my favorites from back in the day. Disney doesn't seem to mind people posting their shows and even some movies on YouTube apparently. Though since they decided the first two DVD releases of Gargoyles didn't make enough money for them to release the whole series, I am glad they are still willing to allow people to still watch the series somehow.

Now I greatly enjoyed a lot of the Disney weekday afternoon shows that came out in the early 90s. The highlight being Darkwing Duck, though I think Talespin may deserve more praise for the creativity behind it. However all of these still were very obviously catering to kids with the comedy and the silliness. But then Gargoyles came out and was something dramatically (heh, was that an accidental pun?) different. I remember being somewhat confused by the promos with it having no ties to any other Disney characters and looking really dark. I think I was even skeptical at first. Then I watched it...

This show actually probably produced more fervor in me than even Batman: The Animated Series (which is still a far better show in almost all regards, and was key in Gargoyles even getting greenlit I am sure) because of its serialized storytelling. Oh and the fantasy trappings. Heck, when they introduced King Arthur I wasn't sure the show could get any better. (Though, it actually kinda got worse after that point, so maybe I was right...(I just read that Weisman didn't work on The Goliath Chronicles and thus why the third season was so bad.) All the Star Trek voiceovers was a funny connection for a geek of a kid as well. But I think mostly it was the use of myth and legend mixed with a modern New York and out of time strangers... It just made for great entertainment.

I was a little worried however in returning to the series, how it would stand up. I had not seen this show in greater than 10 years; I had no idea how it would sit with me now.

Well as I am now about 21 episodes in, I can say the animation unfortunately doesn't live up to what I remember. Which is more a fault with the studios they hired out to. Perhaps they could have had some better storyboarders as well. Still, having watched a number of Batman episodes recently and then seeing Gargoyles which came out a few years later, the quality just doesn't match up. Which isn't to say that Batman was perfect. A couple of the studios they'd go to for the drawing were not very good either. But I think the storyboards and passion of the Batman producers were able to get the best out of their limits. My guess is also that the Gargoyles crew had to work with the animators for the more kids oriented Disney fair, and were less skilled at the more mature quality of Gargoyles. I think this definitely shows up in the action scenes which often come across as confused and poorly coordinated. Now, my complaining is coming from comparing Gargoyles to perhaps the best animated show ever... if we compare its animation with say, the X-Men 90s cartoon... Gargoyles looks pretty fantastic.

Now animation aside, I still just love the concept of this series and quite a bit of the execution. There's plenty of corniness and dated stylings and some overacting, but there's also some great great concepts and storytelling going on. I am also surprised how little I am remembering of this show. For Batman I hear the title of the episode (and see the sweet little art they use for the title shot) and I can recall the episode and most of what happens. Gargoyles... I know I have seen all the episodes I have watched up to this point, but I am finding I can hardly remember a lot of the story. Which has been great for viewing purposes.

But overall the series does what comics (and animation can do) best, exploring different genres by mixing them together in a fun little mishmash. Gargoyles plays on the super hero genre (but avoids some of the stale trappings of the genre) and takes obvious queues from comics (and unfortunately 90s comics) but also plays with fantasy and literature and myth. It is great fun.

I have also been surprised by some of the things they have been allowed to get away with. Watching Batman, the discussions on their battles with the people who control the content of the shows I learned a few of the rules that were in place at the time, but Gargoyles breaks a few of those. The one that surprised me the most was probably the episode where Elisa gets accidentally shot. Admittedly this shows the consequences of playing with a gun, but they point the gun straight at the camera, and have it go off. A major no-no from the content controllers. My guess is they gave this a special circumstances case and moved on. Also it was probably due to effects from the Batman series that they allowed such things. But Gargoyles also uses the easy run arounds on some of the censorship issues. Laser guns, robots getting destroyed, etc. Oh and a fake death. It was pretty shocking for a cartoon, but then you find out it was fake and thus apparently alright...

Anyways, I am really enjoying revisiting this series. I very much look forward to watching the episodes post-Avalon (minus that overly long trek back to New York in the annoying magic boat...). Not because I am expecting greatness, but because I know I missed episodes. As for the Goliath Chronicles, I want to see it, because I only caught a handful of episodes due to them moving it to Saturday. I know everything I did catch was bad, and now knowing that Weisman was not involved helps me understand why. But still, I would like to see what they do. Pretty much all I remember is the Angela/Broadway romance... Oh and I think the Gargoyles might become fully known to New York City.

Anyhow, if you would like to partake: Here's the beginning of episode 1

I have been contemplating a top 10 90s cartoon TV show list and a top 10 overall cartoon TV show list. Which would you prefer me attempt to post?

finale

2010-06-15T11:28:00.000-07:00

Joe the Barbarian #8: Sean Murphy

Interesting choice of iconography... Especially considering the creators. I guess I will see what it means.

appa

2010-06-08T10:19:00.000-07:00

In the midst of having to wait for some DVDs to arrive, I finally got some momentum going on watching Avatar: The Last Airbender. Well, that and one night of letter folding plus a second night of envelope stuffing equaled a fair amount of time sitting in front of the TV. And thus, last night I finished up the series.

The show represents a mix of East and West in a lot of different ways. The form of the story is obviously based on Anime and much of the setting and cultures are meant to be familiar as eastern cultures. However the story and characters are still very obviously of western design. It plays to the audience that watches Anime, but it has western sensibilities. However, the worldview espousal is where things get especially hairy. Although I suppose at this point it is fairly standard of a Western interpretation of Eastern thought. You can see the fissure between the desire for empowering the self Western thought and, I suppose it could be called, the destroying of the self in Eastern thought. But as we love to do with all of these disparate ideas we just throw them together and ignore their discrepancies.

Ben, don't watch this.

I wish there was a better video to add, but this is just what I could find.

Anyways, worldview problems (and there were more than just that one problem) aside the show was entertaining. And this was primarily founded on entertaining characters, as is usual, especially for serial sagas of the fantasy sort. But they also build the series off quality animation on the action side, again taking it's cue from Anime (one of the final battles was straight out of a DBZ set, but thankfully that fight didn't take 12 episodes). They had a strong run of humor throughout, almost distractingly so at times, but most of the time it kept a good balance. And of course as the series goes along and as things get darker, the comedic moments became a bit more sparse, but not entirely absent. Mostly you lose some of the jokes built off of the two animal characters as the focus comes to rely on the more important characters.

Probably the storyline that most compelled me was, I suppose, the second most important story to the show, not the primary. But it took a little while for it to grow on me. And then it took a bit longer to develop than I expected. Which actually made for a bit of a rough patch through the first half of the third season. Not that their unexpected turn was bad, it just gave them some episodes to kinda waste, well waste is the wrong word, but at the same time is not entirely the wrong word.

The voice acting is mostly good. I had my faults with it at times, and some of the direction (which was done by Andrea Romano whom I recognized from Batman the Animated Series, yay!) but for the most part it was good for an animated kids' tv show. I think certain characters would bug me until the show drew me in more and I came to accept their voices. It was funny to hear the voice of the guy who does Robin in Teen Titans (and loads of other voices) come in just about every other episode to be an "additional voices" actor, though I can pick him out because his voice annoys me a little, heh. Jennifer Hale made a couple appearances... err I suppose those shouldn't be considered appearances... as well.

Of the main cast of characters the one that probably moved me the least was actually the main character, unfortunately. However this is a fairly common malady for me. I have not completely solved why, but main characters are usually the more boring of the bunch in most stories, for me. It probably has to do with the limits that a main character generally has. They have pretty strict boundaries that most creators are bound to when they make their main character. The secondary characters are given a bit more freedom and perhaps more unpredictability. I don't know that this sums up my common boredom with main characters, but I am hazarding at least a partial guess.

Still, the show was good and entertaining. And by the end I felt I had been on a journey that leaves you walking around kinda lost (in a good way. This is actually something I should pursue a greater explanation on. May be some other day. Some of it just comes from experiencing it in large doses at a time and then it suddenly is over.) once it has come to an end. I would call out my favorite character, but I think it would give away certain directions the show takes too early for anyone who would go on to pursue this series. Do I think anyone reading this will do such a thing that isn't already at the very least halfway through Book 2? No. But still, I can't ruin these things.

One thing I appreciated is how much they thought out their world at times. For example, they schemed up new approaches to actions and technology that fit the world that they created. You could tell they would just sit around and scheme how people would do some of these things if they had the powers that their world allots. Another episode that impressed me was late in the series they got a little metatextual and had a play within the show about the show. Now the episode itself I did not necessarily like, excepting perhaps the meta joke about the vagueness surrounding some characters ends, but they choreographed the stuff that occurred on stage as if it was real. They literally thought out how they would do certain stunts and special effects with the limitations of a normal stage even though the medium of animation could have easily let them skimp on these details. It was enjoyable to watch them put the time in to their design work in things like this. It showed that they enjoyed this world, it was not just another job for them.

As for the movie that is coming out in less than a month. I will probably try to avoid watching trailers from now on. I tried to pay little attention to the ones I had already seen. I can't say it will be an easy adaptation. Part of the show was growing these characters over a duration of time, but it is a hard task to do this with multiple characters in such a limited amount of time. It also seems that they are mostly gonna have time for the beginning and end of season one. Little for the middle parts. So what Mr. Shyamalan chooses to put in these parts will be interesting. I am glad that Shyamalan is stepping away from doing his own stories and adapting someone else's. He had gotten himself way too tied up in his own "greatness" and couldn't take a step back and see how bad his art was going. He also seriously lacks subtlety which Avatar was not especially keen on either (which is fine it being a kids' show and all). Shyamalan can still direct a movie, it was his Story that had gotten awry, regardless of how great he proposed it to be in Lady in the Water... So a movie like this could be a great fit for him. Do I expect it to surpass the show? No. I am not expecting greatness. But I am willing to see it and am interested to see how they handle the adaptation.

dark

2010-05-26T09:49:00.000-07:00

A shadow, living and moving, was the thing itself rather than its displacement of light. Perhaps the displacement of light was the image that everyone thought was real. But it was merely a deception, a decoy. The shadow was the thing. Too many people were tricked by the smile, the dead warmth. A world of glitter was in the lie's eye. A roar was in his voice. His body, this treacherous facade, held them all. As the shadow, the thing itself, crept in behind. Tendrils and ash, a touch on the wall, a cold breath. This was it. But we did not see.

[This took a few different turns as I wrote it. It started from what I've been watching too much of recently, then morphed into something else in order to keep writing. It actually took on a little of the James study I am working through. There's also a nod to some Tom Waits lyrics.]

dibny

2010-05-20T08:40:00.000-07:00

Hmm.

I knew in rereading Identity Crisis by Brad Meltzer I would very likely have a very different reaction to it than my first timing reading the story. My first read was pretty much my first step into the bigger DC Universe. I had read some more self contained Batman stories, and there was of course all the Timmverse cartoons, which at this time were in the stages of Justice League Unlimited and Teen Titans, I believe. The other change in this reading was reading it as a single volume rather than across a seven month span as my roommate collected it, previously.

My original reaction to Identity Crisis was not especially positive. It was intriguing to me to be introduced to this vast cast of characters, but I think there were definitely times I got lost in the mass of them. Many of which I had at least heard of before, but they were just names to me. However the book seemed like DC was making a too blatant play at attempting to dirty up the DC characters. When Mark Weiringo died a few years ago, I perused his blog a bit and found his post on Identity Crisis in which he complained pretty strongly about the intentional nastiness they threw into the DC Universe (and at this time it was still a universe). Weiringo was known for a more positive attitude within the industry than just about anyone else in comics, so this opinion from him was not surprising. But since it echoed some of my initial aversion to the tale, I kinda grabbed on to it a little.

However, as I have become at least a bit more familiar with DC, and have a little more of that pull to learn yet another universe (don't worry, this won't take the shape of what I've done within the Marvel titles) I began to want to reread Identity Crisis, especially considering the impact it had in all of the titles moving forward.

So, I read it. And it was much much better this time. Identity Crisis very much plays on your emotional connections to characters. And I think this is where reading it monthly, and otherwise not knowing the characters hindered me before. Picking it up every month I had to reconnect with these characters every time. And since I did not have any connection with these characters outside of this particular story, I think it created some amount of wall between me and the characters. Though, honestly, a number of parts of this should have still pulled a pretty good emotional response from me. I don't know if my character confusion just hung me up, or if I was just dead inside at the time, heh. Though admittedly, one could argue that this is a weakness to the story. It is told well, but somewhat manipulatively. Perhaps, a little more on the overdoneness of it all later.

Also, as with the usual good mystery plotting, there are numerous threads running through which I am sure were baffling me on a month to month basis. I was probably reading it and then mostly losing the lesser threads, which when I would come back to them I could probably not fully fit them back into place. The significance of the ending reveal I think was definitely lost on me because of this. Or the fullness of it was lost on me. Admittedly, it meant far more to someone who knew these characters' stories prior to Identity Crisis, but now having read it all at once, I actually feel Meltzer did a much better job catering to a new reader than I originally believed. But this stands up more so to someone reading it all at once, or at the very least really pouring over the issues rather than borrowing it, reading it really quickly, and then being done with it.

The characters and world of DC (or at least their main universe) always feel and look more dated than Marvel, which is mostly because of the starting age of their characters. And when Marvel hit its stride was in the reinvention of super heroes of the Silver Age, and they have hardly any Golden Age baggage. Now, don't read this as me just being bias towards Marvel. I think both companies are bound up in an old idiom that hinder their stories (and more particularly their audience). In order to bring people in, they usually have to get them to learn the language when they are young and more forgiving to the archaic language they use. These companies depend on people accepting their language when they are younger and then coming back to it when they are older. Super hero comics of the cape and tights variety have both the positives and minuses of their history. The modern comics that are tied to these histories have to balance tying themselves down to their history as well as splitting themselves off from it at the same time. Marvel and DC will always have this struggle. Codenames and costumes will always necessitate this struggle.

Speaking of such things as secret identities, it is really ironic to see Green Arrow have a little talk about the importance of secret identities, as he waves around his silly little mask who would conceal his identity from no one. But this is very much a part of Identity Crisis. Meltzer is trying to defend and also adapt some of the statutes of the super hero comic. Secret identities are a particular focus (which is again ironic for DC, because so many of their characters means of concealing their identities while is costume are ridiculous), but Meltzer also touches on some of those thoughts you get about why villains are so impractical, and overall he just tries to humanize and bring the super hero genre a bit closer to what we expect from reality. Some of these adaptations work, some of them are a bit silly (see my mask comment above), and one is a bit disturbing.

Now to speak of that disturbing. There is a particular scene that comes out in Identity Crisis which was a particular focus to Weiringo's complaints against the book. It is a hard thing to come at, because from one point of view, it is obviously something disturbing and repulsive. However from the other point of view it is real (which is far more unfortunate). It makes you despise the villain who does the act, which is important to understand the heroes reactions to the event. And likewise, if these villains are so foul and evil, this very act would be precisely the sort of thing they would do. Overall, it is reprehensible, but I feel it was handled with the care necessary. Enough is shown to make you feel the sickness of the sin, but it is also careful what it shows.

As I may have gotten across a couple paragraphs ago, I feel the walls that super hero comics have set up that keep them from reality (not that super powers exist, but the reality of how people would act with super powers) diminish the impact of the genre. Admittedly, the trappings of the language of super hero comics can be fun, like some of the Silver Age homages that have come out of late, but they are also holding up the genre moving forward in many ways (not the homages but some of the stale archetypes). So Identity Crisis' pursuit of making the genre real should be exactly what I want. And in some ways it is. And in some ways the problems just come into a clearer focus.

Moving on, I mentioned above that you could feel that the whole book is a bit overdone. Though I suppose most people expect that from such a comic, but one could definitely argue that Meltzer pulls to the easiest of emotional notes and repeatedly through out the book, in order to get that big "woah" from the reader. You can feel after a while like he just keeps hitting the same notes over and over, which can both be intrinsic to the story, or simply repetitive. Where do I sit on that fence? I am not sure. There was a particular character death that felt thrown in. Especially since you hardly see the community (big theme in the book) react to it. They just threw in the death to have the story make yet a greater effect on the universe. It seemed with everything else going on, it was just unnecessary. The rest of the deaths or threats or familial ties at least felt executed masterfully if a tad manipulatively. I mean, as much as I will go on about the super hero genre being faulty, I still read it for a reason. Manipulative writing is part of the fun of the genre, honestly. So I suppose I should just accept it if it helps me enjoy the comic.

I think there are things that should be said about the reveal at the end, but I have to avoid saying too much. This is a murder mystery after all. My initial read I was left ho hum about the final reveal. Though some of this was definitely caused by confusing some characters, and not remembering who some people were. Something which I don't think would happen to many if they read this all at once, even with no prior knowledge of DC characters. Reading through it this time and ... mostly knowing the final reveal (it took me a little while to remap everything) probably made everything fit better. Do I feel it was a satisfying murder mystery? Hmm. I guess. Honestly it was better than a murder mystery because it did far more than that and it was moved by the characters rather than just the plot. Mysteries can easily be too strongly plot driven, but Identity Crisis I felt balanced the two.

Rags Morales, the artist does great work here too. He is a strong part of the emotion that the book is able to tie the reader into. There were images that bothered me, I am not going to say he was perfect, but he definitely had a more grounded feel to his characters (which can look silly when grounded characters are wearing such outlandish costumes, but it worked here) which profited the story greatly. He was also able to pull of characters crying which was umm, necessary for this book. You bring in someone like Jim Lee or their cover artist Michael Turner, and that emotional ability is completely lost.

On a side note, seeing Michael Turner art on the covers in the book is hard. I feel bad when I see it because of his dying so young and leaving a family behind, but I still can't bring myself to like it. I mean it is shiny and attractive, but it is ... well see there I go beginning to downgrade it. And the man is dead. I want to say positive things about him. Well, I have two friends who I have heard state Turner is their favorite artist (whether or not that remains the case for either I do not know) and I've seen the man in person and he seemed a nice enough fellow. His coworkers were certainly nice. Though I don't know what the French lady's job was...

Anyways, back to task. I am very glad I reread Identity Crisis. And if you are interested in a DC Universe encompassing type story but one that isn't bound up in cosmic threats or infinite earths, I would recommend this one. It can be read alone, or it could jump you into other things if you feel like it. The story stands alone well. However, if you like cleanly polished shiny heroes along with villains who follow their traditional route, this may not work for you.

smith

2010-05-14T09:19:00.000-07:00

I saw a review of Bone the other day that said how 1300+ pages of black and white comics would scare most people away from even beginning to read it. Truth be told, it is what attracted my eye to it in the graphic novel section of the bookstore. And brought me to pull it from the shelf and thumb through it and become thoroughly intrigued. Often indie comics like that have a rough and dirty art style and the story is... umm... uncensored, perhaps is the best word. But not having any clue about Bone beforehand, looking through I found the art style to be vastly different than I was expecting, not counting the black and white print. And the content appeared to be clean.

A little research later, I found out the series was considered a kid's story (which fit the art I saw, but I was still a bit cautious of the content prior to hearing this). And then saw Scholastic doing new prints of the book (I think these are the ones in color). I eventually realized that the series was much bigger than I realized and I had just somehow completely been passed by in knowing of it.

Anyways, a few years later, I am given the complete 1300+ page epic as a present... on Mother's Day. Either I am confused or the giver is confused. Either way, I was quite excited to finally read it. Yep, excited: me. It happens. I even had trouble not starting in the midst of the Mother's Day celebrating. Yes I will sometimes read during family get-togethers. I'm just too full of cool, I guess.

So, what is Bone? Bone is a blending of your fairly typical modern fantasy (it has all of your standard fantasy trappings) told with the narrative voice of a funnies comic strip. In fact you could argue that the three Bone cousins may have stumbled straight out of your Sunday newspaper, perhaps a series called Boneville, and found themselves in The Lord of the Rings. It is an interesting juxtaposition. But as with any high epic fantasy, things start coming unraveled and by the end you will have a hard time recognizing the lighthearted comic that this book seemed to start out as. Which is not to say Jeff Smith (writer and artist) abandons all of the humor but... well, yeah. It just wouldn't fit.

This led me to be ponderful about some things that many fantasy series go through in regards to the journey of their characters. Well it happens in most any story with a "journey" (not necessarily physical) or change whether it be in the character our outside of the character. But the typical formula for the epic fantasy series really showcases the process of journey in the telling. Usually it is a descending slope as the world gets darker and the outcome looks bleaker and all joy is lost as everyone comes to the end of all things only to snatch victory from defeat, of course. Eucatastrophe as Tolkien coined it. However the thing that always intrigues me is the desire for the initial status quo.

Usually, if you truly become immersed in a book at the beginning, you fall in love with the characters and the setting and the way things are. However, the very nature of the story means you need to move away from these circumstances, and the characters you love are going to have to be stressed and bent and probably are going to be in a darker and more downcast place than where they began the story. Usually there is an innocence that needs to be lost in the epic fantasy story. What intrigues me is that desire "for the way it was" in the reader. It almost makes progressing onward painful. You want to sit in the past just a little longer. Status quo is another subject I have started a few posts on and never finished.

But I wonder how important it is to create the feeling of loss in the reader. It tells you what the characters are fighting for. Or the innocent ignorance of which they are being forced to break through. It is a sympathetic connection. However you still find people that hate reading through the dark periods. Harry Potter for example: I know people who favor the fifth book of the series and also people who find it the worst of the set. It is perhaps the darkest, barring the last, but it also produces the strongest sympathetic reaction to the hardship that Harry has to endure. It causes frustration, and makes the reader want to step into the book and shake some characters by their collars and tell them what is right and what they should do. Some readers hate this and complain about it. But to me it shows that they care for these characters and they are invested.

And what would a story be if we sit in the comfort of the beginning. The nice green lush forest village with the innocent villagers going about their normal merry little lives. This of course steps beyond just a story. We love our comfort. Tolkien presents this as the Baggins part of Bilbo in The Hobbit. But there is the Took side. The side that hears of the stories of dragons and gold under the mountain, and hears the song in his heart to echo the song of the dwarves. The stories we read would certainly be boring with no Tookishness. And the lives we live would be the same.

Bone just has a very stark contrast between the beginning and the end. More so than your average modern fantasy story, because of the cartoonish humor and even the art style employed. However, this juxtaposition did not feel inappropriate to me. Late in the book you see the main character (who is a goofy looking little rotund character, obviously not human and actually a very strong cartoonish archetype; round and fluid looking) beaten and battered, scratches abundant, one eye swollen shut. But the contrast of innocence against the brutality gives the reader a more jarring feel of the impact of "the end of all things."

Hmm, I am a little off my original direction... I do not necessarily have a point (yet) about our desire for the way things were. This is obviously something that shows up in real life as well. There is also another side to the coin where we desire change in our stories (both personal and those for entertainment). That is just not what my mind focused on as I read Bone. I am just thinking my way through this and how it influences our reading, where it comes from, what it means, the good and bad, etc. It definitely has very strong connections with our desires and thoughts about our own lives.

The other thing I was struck by was the good and bad of a series with a very set conclusion and that of an ongoing series. Both have pros and cons. And Bone was an intriguing example because it was so long that it scares people from reading it, whereas I began to grow a little sad as I came into closing distance of the last two books (the full thing is 9 books) knowing that I would reach an end and there would be no more.

There is a warring part of us that both wants a conclusion, to know how things end, but likewise if we truly loved these characters and their story, we always want to know more. What happens next, or perhaps (less interestingly) what happened before, or maybe fill in this little gap in the story here or here. We want it both ways.

Obviously the desire for more derives from our love for the characters and world. We do not want a good thing to end. We want it to continue on being good. And we want to continue to live out these lives that so intrigue us. So we will ravish any new book or story or movie that adds on to the narrative. It is just as your love for another real person causes you to want to be around them, learn of them, enjoy living life with them. In the case of the narrative, it is the creator(s) successfully making you love their characters.

However the continual output of more and more stories is going to nearly inevitably (though it is not perfectly inevitable) cheapen the story and its characters. (This has an interesting conversation attached if you continue with my simile from above.) And there is a part of us that longs for an End. A conclusion. True and complete. I would say this is very much a part of our eternal desire, not that we wish for our own stories to end, but we desire a certainty and control
in it. Part of what we get out of narrative stories is a full picture understanding of a story that we never get in real life. This desire for completion and satisfaction from a story comes from a sense of our own weakness to see our endings, and so we use stories to satisfy this longing in us. There is more to our longings for stories than just this one thing. And I think I may already be arguing against myself in regards to some of the drawn out conclusions of this theory I just posed. But the wind is already out of my sails and I still have more to write.

An addition to this conversation can come from The Matrix. After the first movie's success, they announced there would be two more movies. I immediately thought this was a bad idea. (I know this is really easy to say now but I honestly did think it was a bad idea back then (and there are other circumstances where I have been proven wrong when I have thought this in the case of other sequels)) Now the ending to the first one did leave room for more story, but it was honestly an untellable story. It was far bigger than a human can tell. All of this is not to say that better sequels could not have been made. They just had a hard road ahead of them and failed. So, we often want sequels (or prequels or whatever), we'll take whatever we can get to keep coming back to the world we loved, but that always harbors the danger of it cheapening the thing you hold so dear. Again, why a true and worthy conclusion can be such a wonderful thing. To add more will only likely cheapen it.

So how do we balance this? (At this point you are more likely asking when is he going to stop typing? Well no, you can see the end. You're almost there. Just a few more words. You can do it.) Well, I am always more for asking questions than answering them... Hah, no actually I just think I need to finish this post now. There is more. Hopefully, I broke some stones loose in your own head which will cause some tumbling. For now, I shall depart.

If you want a quick review of Bone perhaps it could best be summed up by: after 1300+ pages I was both satisfied and wanted more. In a good way.

thorn

2010-05-13T17:10:00.001-07:00

Bone by Jeff Smith

rust

2010-05-10T13:38:00.000-07:00

Yes, I saw Iron Man 2. No it was not midnight. Did I enjoy it?

First let me clarify my stance on the first movie. My stance on the first movie was that it was an enjoyable if unimpressive movie. Two things stood out in the movie, Robert Downey Jr stealing the show and doing away with any of that secret identity nonsense, which of course really effects the sequel, not the first movie. The rest of the movie contained a competent and effective origin story (but nothing to excite me) and a mediocre and formulaic conclusion. Mostly the Robert Downey Jr. effect was the thing that pushed this movie over the top. I think it also came out of nowhere for most people, which raised its popularity. So, the first movie: enjoyed. It was fun, but was not exceptional.

The sequel, now? I liked it more than the first. The first movie's story was not compelling to me because I knew the origin story and the way they did Iron Monger was in no way interesting. The second one was able to make it's own story and move these characters they had only set up in new ways. I was asked after the movie how accurate it was to the comics. Honestly, it isn't accurate in a lot of ways, but this is good. They are not binding themselves to fitting the comics, they are taking aspects of the comics and telling a story from it; making it their own. They drastically change a number of things, but the complaints I have against the movie are not of the "how-could-they-change-this-from-the-comics?!!" variety.

First off, I hope they do not bother with the Demon in the Bottle storyline now. I actually think they topped it conceptually. I have never read Demon in the Bottle, but just painting Tony as an alcoholic honestly is not as interesting as showing him as addicted to the fame and life of being Iron Man. His alcoholism is a part of his life, but that is not the personal issues he needs to deal with. I think some of what they get at here is much bigger and more interesting than just alcoholism. For its time Demon in the Bottle was revolutionary. But to the Tony Stark they have created for the movies fighting his alcoholism would be just fighting a symptom of his much larger problems.

Complaints against the movie:

-I thought most of the action was ho hum. This is not surprising. I am rarely impressed by action any more, and usually am just caught up in the foolishness and impracticality of a lot of it. I was hoping to see more evidence of Genndy Tartakovsky's influence on the storyboarding for the action scenes, and it may have even been there, but overall the action left me uninterested and just wanting them to go back to the out of action character moments.

-I thought the conclusion was somewhat flat in a few areas. This is not surprising. Endings are stinking hard. Especially for summer blockbuster comic book movies. Well, they are not hard. But good and remarkable ones are hard. I feel they made an easy and uncompelling ending.

-The War Machine story did not feel fully developed. It felt a little too forced in with the rest of the plot threads.

-Black Widow was not really necessary for the story of Iron Man 2. She served two purposes: expanding the Marvel movie world and adding a hot woman in black leather doing crazy (silly) fighting stunts in order to draw people in. If she was removed from the movie I don't think I would have cared one way or the other. The only good thing about her was getting to see Happy Hogan reactions.

-Seeing Robert Downey Jr successfully play a character that is bigger than life put the doubts in me that Thor and Captain America can follow suit with their respective actors. This is usually my biggest pitfall with comic book movies. The Thor plug in Iron Man along with the image they've shown of Thor in costume online likewise has me worried.

-The suitcase armor with the nod to the Silver Centurion armor... I felt like I was watching a transformation scene in an Anime, and thus annoyed that the villain would sit there to watch. Too corny for me.

-I am am starting to feel a bit of a strain in these movies as they try and plug hype for the Avengers. Iron Man 2 is self contained, but everything with Shield and Nick Fury has a bit of a thrown in for the purpose of hype feel rather than feeling inclusive to the story.

-Whiplash was great as long as he didn't have whips in hand, trying to kill Tony. Outside of those scenes I was drawn in to watching him.

-The Howard Stark stuff was good up until he says the corniest line of the movie. I will admit it hit me a little, but really it was too precisely and perfectly worded. Ya gotta dirty it up some more (not that kinda dirty). Way too hallmark.

-Oh yeah, the whole mystery that needs to be solved. It made for a good break in the movie to put people through different things, but the mystery solving felt a bit forced. I don't think it fell intuitively into the realm of the movie. It was way too National Treasure. Just done with better comedic timing and less toupees.

-I think some of the scenes at the beginning were overly long and disturbed the pacing of the movie as it was trying to get underway. They needed to get it stepping quicker (and I don't mean action).

This may convince you I did not like the movie. That is not true. You just get to see how my mind takes apart a comic book movie.

color

2010-05-06T11:31:00.000-07:00

Whenever I read Calvin and Hobbes I get an uncontrollable smile and have trouble stopping reading.

loss

2010-04-29T21:10:00.000-07:00

"And I—I have shown him ... that a man without hope is a man without fear."

So you may recall, or you may have ignored, my linking CBR's top 100 comic book storylines as voted on by their readers. When it came down to only having the final 5 titles to reveal, I could easily predict 4 of the stories, but could not for the life of me solve the mystery of the final title. And once it was finally revealed, I was completely surprised to know that I had never heard of it. Now truth be told, I had heard about a singular aspect to the premise of the story, but I did not realize where all it took place in the continuity and who all was involved in creating it. I certainly had no idea the story was held so highly.

And thus, probably the single biggest reason that I have undertaken this silly little Daredevil mega-read was to read the story Born Again by Frank Miller and David Mazzucchelli.

So, this read through of Daredevil has only recently had some worthwhile high points. The character and the book struggled for its own identity up until Frank Miller was given the reins to write and he immediately gave The Man Without Fear a unique vision that stood out from the rest of the super hero genre. This ended up being good, in fact better than I even expected. Though some of that impression may have been from the things I had to wade through to get to them. A hill can look huge to someone born on the plains. Regardless, it finally gave Matt Murdock a far more compelling story to live. After Miller's departure there were still some ups and downs, but there were definitely some good ups. Denny O'Neil threw out some good issues here and there that built off of Miller's take, and it was very enjoyable to watch David Mazzucchelli grow into his art. Okay, it was enjoyable when he inked his art... When someone else did the inking they butchered the job. Looking at the pencils in the back of my Born Again trade it appears he gives his inker a fairly loose sketch to embellish, but this may be because he knew he was going to ink these himself.

So, watching Mazzucchelli get better and better at his craft, and watching Murdock's life already beginning to unravel under O'Neil's care, and hearing the high praise thrown Born Again's way, I was highly eager to finally get into this book.

How did it stand up? Incredibly well. The Elektra Saga had a short-lived life at the top of my Frank Miller rankings. Wait, I need to clarify something really quick. I am not a Frank Miller fan. Well, now I am apparently a Frank Miller when he is writing Daredevil fan. I have found some of his other stuff interesting, some okay, and some terrible. I have certainly not read all of his stuff, nor desire to. And I am under the impression he has presently lost the ability to tell a worthwhile story.

Where to start with Born Again... I think one point I should make is that I felt the ending of this book did not live up to the beginning. Now this is hard in a monthly comic because really this is not all one story, and yet at the same time it is. There is an ending of sorts at one point in this book that was the peak of the book for me. Still more needed to get accomplished, and the majority of that was done by the end, and there was still good story and telling in this end, but I just felt it took a step away from the strength of the story. I had already come to expect this when I had perused the covers of the story, so it was not a surprise, but it is still a letdown.

This sounds like a rather major problem for this book achieving greatness. It is, I suppose, but I think because of the sub-ending in the midst of the book, I was able to have a greater peace with it. I, in fact, went off for a walk to grab some dinner at this point so I could throw the story up to that point around in my head, knowing that what progressed from their would be a different direction, and judging by the covers less to my liking.

One thing I should address is what Miller does to Karen Page. This was the aspect of the story which I knew about before I really knew about Born Again. I suppose the question is, now that I have read the story, do I like what Miller did to Karen? Well of course I don't like it. I am not supposed to like it. But does it work for the story. I would say most certainly yes. It is dark and disturbing, but this is where she needs to be. And the very fact that she is a known character is why her fall is so impactful to the reader. Do I feel that this fall is consistent with her character? It is hard to see a character who I saw mostly written in corny Stan Lee Silver Age optimism thrown into such a despicable pit, and it is certainly jarring. But I also know that the depths to which any man can sink are amazingly low. So not seeing this progression... err descent makes the change to her abrupt and startling, but I think it serves a good purpose within the story. It is not just Frank Miller bringing in his dark disturbed ways into the book for the sake of being dark and disturbed. (I mean really this is a far more positive story than most any of his others)

Watching Matt get torn apart was great drama as well. The way Miller did this was important for his version of Daredevil in which things are more street bound and urban. His life is not ripped apart by costumed silly villains threatening his family and friends; it is taken through the law which he holds up as his standard and guide. This is where Miller understood what Daredevil's world should be like and where everyone before him failed. And the sympathetic connection with Matt through these struggles is far more potent than it would otherwise be. Seeing him in his mire of depression, not able to turn the door knob to leave his room felt real. He is defeated, not by the silly mind control of a evil scientist or some such, but because everything in his life is lost.

And from the title you can probably guess the path the story takes from this point on. The Christ allusions are fairly obvious. In fact there is one image I felt was a little too blatant in this regard. Perhaps my only complaint against Mazzucchelli. More on him later. But besides that point I loved the rebirth theme and most of how it was told. And there are multiple rebirths. Again, this just seems amazing for a Miller book. And I love the cycle he takes these characters through. The depths to which they must lose everything: utter humility, in order to find life. I have to admit I had a couple points where I had few kicks of emotion give me a swift smack.

The initial majority of this book was expertly told. Mazzucchelli is great at carrying across the character emotions and tell the story of these characters through his art in ways most sequential story artists just can't fathom. So many comic stories have to tell you in words what the character feels because the artist can't portray it. Mazzucchelli in this brings across the feel of the character in most every panel. And watching his sequential story telling is just a study in directing the audience (some of this would be Miller's handiwork as well). I am definitely going to have to give Batman: Year One another read through at some point, to see how Mazzucchelli's art in that looks to me now.

Miller's narration is his typical over the top noir voice. At some points it comes on really strong, but noir certainly fits the story. The voice I ended up liking the most (and it belongs to perhaps my favorite DD character) was Ben Urich, at least through the first portion of the story. Which brings me to another point of enjoyment. Miller was able to bring in multiple characters which I cared to follow. This is not common for me from Frank Miller stories. The Elektra Saga was perhaps my first case of this with him, but it was more the villains than the heroes. I think the only character who suffered in Born Again was one Miller had written so well previously, and that is The Kingpin. I think, even if it had been something prior to Born Again, they needed to have some event to better motivate The Kingpin. I think it would have better settled the entire story if they had been able to better characterize his actions.

Now, to say more on the conclusion which I feel suffered: I think the beginning portion. which I so enjoyed, to many degrees transcends the super hero genre. I think the ending falls right back into it in far too many ways however. It is funny that the stories I tend to like the most from these are the ones that step out of the super hero genre. (And yet I continue to search the super hero genre for the stories that transcend it... I don't pretend to make sense.) So, if you want a better definition of my complaint, that is it. Miller is able to step above the genre he writes in, but in order to conclude his story he falls right back into it, pitfalls and all.

I am also a little afraid as to how subsequent writers are going to run with some of the things Miller leaves the continuity with. I now may have a very hard road ahead of me prior to getting to the Smith/Mack/Bendis stuff. I actually may reread this story first.

"And they took Matt's home and career and everything—no—not everything—'Nothing,' He'd said, Matt did, when she told him what she'd done—'I've lost nothing,' Matt said, and laughed like a boy."

today

2010-04-20T13:48:00.000-07:00

So I just had to write out the date today, which reminded me of a story.

I think it was about four years ago when I was looking especially... umm... unkempt: long hair, shaggy beard, (I may have been wearing one of my holey shirts (not to be confused with holy)) etc., I answered the door to some guy trying to sell magazine subscriptions for I think it was the ability to go to some kind of leadership conference or some such. I listened to his initial little ditty about how the money was for such a good cause, etc.

Once I was allowed to speak I told him I wasn't interested and motioned to close the door. But he quickly threw in a "are you a Bob Marley fan?" I thought this was a random question, and said, "No, although truth be told I had never really listened to him." (the last comment was because of my infernal need to clarify things) I realized he was trying to get at something but I really couldn't put it together. The next question unconfusticated me however.

"Do you celebrate on April 20th?"

...

After taking a moment for it to dawn on me, what precisely this guy was looking for, I gave a good thrown-back-head laugh and told him, "No. No I don't." And closed the door (politely).

So first the guy was first trying to get money from me to attend a leadership conference and when that failed he decided to see if he could score some pot off me (or perhaps sell me some, I don't really know). At least he was smart enough to attempt it in that order and not the reverse.

It is funny the assumptions that get made to try and explain me.

Though I did shave my head a few days later (on my birthday if I am remembering this all correctly).

chalk

2010-04-12T10:04:00.000-07:00

Don't I have this cursed thing inside me?
This fire, this voice, this agony?

Apparently yesterday was Nazi propaganda film day and no one told me.

At church we watched a clip from what I presume was Triumph of the Will. It was a Hitler speech, expertly edited, thus why I presume it was from Triumph of the Will. Needless to say it was incredibly hard to watch.

My second film of the day was Fritz Lang's first talkie movie, M (1931). Now when I call this a Nazi propaganda film, I am creating an unfair representation. The Nazi's used the movie to show the evils of sexual deviance according to Netflix. Lang himself escaped Germany because he was afraid of the Nazi regime. (Ironically, looking at wikipedia, the propaganda minister really liked Lang's Metropolis... which in essence is a Babel/pride-of-man story.) I just thought it was an interesting coincidence that these two viewing coincided on the same day.

M was hard to watch as well at points. I am generally not one who gets to the point of "don't go in there" moments in suspense movies, but due to the subject matter in this movie I was quite tensed up whenever the murderer was on the prowl in M. And Peter Lorre is the expert at creepy (shudder). Everything in you begins to cry out for this man to be caught and punished as this movie unfolds.

Still, my mind was not fully engaged in the movie up until the final scene. Well technically it was the second to last scene, but it was the final extended scene. This scene kicked my mind into full gear. It is a court room scene of sorts but with an amazing twist. To me this scene turned into a trial over humanity, a trial over sin. I would go on, but I think I will cop out saying I do not want to give anything more away.

Oh and the scene for which the movie gets its name is visually brilliant.

Do I recommend this movie... umm... I do not guarantee that everyone will like it. I think you will have to know your own tastes in order to decide on this one. I shall remain noncommittal for you.

So all told, two propaganda films and both an amazing portrayal of human sin and pride. In one case more intentionally portrayed (though I think my views differ from Lang considerably) and in the other, well, sin is very definitely on display.

gene

2010-04-09T17:47:00.000-07:00

78 more to go...

engineer

2010-04-08T13:34:00.000-07:00

The movie "The Book of Eli" was interesting. Faulty as well in many regards, but interesting. I do not regret seeing it, especially at discount theater prices.

The chief reason I had wanted to see it though, was the reaction I had seen from the Christian community. And hearing that the script/movie had to be scrubbed a bit of some of its Christianity. Yesterday I made the mistake of calling it a Christian movie prior to seeing it, which I immediately regretted even prior to watching the movie. What I had meant to say was that it dabbled in some exploration of Christianity from what I had heard, and after seeing the movie I would still say that is a better clarification. It is not a Christian movie. It unfortunately suffers from some of the common problems of a Christian movie however. That being having a point they want to make and driving to that at the expense of the story and plotting and character motivations.

Still, some of the ideas floating around in the movie were interesting, as well as the foundational concept was compelling. The execution was a bit fluid though as mentioned. There was good, mediocre, and bad. Mostly mediocre and a bit of bad. There was one stretch of highly important dialogue that brought to mind a script I wrote in college for my sound workshop class; a script I also had to perform, record, and present in front of class. The fact that the movie's dialogue brought this to mind is not a compliment in any fashion. There were some other headshaking stereotypical moments, the combat was too over the top to my tastes (I am a bit weird in those tastes however), some bland acting (There were points where I could see Mila Kunis thinking through her acting. Though she was obviously not in the movie to act, perhaps I am expecting too much. I've seen worse, but she was not good.), a rather blatant Children of Men parallel I was surprised they left in, and more. Oh and there was a touch to the ending to throw a bit of Universalism in, of course.

The movie is also violent, has forced swearing, and some suggested nastiness. There is much worse out there, but I feel this should be mentioned to make sure people are not surprised by the content after looking into it for the ideas I am mentioning.

All of this, but I still would like to say that the movie was an interesting look at the power of the Word of God and revelation. I would have liked to have read the original script. I am thinking between the screenwriter, the directors, the producer (Joel Silver... shudder) there were a lot of different points of view getting thrown into this thing. Perhaps they actually made it better. I do not know. The movie either needed more refining or had been refined too much already.

Oh and Tom Waits was in the movie. That's a +1.

neither

2010-04-07T11:01:00.001-07:00

It would be nice to have some clue as to what I am doing.

stopped

2010-04-07T10:25:00.000-07:00

hamartia

2010-04-02T08:49:00.000-07:00

We sit in our dust, pleased and fading
To wither like this flower which breaks to touch
Moonlight gives us the shadows of our neighbors
Water is offered which sticks in my throat
And for food we... we... Our food is the... is...
We eat those who pass. We eat our dead.

One walks with claims he can move us
We can rise, with our dust left to fall
He offers a light that will show us our faces
He claims to have water for us all
Water which will quench us, fill us
And he promises a new food, a new body.

We fear his change, how can we walk?
Who grants him this power over our dust?
We say we want freedom, but freedom is unknowing
Light means we have to see and discern
Water means we have to live and to walk
This food proclaims a worth that is not our own.

Who are we to take up his promise?
No, who is he to make it?

thanatos

2010-03-29T09:55:00.000-07:00

Friday, I finished a book (or a play rather) that brings the reader (audience) face to face with the human fear of having no control over their life and very specifically their death. The play painted death as an end, an abrupt ceasing. You were, but now you are no more.

The characters of the play, were in fact obscure characters from a more famous play. In fact one of the most famous plays. And they have to struggle with their anonymity, not even able to remember their own names. They just want control, consistency, understanding, something. But they are strung along, little knowing what they are doing or what is happening around them. And all of this as they circle towards their death, both unknowingly and knowingly.

They see their life as meaning simply you will be born and then die. Everything in between is just a confusing mess of events fated around you, outside of your control. And, as it is inevitable, they do die, obscurely and off stage as the lesser actors of a greater play.

I loved it.

Did I love it because it depicts what my worldview is? No. I loved it because it depicts what my worldview would have been if not for one man.

On Sunday, at church, in preparation for this coming Easter week we went through John 11, the tale of the resurrection of Lazarus. So after reading a play on the helplessness of man in the face of death we saw a man who holds all the power and authority over this death we so fear.

I had to laugh, because even if I had not already made the connection, the speaker even noted how everyone else, even Lazarus, were all minor characters before the Christ in this event. We strive for this mastery over the world and its curse, attempting to be our own master.

And yet this man, walks in and tells the dead to rise. And they obey. And we would run from this man? We would trust to our own strength to fend of the hand of death?

The story of Lazarus is of course only a shadow of the triumph, though. This Friday marks the memorial of even this man, History's main character, who commands the dead to rise, himself submitting to the limits of His mortality. And Sunday will again recount the true magnitude of His authority and power when He commands death once more, and grants us the promise of finally.

lulu

2010-03-23T10:15:00.000-07:00

The Outlook wasn't brilliant for the Mudville nine that day:
The score stood four to two, with but one inning more to play.
And then when Cooney died at first, and Barrows did the same,
A sickly silence fell upon the patrons of the game.

A straggling few got up to go in deep despair. The rest
Clung to that hope which springs eternal in the human breast;
They thought, if only Casey could get but a whack at that -
We'd put up even money, now, with Casey at the bat.

But Flynn preceded Casey, as did also Jimmy Blake,
And the former was a lulu and the latter was a cake;
So upon that stricken multitude grim melancholy sat,
For there seemed but little chance of Casey's getting to the bat.

But Flynn let drive a single, to the wonderment of all,
And Blake, the much despis-ed, tore the cover off the ball;
And when the dust had lifted, and the men saw what had occurred,
There was Jimmy safe at second and Flynn a-hugging third.

Then from 5,000 throats and more there rose a lusty yell;
It rumbled through the valley, it rattled in the dell;
It knocked upon the mountain and recoiled upon the flat,
For Casey, mighty Casey, was advancing to the bat.

There was ease in Casey's manner as he stepped into his place;
There was pride in Casey's bearing and a smile on Casey's face.
And when, responding to the cheers, he lightly doffed his hat,
No stranger in the crowd could doubt 'twas Casey at the bat.

Ten thousand eyes were on him as he rubbed his hands with dirt;
Five thousand tongues applauded when he wiped them on his shirt.
Then while the writhing pitcher ground the ball into his hip,
Defiance gleamed in Casey's eye, a sneer curled Casey's lip.

And now the leather-covered sphere came hurtling through the air,
And Casey stood a-watching it in haughty grandeur there.
Close by the sturdy batsman the ball unheeded sped-
"That ain't my style," said Casey. "Strike one," the umpire said.

From the benches, black with people, there went up a muffled roar,
Like the beating of the storm-waves on a stern and distant shore.
"Kill him! Kill the umpire!" shouted someone on the stand;
And its likely they'd a-killed him had not Casey raised his hand.

With a smile of Christian charity great Casey's visage shone;
He stilled the rising tumult; he bade the game go on;
He signaled to the pitcher, and once more the spheroid flew;
But Casey still ignored it, and the umpire said, "Strike two."

"Fraud!" cried the maddened thousands, and echo answered fraud;
But one scornful look from Casey and the audience was awed.
They saw his face grow stern and cold, they saw his muscles strain,
And they knew that Casey wouldn't let that ball go by again.

The sneer is gone from Casey's lip, his teeth are clenched in hate;
He pounds with cruel violence his bat upon the plate.
And now the pitcher holds the ball, and now he lets it go,
And now the air is shattered by the force of Casey's blow.

Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright;
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light,
And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout;
But there is no joy in Mudville - mighty Casey has struck out.

Casey at the Bat by Ernest Lawrence Thayer

butcher

2010-03-15T11:59:00.000-07:00

Delicatessen (1991)

So apparently I like me some bizarre French movies.

jacob

2010-03-11T22:03:00.001-08:00

Iακωβος Θεου και κυριου Iησου Xριστου δουλος ταις δωδεκα φυλαις ταις εν τη διασπορα χαιρειν

storyfied

2010-03-05T12:33:00.000-08:00

I've tried to write this post before. In fact it is probably still sitting in around somewhere collecting year-old dust. But here goes another attempt.

Today I was reading a variety of reviews all on the same thing. Or more like skimming. These reviewers all encountered the same... thing, it, object. And a lot of the reviews sounded rather similar in their praises and objections. You could find a parallel in their experience. Some skewed farther in the way they reacted to these things than others, but you could clearly see the external experience was consistent if not precisely the same internally, or in other words their reaction to the outside experience varied.

However, an area in which they greatly differed was how they portrayed the quality of the story.

Story.

I love stories. Or I think I do. But what is a story? What are the true, essential, elements of a story? And I do not seem to love all stories. Why is that? And what makes me love or hate a story? Or feel nothing at all? Or ignore the story for the sake of its trappings?

Okay, I'm done with that paragraph. Sorry. You will often hear people say, this movie had "a great story." And turn around and hear someone else say the story was unoriginal, or nonexistent. Who's right? Why is there the difference in their internal experience.

I think I have come to the resolution that when most people say if a story is good or bad, they are not in fact talking about the story. And I don't think it is actually common for people to fully realize what makes them enjoy a story. Now I do not say this to sound superior to others. I say this to admit my own experience. I do not myself understand my likes and dislikes. Thus why I ask my questions above. Perhaps others are far more in tune with their pleasures and I am transposing my own vague self-understandings on them.

Now to change direction yet again, I also think when people talk of the story in the context of saying it was a good or bad story, they actually intend to mean some ratio between the plot and the character presentation/growth. Not that they are saying anything about the ratio, but that people themselves have a ratio of the two they focus on (some people are more plot driven in at least their definition of a story and others are character driven (for some of the plot people they may love them some characters but they consider that separate from what they call the story). So when they say, "that movie had no story" they are actually saying there was no real driving plot, or in depth characters or growth of characters, depending on their personal concept of the word story, or at least in that particular usage. This is a point that could be discussed much longer, but I'd recommend talking to someone much smarter and more precise with their language.

The point I would like to make though is I am not sure that this limited view of Story really satisfies the bounds of the idea. Why is it that a creator can make an interesting and beautiful world, but struggle with the plot and we say it has no story? This created world is part of the story. Heck even something like costuming is part of a story. What I am trying to say is that the whole thing is the story. To say something has no story, well obviously it is a form of hyperbole, but I think it is a damaging concept to try and get at what Story is.

Now I may just be arguing semantics, but it goes back to my point that when people say there is no story, they don't really mean it. However it probably steers my reader away from my stronger intention behind this.

Though, now that I think about it... Hah. Umm... Okay, how do I explain this one.

So, I said when people say, "this movie had a good story," they are intending a limited view of the idea of story, but they also are not getting at what they liked or disliked but are talking about other things, which I believe I just argued (though not completely, exhaustively or with even a degree of precision) is actually part of the big Story. Curses... I think I am confused.

Basically, I just totally changed what I was saying mid-write.

And to rewind, (I am exemplifying non-linear storytelling for this post) one definition of a story is in fact the plot. I am aware of this. So really one of those earlier points up there is completely and entirely false, but I am trying to get at a concept in my head that just won't break loose. Hopefully it did something to you. Err... something helpful.

Okay this post is starting to fall apart fast. And I have nothing to bail the water out with...

I still have so much more stuck in my head to pry at. And unfortunately if I attempt to talk through this verbally I just end up talking in circles and saying things I entirely do not intend as well as give room for people to completely misinterpret me (because interpreting written word is without fault).

It would appear I have completely given into the decay of this post. There was more I was going to say. A lot more I want to get at. But you have had the undesireable pleasure of coming about as close as you can to watching a thought form in my head. Or you stopped reading some time ago. Good for you.

(Curses and in rereading through this I am seeing all the things I still want to get at... Must... hit... publish... button)

xiii

2010-02-26T08:00:00.000-08:00

Story:
VI, VII, XII, X, IX, IV, VIII, I, XI
II, III, I
III, II, I

Characters:
VI, XII, VII, IX, IV, V, X, VIII, II, I
II, I, V, III, IV
III, I, II

Music:
VII, VI, IX, X, XII, I, XI, VIII
II, I, III

Mechanics:
VII, X, V, XII, VI, III, VIII, II, IX, IV, XI, I
II, V, I, III, IV

Endgame:
VII, X, VI, VIII, XII, IX, IV, I
II, I, III

Art:
XII, VII, IX, VI, XI, VIII, X
II, III, V, I, IV

Build up:
VII, X, VIII, VI, XII, IX, IV, I, XI
II, I, III

Summons:
VII, VIII, IV, X, XI, IX, VI, XII
II, III

Favorite:
VI, VII, XII, IX, V, IV, X, VIII, III, I, II, XI
II, I, V, III, IV
I, III, II

elessar

2010-02-23T17:36:00.000-08:00

It was even as the day thus began to turn against Gondor and their hope wavered that a new cry went up in the City, it being then mid-morning, and a great wind blowing, and the rain flying north, and the sun shining. In that clear air watchmen on the walls saw afar a new sight of fear, and their last hope left them.

For Anduin, from the bend at the Harlond, so flowed that from the City men could look down it lengthwise for some leagues, and the far-sighted could see any ships that approached. And looking thither they cried in dismay for black against the glittering stream they beheld a fleet borne up on the wind: dromunds, and ships of great draught with many oars, and with black sails bellying in the breeze.

"The Corsairs of Umbar!" men shouted. "The Corsairs of Umbar! Look! The Corsairs of Umbar are coming! So Belfalas is taken, and the Ethir, and Lebennin is gone. The Corsairs are upon us! It is the last stroke of doom!"

And some without order, for none could be found to command them in the City, ran to the bells and tolled the alarm; and some blew the trumpets sounding the retreat. "Back to the walls" they cried. "Back to the walls! Come back to the City before all are overwhelmed!" But the wind that sped the ships blew all their clamour away.

The Rohirrim indeed had no need of news or alarm. All too well they could see for themselves the black sails. For Eomer was now scarcely a mile from the Harlond, and a great press of his first foes was between him and the haven there, while new foes came swirling behind, cutting him off from the Prince. Now he looked to the River, and hope died in his heart, and the wind that he had blessed he now called accursed. But the hosts of Mordor were enheartened, and filled with a new lust and fury they came yelling to the onset.

Stern now was Eomer's mood, and his mind clear again. He let blow the horns to rally all men to his banner that could come thither; for he thought to make a great shield-wall at the last, and stand, and fight there on foot till all fell, and do deeds of song on the fields of Pelennor, though no man should be left in the West to remember the last King of the Mark. So he rode to a green hillock and there set his banner, and the White Horse ran rippling in the wind.

Out of doubt, out of dark to the day's rising
I came singing in the sun, sword unsheathing.
To hope's end I rode and to heart's breaking:
Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!

These staves he spoke, yet he laughed as he said them. For once more lust of battle was on him; and he was still unscathed, and he was young, and he was king: the lord of a fell people. And lo! even as he laughed at despair he looked out again on the black ships, and he lifted up his sword to defy them.

And then wonder took him, and a great joy; and he cast his sword up in the sunlight and sang as he caught it. And all eyes followed his gaze, and behold! upon the foremost ship a great standard broke, and the wind displayed it as she turned towards the Harlond. There flowered a White Tree, and that was for Gondor; but Seven Stars were about it, and a high crown above it, the signs of Elendil that no lord had borne for years beyond count. And the stars flamed in the sunlight, for they were wrought of gems by Arwen daughter of Elrond; and the crown was bright in the morning, for it was wrought of mithril and gold.

Thus came Aragorn son of Arathorn, Elessar, Isildur's heir, out of the Paths of the Dead, borne upon a wind from the Sea to the kingdom of Gondor; and the mirth of the Rohirrim was a torrent of laughter and a flashing of swords, and the joy and wonder of the City was music of trumpets and a ringing of bells. But the hosts of Mordor were seized with bewilderment, and a great wizardry it seemed to them that their own ships should be filled with their foes; and a black dread fell on them, knowing that the tides of fate had turned against them and their doom was at hand.

Lord of the Rings: Book V
J.R.R. Tolkien

press

2010-02-15T08:59:00.000-08:00

I have no voice or song
to reflect the hand of the wind
across the bird of flight

I have no skill or craft
to tell the walk of a man
upon the hills of hunger

I have no eye or taste
to comprehend the whisper
of the water in this earth

and yet I feel the crush
of it all on my heart
to fall to cry to quake

a call I cannot answer

decompress

2010-02-05T08:41:00.001-08:00

Well, now. This series hit me completely out of the blue. IGN had an interview with Grant Morrison about some series called Joe the Barbarian, which did not sound like a Morrison book. I think I may have seen the name elsewhere but had no reason to look into it until I knew Morrison was attached. So then I read the interview and was quickly compelled to keep my eye open for the series.

They keep throwing around the hook that the series is like Home Alone meets The Lord of the Rings. I actually think that tag does it a grave injustice. It does not capture the tone of the book nor does it represent the proper fantasy setting. Morrison himself says he was looking to revise the take of fantasy which is most famously represented in The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe and The Wizard of Oz, which is a different beast than The Lord of the Rings. And Home Alone just kind gives you an idea of the setting. It again, completely confuses your sense of tone and character. But they just want to throw something out there that attracts attention. If I actually thought that was a true description of Joe I probably would let it pass, not counting that whole Grant Morrison writing thing.

So first I thought, I'd just keep my eye open for the series. Maybe if there was good reaction, or reaction that fit my criteria for sounding like it would be good by my personal tastes, I'd pick up the trade. I also was not certain if it was a limited series or not. If it was ongoing that would greatly cull my intrigue. But I happened to see the first issue on a shelf... somewhere... accidentally... completely normal... umm... anyways, and two things were noticed. The first issue was $1 and the series was 8 issues. Still, I let it pass. For a week. Then I picked it up.

The day I picked it up, before getting a chance to read it, I read a terribly scathing review of Joe the Barbarian #1. Did this make me regret my purchase? No. I was actually greatly amused by the reviewer because everything they hated about the first issue sounded fantastic. It helped that I already knew enough about the first issue and the purpose of the first issue that I could follow along pretty well and know the criticism was ridiculous.

The fellow who so utterly despised this comic had his serious issue with the major decompression of this first issue. He whined on and on about five straight pages of no dialogue and what he felt was nothing going on. Well from the interview with Morrison I knew exactly what was being done in those five pages, but I still do not think this would have bothered me. And in the end, this first issue was fantastic setup. And yes, the issue was all setup but I felt the pacing and tone and balance was perfect. I cannot express how well made this issue was.

There are of course many factors that play into my liking this book that are of personal tastes. Joe is a bullied loner, I can sympathize with that. Has an awesome house (now that I think about it, there was a little Goonies (okay I just read on Sean Murphy's blog that he wanted to invoke the feel of Goonies. It worked dear sir. And I am loving your "DVD" extras while I am talking to you in pretend.) in there, now that's a much better plug than Home Alone (but not really fitting, yes), room in an attic, loads of old school toys and games. Quiet melancholy tone.

Oh and Sean Murphy's art is pitch perfect. Well, I guess he's creating the pitch, but it is a pitch I like. In a single issue he jumped into my top 10 comic artists (I claim the right to change my top 10 at any time, so Mr. Murphy, you had better keep it up). I had never heard of him before this, but he has my eye, now. I think the color was a major equation on the presentation as well. I am too prone to giving the penciler all the praise, but in this comic the color is utterly important to carry the feel of the story.

So, yes, I will continue to collect this series. And yes, my hopes are growing way too high for this book. Presently, I am pacing it for my favorite comic ever... umm... I really need to take a step back. You may think I am exagerating this. But as I dislike hyperbole you can trust me that I am being quite honest.

Reasons I should be hesitant: Grant Morrison always interests me, but most of my exposure to him has actually not been that positive. So he interests me, but usually fails me. Now I have not read a lot of what is considered his best stuff, that should be noted. The other thing is Morrison can very easily write above my head. Heck, I might have completely missed that Joe was diabetic in the first issue if not for that tidbit being dropped in a preview article and that wasn't exactly subtle nor is it what I mean when I say Morrison can write above my head. I am just too used to being pampered by crappy comic writers. So that could definitely complicate this series as it comes down.

Also, it is a Vertigo comic which of course has the mature content warning on the outside. The first issue had nothing like this. Well there's one point when he is getting bullied that Joe is called a name that is offensive, but not deserving the Vertigo disclaimer and one I had heard thrown around plenty in high school (probably had it even thrown at me, but I can't say that with certainty; all that to say it helped the book rather than hindered). And honestly this series does not seem to fit with containing mature content. But this still makes me hesitant. Hopefully they don't add something just to make it fit in the Vertigo line.

Plus, the major conflict has been introduced, but not the defining characteristics of the conflict. There is still a lot that needs to be expounded. So I really should be a lot more subdued on this book than I am. Oh well.

reminded

2010-01-26T22:10:00.000-08:00

"Oh, Chanty-clear, there is a beautiful Cow. When I was hurting the most, this beautiful Cow came to me. And somebody maybe should have punished me, on account of all the troubles that I caused. But she loved me, Chanty-clear. Isn't that a mercy? She touched me, she fed me, she washed me, and that is how she loved me. Then this is how she forgave me: she did the same thing for my daughter Hopsacking. All of the hurts, everyone one of the hurts, she took away from me with her eyes and with her tongue, and there was no reason for that, but she did it, Chanty-clear. Do you know this beautiful Cow? One horn on her head? She knows you, Chanty-clear. She said that she loves you, Chanty-clear. You especially—Shh, don't cry, Chanty-clear, poor Chantry-clear. You didn't listen to her when she came to you, but that's okay, too, because look: she sent me. This is the main reason why I came. To forgive you. Don't cry. Don't cry. See? I forgive you—"

The Book of Sorrows
by
Walter Wangerin Jr

listery

2010-01-15T14:04:00.000-08:00

Lists are fun, frustrating, controversial, laughable, etc. Recently I found a list of the top 100 comic book storylines ever as voted by the readers of the site it was posted on. The list was interesting to read. Due to who was voting, I don't think it is a very strong overall list, but it is still informative. The number one pick was not a surprise and I agree with it, but it won't be on my personal list.

Here's the list. You can click on the individual titles for more description if you like. The descriptions are in batches of 5 or so.

My count on this list is around 31 or so (though every run on my poll over there is on this list in at least one instance). It is way too modern heavy and of course popular comics heavy and has some titles that do not belong at all on such a list (House of M for example).

I am now going to mess around with a personal top 10. I am dummying this up really quickly and I don't think I am going to like it at all. But I need to make a few points. There are runs of comics that I would place above some of these stories, but I cannot pick out an individual story to fit in here. There are also loads of things I have not read that I would very likely place above the majority of this stuff. But I am limited to my scope. I wish I could throw around more of the indie stuff and less of this genre junk, but unfortunately I am a bit limited.

So here's a list that I already disagree with (the descriptions are short, sorry):

10. Fables: Homelands
Bill Willingham and Mark Buckingham, plus others

This volume allowed the readers to finally see the lands where the Fables were forced to abandon as well as finally revealing the Adversary. But more importantly it revealed to the reader that one of the characters they had been following as a lowly Fabletown office clerk was actually as great a warrior as one could ever find. This concluded the best stretch of Fables storytelling for me. One of the best stretches of serialized storytelling I have experienced.

9. Ultimates Vol 2: Gods & Monsters and Grand Theft America
Mark Millar and Bryan Hitch and others

This series was like an Avengers post-Watchmen. Or I am actually told it is like an Avengers post The Authority, but as I have not read The Authority yet, I cannot make that judgment. I almost hate to give it that much credit, but there is just something to these books. The "heroes" in this suffer from the Watchmen modern age residue, but this story just takes you by the throat and won't let go. More to come...

8. Man Without Fear
Frank Miller and John Romita Jr. and others

I think this is my only pick that has no representation on the CBR list. Which is funny considering how many other Frank Miller books are on there. But somehow, of all the ones I have read, this is the one that worked the best for me. It has a very better focus than most of his others (that I have read). As for JRJR on art, I cannot figure out what I think of him as an artist. I definitely do not always like him. For this book, he was fantastic.

7. X-Men: E is for Extinction and Imperial
Grant Morrison and Frank Quitely and others

I think Grant Morrison's run on the X-Men is somewhat over-rated. However it is over-rated because of its middle and its end. Its beginning is fantastic. And since this list is about storylines... This was my first experience with the mind bending powers of the Morrison/Ellis/Millar variety. I have unfortunately not been able to find something to match it in anything else Morrison since.

6. X-Men: Dark Phoenix Saga
Chris Claremont and John Byrne and others

I almost hesitated to put this on here. But really it is the culmination of the Claremont/Byrne run, and honestly the height of the X-Men franchise (some people would throw Morrison at me, but see the above). I hear Byrne is more responsible for the story than Claremont, thus why his departure from the title met with such a tremendous drop off on storytelling. Still, this is cheap dumb comics at its most enjoyable.

5. Steampunk: Manimatron and Drama Obscura
Joe Kelly and Chris Bachalo and others

Oh, right. No this one doesn't show up on the CBR list, but it also had no hope of it. Man Without Fear at least had a shot. I could not be honest with you without saying that a reason I like these books so much is probably because they are so obscure. Unfortunately they are so obscure that the series got cancelled and presently sits on a decent-sized cliffhanger (though personally I am more interested in the resolution of Laslo's ailment than the resolution of the romantic cliffhanger). But with Joe Kelly becoming a bigger name in comics, and Chris Bachalo always saying Steampunk is his favorite series he ever worked on. Maybe, just maybe, they'll get another shot. Unfortunately, no ending could probably work well enough for me at this point.

4. Daredevil: Yellow
Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale and others

Okay, one more that wasn't on the CBR list. I should not speak so soon. Surprising I have two Daredevil books but have yet to read a substantial run of his series.

This may be getting points because of the Loeb Sale teamup. Batman: Long Halloween had a shot at this list, but in the end from that group of creators I like Daredevil: Yellow tops. It helps that it is a different story for a super hero comic. Actually, in truth it is a love story. Though one of the lovers is of the dead variety. But I just love Sale's approach to the origin story and the silver age goodery therein. This is a much cleaner take on the Daredevil origin than Man Without Fear.

3. Ultimates Vol. 1: Super-human and Homeland Security
Mark Millar and Bryan Hitch and others

This series was so slow paced and came out at such long intervals to begin with it was hard to get an idea of how great this book would be. But boy was it great. I never thought the Avengers could be made into a movie, or even really updated until I read this series. Admittedly, a movie will make the heroes a bit more... umm heroic, but still. As for the second part, I initially thought, really?, aliens. You had to go with aliens? But then Millar just started hitting me in the gut over and over.

2. DC: New Frontier
Darwyn Cooke and others

Surprisingly, two DC books top off this list, albeit one is Vertigo. New Frontier is like a hopeful Watchmen. And with much better art. Darwyn Cooke does not hide his nods to Watchmen, but mostly he is writing a love note to silver age comics and the era of history he grew up in. I am not a DC aficionado, but I think that almost made this book better for me because of it.

1. Fables: March of the Wooden Soldiers
Bill Willingham and Mark Buckingham and others

It is a little hard for me to judge this as #1, as it is not as deep and as complex as many other comics, but this story worked for me on so many levels that for now, I feel it fits my number 1 seat.

March of the Wooden Soldiers was when Fables as a series clicked for me. In fact it was the clickiest it ever got for me. In a few ways it was downhill from here. The next two major stories kept up the quality, but since then it has gone down and I suspect will never be able to make it all the way back. In this story everything finally came together and the ensemble cast all got their moments to shine as well as the adversary became very real. I will even admit to a point in the book where I got hit with a spike of emotion (though Fables: Mean Seasons had a stronger one).

I also think the costumes and secret identities are what are holding comics back, which is why Fables is such a refreshing series for me.

•

I think I should do a list of top runs of writers. That could be fun. That way I could credit Lee/Kirby; Lee/Ditko; Peter David. I could also do a top 10 characters... that would be interesting. Top 10 artists... I guess say if you have any requests.

I have also never read Sandman, some of the classic Morrison, or many of the other things that are on that top 100 list. I am certain quite a few of those would trump what I have here if I ever got around to reading them.

restrung

2010-01-12T19:57:00.000-08:00

Chapter X: A Warm Welcome

" 'I hope I never smell the smell of apples again!' said Fili. 'My tub was full of it. To smell apples everlastingly when you can scarcely move and are cold and sick with hunger is maddening. I could eat anything in the wide world now, for hours on end—but not an apple!' "

This is a great chapter. It is one of those chapters that is not covered in the cartoon, so it always stand out more in the reading. Also, you can tell Tolkien had a greater image of the lay of the Mountain and the Lake as his descriptions take a huge step up in quality. Or I am just forgetting myself because I have taken so much time off reading this book. You choose.

Well first off once more luck steps up to the plate. In this case it could have been completely ignored and the reader would have been none the wiser, but Tolkien makes a special effort to reveal it.

It turns out that the dwarves and Mr. Baggins would not have been able to make it from the end of the trail they were following in Mirkwood to their destination of the Lonely Mountain because "the marshes and bogs had spread wider and wider on either side." "So you see Bilbo had come in the end by the only road that was any good." So at this point, Tolkien is obviously stressing the luck of all of this. One could see it as Tolkien pointing to a benevolent providence (which he does do in The Lord of the Rings), it could be a nod towards the luck in old legends, or Tolkien could just not have the same disdain for giving things to luck as I do, or heck, something else entirely. This is just an instance where he goes out of his way to stress the luck. There is more to come, so I shall continue to hound on this (hound in the sense of hunt, I am do not seek to complain about it anymore).

Tolkien also begins to show the true intentions of the dwarves that I do not believe was expressly indicated before this. Besides the fact that they had employed a burglar, not a great warrior in their journey back to their home. They had spoken of taking back their home, but here Tolkien indicates that this is not their intention. In regards to the Wood-Elf King, "He at any rate did not believe in dwarves fighting and killing dragons like Smaug, and he strongly suspected attempted burglary or something like it—which shows he was a wise elf and wiser than the men of the town."

There is also mention of the dwarves being uneasy when pushed with the idea that they would slay the dragon and share their treasure with Laketown. One could obviously read that as their being uneasy about the idea of sharing their treasure, which the have proven and will prove is not something they will willingly do, but it could also indicate their fear of attempting to battle Smaug in any fashion.

But anyways, the fanfare and revelry of Laketown puts the later events of the book in a more glaring light. These people have lived in a dreary hopeless land and they are given a glimpse of hope and they embrace it full-heartedly. Little do they know... All that to say, along with dreams, prophecy is a fun little thing to play with in Fantasy novels, if done right.

The King beneath the mountains,
The King of carven stone,
The lord of silver fountains
Shall come into his own!

His crown shall be upholden,
His harp shall be restrung,
His halls shall echo golden
To songs of yore re-sung.

The woods shall wave on mountains
And grass beneath the sun;
His wealth shall flow in fountains
And the rivers golden run.

The streams shall run in gladness,
The lakes shall shine and burn,
All sorrow fail and sadness
At the Mountain-king's return!

Additional Notes:

" 'Thorin son of Thrain son of Thror King under the Mountain!' said the dwarf in a loud voice, and he looked it, in spite of his torn clothes and draggled hood. The gold gleamed on his neck and waist; his eyes were dark and deep. 'I have come back.' " Tolkien loves to describe eyes as deep. It occurs many times in the rest of his writing. I love the adjective, even though I hardly know what he means. My thought is a depth of thought, understanding, perception, all which shows up in his gaze. I actually think it is my unknowing of his meaning that makes it such a lively adjective.

I love the play of prophecy and pragmatism with the people of Laketown posed against the Master of Laketown. Tolkien seems to paint both in a bit of a poor light.

It is interesting that Thorin identifies Fili and Kili as his nephews. Specifically " 'The sons of my father's daughter.' " If I recall correctly, in the Scandinavian tradition there is supposed to be a special relationship between the children of a woman and her brother. I would assume because if she got married off to a wretch, her brother would have the power in that culture to be the one who could protect and look out for them in spite of their father. But this shows why Fili and Kili seem to be closer to Thorin in a different way than the rest.

I wonder if Tolkien should have set up Bard in this chapter.

Tolkien playing with the narrator's voice: "I have never heard what happened to the chief of the guards and the butler."

"The rotting piles of a greater town could still be seen along the shores when the waters sank in a drought." What a great image to light up the imagination of the little boy in me. I love the glimpses of the past Tolkien practices but perfects in The Lord of the Rings.

Okay, I know I have said this before, and I realize how weird it makes me sound, but I love the smell of the old Ballantine paperbacks. Love the smell. They need to bottle that stuff.

Favorite Quotation: Okay, this is an easy one, but I love the image of the curse feeding down from the Mountain and oppressing the land about. That doesn't so much show up in this quotation however. But Tolkien says torn cloud... I can't not give this award to this paragraph when it has torn cloud in it.

"The lands opened wide about him, filled with the waters of the river which broke up and wandered in a hundred winding courses, or halted in marshes and pools dotted with isles on every side; but still a strong water flowed on steadily through the midst. And far away, its dark head in a torn cloud, there loomed the Mountain! Its nearest neighbours to the North-East and the tumbled land that joined it to them could not be seen. All alone it rose and looked across the marshes to the forest. The Lonely Mountain! Bilbo had come far and through many adventures to see it, and now he did not like the look of it in the least."

There, I feel better about that post.

achoo

2010-01-10T19:42:00.000-08:00

Chapter IX: Barrels Out of Bond

Down the swift dark stream you go
Back to lands you once did know!
Leave the halls and caverns deep,
Leave the northern mountains steep,
Where the forest wide and dim
Stoops in shadow grey and grim!
Float beyond the world of trees
Out into the whispering breeze,
Past the rushes, past the reeds,
Past the marsh's waving weeds,
Through the mist that riseth white
Up from mere and pool at night!
Follow, follow stars that leap
Up the heavens cold and steep;
Turn when dawn comes over land,
Over rapid, over sand,
South away! and South away!
Seek the sunlight and the day,
Back to pasture, back to mead,
Where the kine and oxen feed!
Back to gardens on the hills
Where the berry swells and fills
Under sunlight, under day!
South away! and South away!
Down the swift dark stream you go
Back to lands you once did know!

I have returned! For now.

So on to the next predicament that Bilbo has to save the dwarves from. I am really beginning to see the need for the fallout that happens at the end of this book. If this story just ended with them slaying the dragon and gaining their treasure, this would be a far too simple and actually unrewarding book. The dwarves cowardice and greed needs to be answered. And it will be. If it was left unanswered Mr. Tolkien would have a terrible book.

"The other dwarves quite agreed when they got the message. They all thought their own shares in the treasure (which quite regarded as theirs, in spite of their plight and the still unconquered dragon) would suffer seriously if the Wood-elves claimed part of it, and they all trusted Bilbo."

As long as they saw a way to keep their treasure they would hold on to it, even though really all it did was leave Bilbo with the pressure of doing something about it. The dwarves just got to sit and wait for their hobbit to rescue them.

And again luck saves the day, though at least in this instance the luck serves Bilbo's plan he has already brewed, it does not save the plan, or make a plan fall into his lap. "For he saw at once that luck was with him and he had a chance at once to try his desperate plan."

Also, the reader gets to see the true nature of the dwarves' trust in Bilbo:

'Upon my word!' said Thorin, when Bilbo whispered to him to come out and join his friends, 'Gandalf spoke true as usual. A pretty fine burglar you make, it seems, when the time comes. I am sure we are all for ever at your service, whatever happens after this. But what comes next?'

Bilbo saw that the time had come to explain his idea, as far as he could; but he did not feel at all sure how the dwarves would take it. His fears were quite justified, for they did not like it a bit, and started grumbling loudly in spite of their danger.

'We shall be bruised and battered to pieces, and drowned too, for certain!' they muttered. 'We thought you had got some sensible notion, when you managed to get hold of the keys. This is a mad idea!'

The bolding was of course my own emphasis. The dwarves are quick to turn on their burglar friend as soon as their own comfort and safety is put into danger, despite their words of honoring the fellow. They are quite a selfish lot. Although, truth be told, I am not so certain they would have honestly survived the hobbit's plan, so perhaps they have a point.

Another thing that jumped out at me was the similarities between the image of the ruined Dale and Laketown with the image of the ruins of Ithilien and Osgiliath next to Minas Tirith in The Lord of the Rings. The image of the ruin of the once beautiful is a common thing in Tolkien's writing and it is a powerful image. I do not mind the repetition. I found the plight of Laketown and Dale to be a pleasant addition to the book from my experience with the cartoon.

Favorite Quotation: I could have sworn I had a better one than this in my first read through, but I had to do a second since it has been so long and I still felt I should post. One of the reasons this stood out was the omniscience of the narrator. It is not a new thing in the book, but it reminds me of the beauty of information Tolkien throws out in The Lord of the Rings.

"In a great hall with pillars hewn out of the living stone sat the Elvenking on a chair of carven wood. on his head was a crown of berries and red leaves, for the autumn was come again. in the spring he wore a crown of woodland flowers. In his hand he held a carven staff of oak."

Not as good a post... Hopefully I can get my rhythm and flow back.

king

2010-01-03T21:07:00.000-08:00

Well on the final day of the year denominated 2009 I saw a movie that was worth calling my favorite movie of the year. That is not to say that there weren't better movies out last year. I just hardly saw any of them, so I would have little idea what movies those would be. My final count, if my recollection serves me well, is 7 movies from this year. 2 of which I would put in the bad or did-not-like category, 4 in the enjoyed-to-varying-degrees-category, and 1 in the really-liked category.

So what is the movie? Where the Wild Things Are.

This was a very polarizing movie. I think the average movie-goer would be bored at best by this movie. Which is not to call myself an above-average movie-goer. I just have different tastes. Some of it is probably due to a prideful arrogance of sorts, but please don't read that as my intention here. And that is a bad part of me anyways, don't listen to that me.

The thing that grabbed me so intensely while watching this movie was actually the aspects of the gospel message in it. Now, I would just about guarantee that Spike Jonze (the director) was in no way intending this, but it is what jumped out at me. Jonze speaks to a number of universals that make up the fallen condition of man and the search for the eternal.

What he was attempting was to show the nature of a child. I am certain he knew how this would still jump to the condition of an adult as well, but his focus was specifically on a child. He impresses upon the audience the loneliness, the hurt and pain, and the desire a child gets for control. Control is a huge theme in the movie. As Max, the protagonist, cannot find control in his home (or the love he desires) he first acts out in an animalistic rebellion because he can't express himself in any other way, and as this brings him even less control, he runs away.

He runs to a place where he finds himself king. Now he has all the control, and what is more he controls his friends to be able to do his bidding. But of course this unravels as well, because he is no king. Still there is no control for him. He cannot make people love him. He cannot fix all the brokenness, all the pain.

Once more IMDB fails me in its quotation section for this movie. There was some juicy quotations that are completely missing from the quotation section. The one that most jumped out at me was something like, "What if there was a king that could do all this?" I wish I could remember the exact quotation, but it is as things unravel and Max is starting to lose his paradise.

I honestly would have to see it again to better map these thoughts out. I am also a few days removed now, plus reading the majority of a book, plus a run of comics, plus watching a half season of a TV show, all of which has faded the movie on me a bit. I wish I could give you more to go off of. Perhaps I will just have to see it again, heh.

I do not promise you will love this movie. As the credits began you could very clearly hear someone say, "that was weird," in an obviously annoyed tone. My roommate did not like the movie (Though he did say that I probably would; good job Ben.) The movie is weird. I am weird. I really enjoyed it.

cob

2009-12-12T19:46:00.000-08:00

Chapter VIII: Flies and Spiders

"Quite apart from the stones no spider has ever liked being called Attercop, and Tomnoddy of course is insulting to anybody."

When I was growing up this was the cover that was the in print cover. So utterly terrible...

As this is the first chapter with Gandalf off galavanting in a southerly direction, it is a very important chapter for character growth, or at least the potential of character growth. As it turns out, only one character would take advantage of that potential.

"Somehow the killing of the giant spider, all alone by himself in the dark without the help of the wizard or the dwarves or of anyone else, made a great difference to Mr Baggins. He felt a different person, and much fiercer and bolder in spite of an empty stomach."

As well as:

"From which you can see that they had changed their opinion of Mr Baggins very much, and had begun to have a great respect for him (as Gandalf had said they would). Indeed they really expected him to think of some wonderful plan for helping them, and were not merely grumbling."

The dwarves want to be helped and given things it seems. They do not want to take responsibility. Though they certainly still want their share of the gold at the end. Gandalf's notion and foretelling of Bilbo is coming to be, of course. As this would be a silly tale if it did not.

As for another theme I have been noting quite a bit, it takes a more proclaimed role in this chapter. "and by luck (he was born with a good share of it) he guessed more or less right." Tolkien is directly addressing this rather friendly relationship his protagonist has with luck. There will be more of this in the next chapter. I shall perhaps mention it then.

Additional Notes:

I decided to change copies of the book. I am reading the old white covered Ballantine paperbacks. Best smelling books I have ever found. So many fond memories.

Regarding Wood-elves: "They differed from the High Elves of the West, and were more dangerous and less wise. For most of them (together with their scattered relations in the hills and mountains) were descended from the ancient tribes that never went to Faerie in the West. There the Light-elves and the Deep-elves and the Sea-elves went and lived for ages, and grew fairer and wiser and more learned, and invented their magic and their cunning craft in the making of beautiful and marvelous things, before some came back into the Wide World. In the Wide World the Wood-elves lingered in the twilight of our Sun and Moon, but loved best the stars; and they wandered in the great forests that grew tall in lands that are now lost." I always forget Tolkien drops this in there. And then I remember reading it before. Wonder if I will forget again.

The enchanted river and the enchanted Wood-elf feast and the danger of walking off the trail all feels very classic fairy tale-ish. There is actually a far greater and wider use of magic in The Hobbit than there is in The Lord of the Rings.

Favorite Quotation: This just hit me at the right time.

"Actually, as I have told you, they were not far off the edge of the forest; and if Bilbo had had the sense to see it, the tree that he had climbed, though it was tall in itself, was standing near the bottom of a wide valley, so that from its top the trees seemed to swell up all round like the edges of a great bowl, and he could not expect to see how far the forest lasted. Still he did not see this, and he climbed down full of despair. He got to the bottom again at last, scratched, hot, and miserable, and he could not see anything in the gloom below when he got there. His report soon made the others as miserable as he was."

carrock

2009-12-12T15:19:00.000-08:00

Chapter VII: Queer Lodgings
" 'You had better go to bed, your wits are sleepy.' "

So to be entirely honest about my exposure to The Hobbit, it actually did not begin with the book. I grew up watching the Rankin/Bass cartoon, and in 4th grade finally picked up the book for myself. So this chapter was a huge and quite pleasant surprise to me, as there is absolutely none of it in the cartoon. I can understand why it was edited out, but if you speak to most people who have read the book, they will often cite the introduced character in this chapter as one of their favorites.

Beorn is a man; Beorn is a bear. " 'Some say that he is a bear descended from the great and ancient bears of the mountains that lived there before the giants came. Others say that he is a man descended from the first men who lived before Smaug or the other dragons came into this part of the world, and before the goblins came into the hills out of the North.' " He immediately draws the interest of the reader, as he is an uncanny fellow. Here is another place where you begin to feel a hint of a greater story that Tolkien feels, even if he has not completely unfolded it.

And the little game Gandalf plays in order to keep in the good graces of Beorn is straight out of the mischief of myth and fairy tales. It is an entertaining game of trickery without lying.

It is also of vast importance that Gandalf, aka the crutch, leaves the party here. They are entering perhaps the darkest part of their journey (excepting perhaps being held captive by the goblins) and the one who has pretty much carried them all the whole way is leaving. The dwarves are like disgruntled selfish children about it as well.

He also leaves a comment which fits with much of what I have been talking about so I should reference it: " 'We may meet again before all is over, and then again of course we may not. That depends on your luck and on your courage and sense; and I am sending Mr Baggins with you. I have told you before that he has more about him than you guess, and you will find that out before long.' "

Additional Notes:

I wonder if the movies will make a bigger thing out of the Goblins and Wargs planning an assault on the Men who are settling the Wild lands. It would definitely make sense for expanding the story out some as well as pulling more towards the tone of the trilogy.

Tolkien has a lot of ill-tempered characters. I think this very well might be due to his personal disposition.

" 'Before you could get round Mirkwood in the North you would be right among the slopes of the Grey Mountains, and they are simply stiff with goblins, hobgoblins, and orcs of the worst description.' " The first mention of orcs. There is one later which I believe is a bit more descriptive. The hobgoblins throwaway is never clarified in anything I am aware of. I believe by The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien just decides to call them all orcs. I don't think there is any longer a distinction.

Radagast. Gandalf calls him his "good cousin." Interesting that he views wizards as familial to each other. I have no idea if Tolkien had any conception of what he would make his wizards out to be. And this is the most descriptive he gets. In other sources he would say that Men believed him to be an Elf. But The Hobbit narrator never gives a clue as far as I can tell.

Favorite Quotation: There were a few possibilities amidst none that really stood out strong. But I just liked the language in Gandalf's response here.

" 'Farewell!' they cried, 'wherever you fare, till your eyries receive you at the journey's end!' That is the polite thing to say among eagles.

'May the wind under your wings bear you where the sun sails and the moon walks,' answered Gandalf, who knew the correct reply."

ya-harri-hey

2009-12-12T13:31:00.000-08:00

Chapter VI: Out of the Frying-Pan into the Fire

"You ought not to be rude to an eagle, when you are only the size of a hobbit, and are up in his eyrie at night!"

The chapter also known as Dori's redemption. Okay that isn't true. I did find it funny that Tolkien made sure to give Dori a chance to save Bilbo after dropping him a couple chapters previous.

I do think Tolkien makes a mistake in pacing in this chapter. It was especially noticeable last night when reading it, because my mind was a bit more... wandering than normal. It was not your usual tiredness head-nodding state, but my mind certainly was not at optimal precision. If it ever is, is a question for another day. But, in this chapter the party gets chased up into trees, and then left there for a number of pages while the narrator moves about wandering his merry way. It is not especially bad, but I think it leaves the reader to lose focus because he wants to know the resolution to the characters being stuck in trees while you are learning about the plans of Wargs and Goblins against the encroaching woodsmen.

This is not to say this is a bad chapter, I actually rather enjoy it. That note just kinda stuck out to me last night, but again, my mind was not quite in the game.

I want to talk more about the Eagles, but it has more to do with what is developed about them in The Silmarillion and the part they play in The Lord of the Rings... so I suppose I need to wait on those notes. They certainly have a knack for swooping in and saving the day. Which is why I have heard them called Deus Ex Machinas, but again, more so in The Lord of the Rings, so I have to wait on this discussion. In The Hobbit they just form a new and exciting facet to the world Tolkien is revealing, and he creates a simple enough explanation for their coming to the rescue.

Additional Notes:

The term warg is a Norse name for wolf, especially referring to Fenrir. So Tolkien takes the name and brings it into the more common fantasy vernacular. I greatly dislike the take Peter Jackson had on Wargs in The Two Towers. I prefer wolves over hyenas.

I wonder if Tolkien would have revised Gandalf's part in this chapter after he more fully created the character. It is funny to think of him making his last stand by kamikaze-ing out of a tree to kill a few pesky goblins. Again, Gandalf may strike people as not especially powerful in magic skill. And yet this would be one of his grander displays of power in all the books.

Aw, no more fire-starting for Oin and Gloin!

The goblin song in this chapter is another song that comes to mind when I think about the Rankin/Bass cartoon. I don't know why I like it:

"Fifteen birds in five firtrees,
their feather were fanned in a fiery breeze!
But, funny little birds, they had no wings!
O what shall we do with the funny little things?"

Favorite Quotation: I hinted at a somewhat new-found interest in the use of dreams in novels. And here is a great example of why. What precisely Tolkien is referring to is open to interpretation, which is probably why I disliked dreams of this sort when I was younger.

"But all night he dreamed of his own house and wandered in his sleep into all his different rooms looking for something that he could not find nor remember what it looked like."

buttons

2009-12-12T09:52:00.000-08:00

Chapter V: Riddles in the Dark

This thing all things devours:
Birds, beasts, trees, flowers;
Gnaws iron, bites steel;
Grinds hard stones to meal;
Slays king, ruins town,
And beats high mountains down.

So this chapter is the most important chapter to the coming sequels. It, in fact, made Tolkien come back and re-edit this chapter to make it fit with The Lord of the Rings. I found a site which had the original text to clarify a few things.

First of all, for the sake of The Hobbit, this chapter accomplishes a number of very important things for the growth of our main character. First of all he is separated from everyone else, so he can not trust on anyone else. There is also that whole death and resurrection theme running throughout this chapter. I would actually guess it is unintentional in this instance, but it is certainly there, and it is actually easily accidented when the writer is trying to bring a character into his own. So, yeah, there's the burying; even blacking out and falling. Awakening in darkness, and coming to water to find new life. You can accuse me of forcing it, but I am just saying.

However what truly empowers our Mr Baggins is a little trinket he stumbles upon in the dark after first waking up. Now this would lead to another discussion on luck, but this one is a little more complicated. First of all, in the revised account, luck is not a part of the equation, beyond the Ring's manipulation of it. In the original account it can be a harder thing to swallow, but there are still a couple points I would like to make. One: the Ring is one of the major reasons for Bilbo accomplishing what he does. This is an essential point in his adventure, not just a throw away moment to bridge plot points. Secondly, Gandalf continues to mention a very certain intention to bringing along Bilbo. In the next chapter he says, "I brought him, and I don't bring things that are of no use." Gandalf does not know exactly how his burglar will prove useful, just that he is useful, and receiving the Ring is essential to Bilbo becoming what he is. In the original account I still would have liked something a bit more dynamic than happening upon it in the dark in the endless caverns while his hands are groping the ground. This does nothing to expand the characters, story, etc. However in the revised version, it paints a vivid picture of the treachery of the Ring and its twists on fate.

The next question would be, does giving your main character such a powerful artifact and power impact the merit of the characters actions. It would be easy to say, Bilbo finds his power and strength through an artificial and external means. Which is not to say that finding strength through external means is necessarily bad, but a magic ring almost seems a cheap way to give your character power. Especially one he just happens upon in the dark, with absolutely no intentionality.

Now in The Lord of the Rings, the Ring would come with a heavy and deadly cost. Which it is important that power have a cost. But this is not the case in The Hobbit. Yes the revised version of this chapter begins to paint some of the corruption of the Ring, but it is far from the point of the book. Basically, Bilbo just was granted a free source of power he stumbled upon by accident. So does this weaken the power of his characters growth? I would say yes and no.

I think it does take away from Bilbo, in that he lucks his way into the thing that would grant him the means to accomplish what he does through out the rest of the book. But it does not take away from the courage he begins to show. It certainly is a tool for his cultivating his courage, but it is still his will and wits that get him through the coming dangers. What he ends up bringing to the table by the end of the book is himself. The Ring is an invaluable tool, but he is the mover by the end of the book. As I have said I am not much of a powers guy, so free power like the Ring kinda tweaks me a little, but Tolkien still does grow Bilbo himself; he does not just rely on the Ring.

It is also important to remember what it is Tolkien is writing. I could very easily be accused of taking this too seriously.

Additional Notes:
" 'My birthday-present! It came to me on my birthday, my precious.' So he had always said to himself. But who knows when such rings were still at large in the world? Perhaps even the Master who ruled them could not have said." This is obviously part of the revised chapter. It is interesting however that the revision seems to not know of the true story of how Gollum got the ring, even though that does in fact get revealed to the heroes in Fellowship. I don't know if this revision was before Tolkien had created that particular back story, or if in fact this was completely intentional. I could look this up... but it would likely take some doing.

Also: "Whether it was an accident, or a last trick of the ring before it took a new master, it was not on his finger." Introducing the will of the Ring. And: "A pang of fear and loss, like an echo of Gollum's misery, smote Bilbo, and forgetting even to draw his sword he struck his hands into his pockets." Introducing the corruption of the Ring.

An interesting discussion revolves around what exactly the power of the Ring is for non-Saurons. Everyone wants it, but all we ever see is it turning non-Saurons invisible. Surely a good power, but not one that would conquer nations. So can it grant other powers or is it just the greed-lust that it spawns which so enthralls everyone. Boromir seems to hint that it can truly be used, but honestly what would he really know. Anyways, this is technically a book too early for discussing.

I loved these riddles as a kid. Though I always thought the actions of Bilbo in relation to a game where his life was on the line was a little odd. Hmm, he'll show me the way out if I win, and he'll eat me if I lose. I am not being forced to decide this... but sure sounds like a good deal. I realize this isn't exactly the choice before him, but it never quite sat right.

Bilbo is a cheap little punk with that last riddle.

Favorite Quotation: Tolkien would make a big point of the choice Bilbo makes here. Both in The Lord of the Rings, and in his own letters to people.

"Bilbo almost stopped breathing, and went stiff himself. He was desperate. He must get away, out of this horrible darkness, while he had any strength left. He must fight. He must stab the foul thing, put its eyes out, kill it. It meant to kill him. No, not a fair fight. He was invisible now. Gollum had no sword. Gollum had not actually threatened to kill him, or tried to yet. And he was miserable, alone, lost. A sudden understanding, a pity mixed with horror, welled up in Bilbo's heart: a glimpse of endless unmarked days without light or hope of betterment, hard stone, cold fish, sneaking and whispering. All these thoughts passed in a flash of a second. He trembled. And then quite suddenly in another flash, as if lifted by a new strength and resolve, he leaped."

goblin-town

2009-12-12T08:35:00.000-08:00

Chapter IV: Over Hill and Under Hill

" 'Why, O why did I ever leave my hobbit-hole!' said poor Mr Baggins bumping up and down on Bombur's back.

'Why, O why did I ever bring a wretched little hobbit on a treasure hunt!' said poor Bombur, who was fat, and staggered along with the sweat dripping down his nose in his heat and terror.

And now the adventure (as in the bad stuff) begins in truth. This and the journey through Moria are probably my two biggest influences in my childhood in wanting to find deep and elaborate caves to explore. Which is surprising because both of those ventures don't prove to be very kind ones in the novels. Though true spelunking is not considered overly safe either, but probably has fewer goblins/orcs/balrogs.

We also get a goblin song, which has a fun translation in Rankin/Bass cartoon production of The Hobbit which every now and then gets stuck in my head... Or at least the couple lines I know from it do.

This chapter is mostly just getting the band of dwarves, hobbit, and wizard into a spot of trouble. Gandalf would again prove a savior, though Bilbo played a small if mostly unspectacular role. And it ends with dark times for our little hobbit. Hmm, accidental punning.

Additional Notes:

It is interesting that this chapter may show the grandest display of Gandalf's power, excepting possibly two chapters forward in the story (this is ignoring a battle that does not take place within the immediacy of the story in The Lord of the Rings). I have heard many people grow frustrated with the lack of actual magic usage in Tolkien's stories. I personally prefer it. The subtler uses of power are much more interesting and intriguing. It also makes a character truly powerful when they do not use what they can. And as I have said I am really not much of a powers guy, despite what you might think from many of my reading materials.

It is interesting that Tolkien went from a wand to a staff for Gandalf, from The Hobbit to The Lord of the Rings.

The anachronisms bother me. The golf reference in the second chapter, and the football reference in this chapter. I realize it fits with Tolkien's voice in The Hobbit, but it pulls me out of the story.

The first person and second person intrusions as well are not especially pleasant to me, as they bear a degree of anachronism as well. But it fits with The Hobbit's more playful narrative voice. It does not however fit with the later in-story explanation of how it came to be written.

I remember I was so surprised when I actually noticed the sentence: "When he peeped out in the lightning-flashes, he saw that across the valley the stone-giants were out, and were hurling rocks at one another for a game, and catching them, and tossing them down into the darkness where they smashed among the trees far below, or splintered into little bits with a bang." Stone-giants? Huh. They get very little play in Tolkien's world beyond another reference in Chapter VI as far as I can recall.

Tolkien already begins his battle against technology in his depiction of the goblins: "It is not unlikely that they invented some of the machines that have since troubled the world, especially the ingenious devices for killing large numbers of people at once, for wheels and engines and explosions always delighted them, and not working with their own hands more than they could help; but in those days and those wild parts they had not advanced (as it is called) so far." This will become a larger theme.

The movies will love this part, because it is when things get 'real' or 'big' or whatever.

A premonitionary dream! The use of dreams in novels intrigues me. I used to hate them. Now I am interested to see how they can be used.

The storm in the mountains did make me recall my recent adventure on Mt Whitney. Which brings me to:

Favorite Quotation: Speaking from personal experience, lightning storms in the mountains are in fact a different thing entirely. You'll note another mention of kings, which Tolkien probably would have altered once he had a landscape for the rule of kings in Middle-Earth. But this is not yet Middle-Earth in a sense.

"He knew that something unexpected might happen, and he hardly dared to hope that they would pass without fearful adventure over those great tall mountains with lonely peaks and valleys where no king ruled. They did not. All was well, until one day they met a thunderstorm—more than a thunderstorm, a thunder-battle. You know how terrific a really big thunderstorm can be down in the land and in a river-valley, especially at times when two great thunderstorms meet and clash. More terrible still are thunder and lightning in the mountains at night, when storms come up from East and West and make war. The lightning splinters on the peaks, and rocks shiver, and great crashes split the air and go rolling and rumbling into every cave and hollow; and the darkness is filled with overwhelming noise and sudden light."

imladris

2009-12-10T19:17:00.000-08:00

Chapter III: A Short Rest

O! Will you be staying.

Or will you be flying?

Your ponies are straying!

The daylight is dying!

To fly would be folly.

To stay would be jolly

And listen and hark

Till the end of the dark

to our tune

ha! ha!

The elves sing a very different tune, ay?

So it takes Tolkien three chapters to get his little band to Rivendell, whereas it takes him half a book to do it in Fellowship. Very different styles.

But anyways, back to the elves. Through out The Lord of the Rings the elves are a morose lot. There is always a degree of sadness to the elves, (especially the Noldor who are between worlds) but The Hobbit depicts them more as jolly hippies (hippies did not exist yet, though they were key in making Tolkien popular in the 60s). But honestly, you find yourself asking, how do these people live? It is of course a very limited viewing, but you get the feeling that Tolkien is playing to the more common idea of playful mischievous elves than what his true form would take later. He does however give his reader a brief glimpse at the stories he began to pen in the trenches of World War I. He drops the name of the city Gondolin, and gives you a brief glimmer of a deep history to his world.

This chapter also reveals one of the key characters to Tolkien's world, who actually does very little himself in any of the stories. Elrond, the half-elven, he who should know the story of Gondolin well. Now Tolkien gives a brief history to Elrond that again, does not completely jive with what he would later establish. He writes that, "In those days of our tale there were still some people who had both elves and heroes of the North for ancestors, and Elrond the master of the house was their chief." Well, actually I suppose that is not completely false, but I would say it does not in fact fit. Tolkien also makes Elrond out to be not entirely Elven, which is actually false in the end. He is a half-elf who is a full elf. Elros, his brother was a half-elf who was a full human. But that will come up much much later and I doubt Tolkien had created that yet.

Anyways, it is fun to see Tolkien drop a little bit of lore even if it is ever so slight. In fact it is probably a good thing it was so slight, so that he could come back later and revise it so thoroughly. And Elrond, at the very least, is an example of what Tolkien sees as an elf, as opposed to what he seemed to feel was necessary to appease his readers with the rest of the cast of the Last Homely House.

So another note on movers and this is one that is going to come up often in this book: luck. You could argue it already came up in the last chapter, with Gandalf's timely reappearance, but I will give the wizard some credit (again that whole foresight thing). But in this chapter, the band gets lucky enough to have their secret map in front of the single person who could read it at the exactly right lunar cycle at exactly the right time of year. This irked me even a little as a child. You could argue that again this is part of Gandalf's foresight (I actually think the Gandalf from The Lord of the Rings could have actually read the runes himself, rather than needing Elrond), but I think that is trying too hard to make sense of things. I think Tolkien just plays it as dumb luck that is just going to get luckier as the story unfolds. Tolkien seems to shake this dumb luck plot mechanism some time between this book and his sequels.

Additional Notes:

14 days.

Durin, another Voluspa name. If Fundin gets mentioned in this book than I think we have all of them.

Orcrist and Glamdring. One of the few times that Tolkien shows a different language in The Hobbit.

It is interesting to hear things described as The Mountain, The Wild, The (Last Homely) House, The River Running. It makes the Tolkien's world feel so much smaller.

Favorite quotation: I was tempted to put in a bunch of the Elrond descriptions, and the Gondolin histories, and the sword namings. But I really liked this line.

"Now it is a strange thing, but things that are good to have and days that are good to spend are soon told about, and not much to listen to; while things that are uncomfortable, palpitation, and even gruesome, may make a good tale, and take a deal of telling anyway."

burrahobbit

2009-12-10T17:13:00.000-08:00

Chapter II: Roast Mutton

" 'Mutton yesterday, mutton today, and blimey, if it don't look like mutton again tomorrer.' "

First of all, when I read this book for the second time I had no idea what mutton was, so I thought it was just a funny way of saying nothing. I don't recall what I thought the first time I read it. Anyways, I was surprised (and a little disappointed) to learn that the trolls were actually eating something.

So in my quest for movers this is an important chapter. It is when Bilbo's adventure turns into something more than just a little jaunt into new country, causing him to begin "to feel that adventures were not so bad after all." Though as soon as things prove uncomfortable, even before the danger sets in, he starts to wish he " 'was at home in my nice hole by the fire, with the kettle just beginning to sing!' "

But then Bilbo gets sent on his first assignment of burglary. Well technically he is just supposed to scout, and the burglary he decides to attempt on his own. This is important, and actually surprising. Considering how hesitant Bilbo was to begin the adventure, even with his Took blood creeping out at the edges, his desire to jump right into danger that he could easily avoid is pretty surprising. I probably would not have written that myself, it does not quite seem like the logical step. His failing however does not surprise, which is exactly what occurs. And thus he puts everyone in his party in danger, well excepting one who comes back to save the day in the nick of time. The protagonist fails in his first task, good good.

"And please don't cook me, kind sirs! I am a good cook myself, and cook better than I cook, if you see what I mean."

Tolkien uses Gandalf as a safety blanket for the party for a while, and this is put to good use. He is the easy fix to any problem, the cure all to any conflict. But this is a good setup for what is to come. Because once he is removed from the picture, the hero void needs to be filled. Hmm, who might step into that chasm...

The trickery to resolve the conflict feels right out of a classic fairy tale or myth. I want to bring up Odin and Odysseus etc., but I think it would either take research or making stuff up to sound smart. Perhaps I should not speak.

Additional notes:

Tolkien actually puts little things in to differentiate the Dwarves, completely ignorable if so wished by the reader. I remember now taking slight note of these little snippets. Thorin is the most distinct and gets the most face time of course. Bombur is fat, and thus is the second most recognizable. Balin is the look out, which makes him stand out; things will come up later to expand on his role even before Fellowship (those three are the most obvious, after this the distinctions become a bit harder to remember). Oin and Gloin are apparently good fire starters and seem to be especially quarrelsome; I will have to watch to see if that continues. Kili and Fili are young and a bit more rash than the rest. Dwalin so far has shown a bit of generosity, that may be reading into it too much. Dori and Nori like food. I shall have to keep my eye open for more distinctions.

May to June.

"They have seldom even heard of the king round here." This little throwaway comment is a pretty common idea to depict lawless vagrants, but as Tolkien expanded his world, it doesn't exactly make sense. Whoops.

The descriptions of the area between The Hill and the Rivendell are both descriptive enough and vague enough that you can pretty much fit them in with what Tolkien did later with the land. He even hints at the ruins of wars between the kings of Arnor and the Witch King, though I doubt he has that whole thing in mind. Here he calls this region the Lone-lands, which fits with his more simplified naming in this book.

Favorite quotation: Okay this is not especially great, but it is a good example of Gandalf dialogue which is always fun.

" 'Where did you go to, if I may ask?' said Thorin to Gandalf as they rode along.

'To look ahead,' said he.

'And what brought you back in the nick of time?'

'Looking behind,' said he."

tookish

2009-12-09T18:02:00.000-08:00

Far over the misty mountains cold

To dungeons deep and caverns old
We must away, ere break of day,
To find our long-forgotten gold.

I am not sure what form this will all take. This is part of why I was holding off for so long in my rereading. I knew I wanted to respond somehow, but I was not sure how. Do not grow dependent on these entries (As I am sure my loyal readers are prone to do). My response could turn into something else entirely. Or I may just stop doing anything beyond the task of reading. Or more yet, I may just stop reading. We shall see. Or I shall see, and perhaps you shall be spared.

The Hobbit is not the Lord of the Rings. It is a children's book. Although sadly, the present state of children's literacy generally puts The Hobbit out of the reading level of most people while they would still be considered children. It is not a children's book because it is set in a fantasy world with dragons and dwarves (not dwarfs), though many might argue that point. As Tolkien himself says, people's inclination towards the fantastic is generally regardless of age; if they like such stories when they are younger, they also enjoy them when they are older (referring to On Fairy-Stories by J.R.R. Tolkien; a fantastic little essay/lecture; he says far far more than what I just paraphrased and far far better). It is a children's book because it is simple, light-hearted, whimsical, a large dose of humor, etc. None of these properties are exclusive to children's books but he writes it all for the sake of a child to be able to comprehend. When he came to write the follow-up, The Lord of the Rings, he would actually struggle immensely with finding the voice for his sequel as it began to mature on him, and it greatly hindered the initial pacing and plotting.

I do not intend to cast The Hobbit in a lesser light because of its childness, though I do greatly prefer its sequel. I just mean to say that it is a different thing altogether. I know many people who loved The Hobbit and could not read The Lord of the Rings, and vice versa.

I do wonder how they plan to change The Hobbit for its theatrical reproduction to match the tone of The Lord of the Rings movies, so as not to disappoint movie-goers who are expecting another glorious epic in the coming years. I imagine the story will get stripped considerably of its light-hearted air. And they will also be adding quite a bit of material to fill out the two movies they plan. If these posts continue, I will probably remark far too often about the movies, which is precisely one of my greatest frustrations with them. They take over the public's conception of a story, rather than the source.

Chapter 1: An Unexpected Party

"I should think so — in these parts! We are plain quiet folk and have no use for adventures. Nasty disturbing uncomfortable things! Make you late for dinner!"

I am definitely watching closely at the free will of Bilbo as I read the story. In a story where the small naive character gets carried off into a grand adventure it is quite easy to make the main character removed from the resolution of a conflict. Or in other words, he gets saved a lot (this was a major frustration with Andrew Peterson's first book). I of course know how The Hobbit handles this, but I will be paying special attention to it this read through.

In the first chapter, Bilbo is completely without want of adventure. Well he has his hints of Tookishness, but they are mostly dormant. And so adventure needs to find him.

Enter Gandalf. I was thinking about Gandalf quite a bit through out this read, since he is the mover in this chapter. What is his purpose, and why would he be justified in picking Bilbo for the task at hand?

Well the second question is somewhat easy, though it is just opinion on my part. Tolkien plays with Gandalf having premonitions. At this point, I would imagine Tolkien just thinks of Gandalf as a man who has magic of some kind and is thus a wizard. He is wise, certainly. But he is certainly not what he would become once Tolkien fleshed his world out. But still, most of Tolkien's "magic" is fairly subtle. The way I like it, as I am not much of a powers guy. And so premonitions seems to be a major quality of those who have some kind of magical connection, again more so in The Lord of the Rings but this shows the kinds of inclinations Tolkien is prone to. Thus, Gandalf chose Bilbo, because he has some kind of premonition. It also certainly has to do with his Tookish ancestry etc., but still, it would take a heavy dose of discernment and some kind of premonition to pick a fellow that screams and falls over at the mention of danger. As said by the wizard, " 'I have chosen Mr Baggins and that ought to be enough for all of you. If I say he is a Burglar, a Burglar he is, or will be when the time comes. There is a lot more in him than you guess, and a deal more than he has any idea of himself.' "

As for the first question, what is his purpose. Well like I mentioned before, he is the mover. I am first answering this question more from a literary point of view than from within Tolkien's sub-created secondary world. This is the oft-used adventure falling into the protagonist's lap yarn. But what explains Gandalf showing up at Bilbo's door. Well nothing, really. And I suppose that is a point in itself. The adventure comes knocking at the door, unexpectedly as the chapter describes it. Sure, The Lord of the Rings gives there a bit of a logical foundation, because Tolkien made sure to attempt to justify everything to an amazing extent in the sequel, but in The Hobbit the wizard just shows up, and Bilbo gets picked up and put into an adventure.

I could attempt to sweep these into metaphors about the sources of adventures in real life, but I do not think I will. Adventure is of course one of the biggest themes of The Hobbit, so it will come up more.

Other notes:
There are various points that I wonder if Tolkien would have preferred he had gone a different route. He drops a couple lines here and there that would later handicap his story. I especially wonder if he later wished he could separate Middle-Earth from our own world. I know for certain he regretted naming the dwarves and Gandalf using dwarf names from the Voluspa.

There is already mention of the Necromancer which becomes much bigger in the sequels. I wonder what precisely Tolkien intended with the Necromancer bit that is underlying the whole story as he wrote The Hobbit. I doubt it was anything nearly as big as it turned out to be.

I love that the hobbits area is made up of The Hill, The Water, and the Country Round. It is the only hill, water, and country they will ever know and thus to them it is all there is. There is no other hill to find, no other water to explore, no other country to traverse. Then of course Tolkien had to go and make their land much more established and name it all up in the sequel.

Withered Heath... I had completely forgotten about this. I must have noticed it as some point in the past, but proceeded to forget it every time. I would assume this was only ever mentioned in The Hobbit.

Gandalf gets the best lines.

Kili then Fili. Backwards in the alphabet. Got it.

The movies will have a hard time with the 13 dwarves. People generally don't like a mash of indistinguishable characters. It is much easier to ignore in the book, when they are intentionally an ambiguously distinguishable group.

It is bad that I know the names of the 13 dwarves better than the 7 dwarfs?

And finally, my favorite quotation. It could have been the song leading up to this, but instead I went with the song's effect. There are little hints of the beauty of Tolkien's language in here. And hearing pine-trees... sounds like something I would say. But I just love the picture of how adventure comes to our minds and all our Tookish qualities come out. But then the dangers and dragons come to our realization and we fall back into our simple Bagginsy ways, all safe and comfortable. It also parallels what Tolkien's own song does for his readers. Well minus the greed part.

As they sang the hobbit felt the love of beautiful things made by hands and by cunning and by magic moving through him, a fierce and a jealous love, the desire of the hearts of dwarves. Then something Tookish woke up inside him, and he wished to go and see the great mountains, and hear the pine-trees and the waterfalls, and explore the caves, and wear a sword instead of a walking-stick. He looked out of the window. The stars were out in a dark sky above the trees. He thought of the jewels of the dwarves shining in dark caverns. Suddenly in the wood beyond The Water a flame leapt up—probably somebody lighting a wood-fire—and he thought of plundering dragons settling on his quiet Hill and kindling it all to flames. He shuddered; and very quickly he was plain Mr Baggins of Bag-End, Under-Hill, again.

loss

2009-12-07T13:49:00.000-08:00

It took me about 15 seconds to remember Minas Morgul's original name yesterday. And I had to look up Minas Tirith's original name (my frustration from this is indescribable)... I think it is finally time for the reread I've been trying to delay for just the right time.

... Or do I wait still a little longer?

crow

2009-12-06T21:24:00.000-08:00

the crow's mocking voice
born to the cold wind
calls me
calls me silent

my hands are silent
my feet are silent
my heart is silent

lost is the quellas

my lungs shall not
shall not feast
they shall eat
the ash and smoke

my eyes shall not
shall not drink
they shall thirst
for the light's return

lost is the quellas

upon my knees
my knees of scars
i walk

in the pain of me
the pain of i am
i walk

to harvest
no
to rest
no

to love
no
to home
no

all kin have left
for what i am
all friend have left
for what i am

i am he who
will never age

i am he who
will always die

fellini

2009-12-01T22:52:00.000-08:00

Now to begin... I do not recommend this movie. Perhaps a few of you would like it. But I am going to just stand out and say do not see this movie, so that in case you do, don't blame me.

Personally though, my mind is still reeling from this incident. This surpassed Adaptation for me in the list of Charlie Kaufman movies. It actually bares a lot of similarities to Adaptation, but it reaches much farther and wider, and in the end is more than a joke (though Adaptation was an enjoyable joke). Kaufman again attacks himself as a storyteller and lays himself open for the audience, at least if the audience can figure out what the heck is going on. (It also bore a very obvious resemblance to 8 1/2, another good, crazy movie)

Wow. Dumbfounded has been a pretty good description of my aftermath from this movie. I honestly hardly have a mental handle on the movie at this point. It would take many more viewings to perhaps begin to understand its language. I am not sure if I can take more viewings though...

It should be stated that I greatly disagree with Kaufman's worldview (or at least I am pretty sure I do). Though he might say he is not actually proclaiming anything. But regardless of my disagreeing with his ideology, just seeing him craft this movie was amazing. And humorous. I laughed out loud often. But it is Kaufman humor. I cannot promise you will get Kaufman humor. So again, stay away.

I do think Kaufman actually started talking too intentionally to the audience at the end. I realized he wanted to bring his movie home, but it felt like he started talking too much. He started washing away some of his subtlety. Perhaps he did not trust himself enough.

Anyways, I just had to have some outlet for my brain. I realize I did not really say anything, but my mind is jumping up and down and I am inclined to start pacing all night. I already paced through the credits and my legs are still twitching. So I am hoping writing this will alleviate some of the mental steam. (Oh and I wanted to drop a good quotation, but IMDB is sadly lacking my favorites.)

Wow.

coche

2009-11-29T09:13:00.000-08:00

I miss having a car which leads to the conversation, "Why is there a fire extinguisher back here?"; "Oh, in case my car catches on fire again."

I miss having a car that had a rope for the emergency brake release. (I have had two emergency brakes break off in my hand, but one of those cars was not my own.)

I miss having a car where the brake lights only function properly due to a church bulletin and a paperclip. (Paperclips are amazingly useful.)

I miss having a car where you cannot open the driver's door from the outside so you have to go through the passenger side, but you also sometimes couldn't open the driver's door from the inside either without rolling down the window and tweaking the outside handle while you simultaneously use the handle on the inside.

I miss having a car where there was only one functional window wiper and during a pretty decent downpour I had to have my window rolled down to see better (and to keep it from getting too hot in the car, because I had to have the heater on so the car wouldn't overheat) while going down the freeway, eyes squinted to protect from the rain. And then having the steering wheel get wet and turning into a black liquid goo which wiped off on everything that touched it. (I am pretty sure my passenger thought we were going to die.)

I miss having a car where manipulating the temperature gauge was like a ping pong battle. (It entertained me over many freeway treks.)

I miss having a car where a random bell would chime ever so often. It would sometimes have pretty talkative streaks.

I miss having a car which I can easily recognize in any parking lot. (Though I did have that one occurrence of mistaken car identity... Good thing they had fuzzy seat covers, or I might have driven off with it.)

I miss having a car which would periodically turn the stereo off, just because it felt like it.

I miss having a car where every trip you take you wonder if it will be the last your car makes. (Which surprisingly only occurred once.)

(And on that note) I miss the opportunity to familiarize myself with the freeway callboxes. (Which just so you know, they are solar powered and can run out of power pretty quickly.)

I miss having a car where the "brake lamp" light (not the brake light which would signify the E-brake was on or I was low on brake fluid) kept coming on for no discernible reason but to keep me from having all the lights off on the display. (As in, by all accounts all of my brake lights were working.)

I miss having a car which forces you to familiarize yourself with its innards, one way or another.

I miss having a car that provided an excuse for people not wanting to drive with you. (Now the only excuse is the quality of the driver.)

wobble

2009-11-23T09:48:00.000-08:00

I am physically impaired right now. It is actually a rather humorous sight to behold.

However when I am walking around in public I can make it look like there is nothing wrong (Unless you look at me when I rise from sitting, know my stride well enough to notice a slight halting, or watch me try and run to get out of the way of a car and nearly fall on my face when my legs don't respond as they should (as I said, fairly humorous)). However, when I am alone in my apartment I hobble around, swinging my arms awkwardly to keep my balance with my new stride. I wince and groan, but mostly laugh at myself (for some reason I laugh at my pain a lot...). I tend to watch TV from the floor, so last night getting up and down off the floor was an entertaining adventure. (Sidenote: I was able to kill 11 crickets during my time on the floor last night. I think I need to start tattooing hash marks on my body for each one I get.)

But it is interesting the dichotomy between the two mes (me plural). Now, I am probably the chief at hiding what is really going on inside me, good or bad (though I would pay good money (well, fake money perhaps) to be able to hold back smiles at times). I know that. But it is a study in the mind to see myself just switch on the cover-up when I step out the door. I am certainly not saying I should be walking around the street the way I walk around my apartment. I would likely scare people. And I would really make an undue spectacle of something that is of no concern. Though I might be more socially entertaining (once people knew it was not serious).

Yet, we all have that wall that goes up when we have pain that is affecting us (I realize any one who reads this and knows me probably views me as the cover boy for this condition; I certainly do). The usual cause and desire of this condition is control. It is our desire to be our own god and hold all the controls to ourselves and the perception of us in others. Once more it is our pride, the root of sin. God save us.

I say nothing profoundly new here. I am not going to promise to a more strident effort to remove this from myself, though it is a battle I shall continue to wage. None of these are revelatory thoughts to me, it has all been thought before. I think I mostly just wanted to say I walk like an old man right now and you don't get to see it.

awaken

2009-11-17T21:23:00.001-08:00

I am finally beginning to get a bearing on the damage I have done. When I was in the midst of the stupor there was no one external, so I did not have to look outward. But now I am opening my eyes, seeing the barren ground before me. All from my doing nothing. I wish I could say this will mark a turning point. I certainly hope it will. But it will be ever easy to close my eyes again.

Unfortunately I seem to have wiped out my path. The path I chose to ignore, believing it would come to me. I shall have to start anew. Perhaps I will find a different road than the one I thought I was on. I just pray I find a road at all. Take a step, take a step. Help me.

hegel

2009-11-11T08:09:00.000-08:00

Veteran's Day - Armistice Day - The day the War to End All Wars ended.

Woodrow Wilson viewed World War I as the final war that would ever be fought. He felt humanity would finally evolve beyond war. So when they agreed on the armistice on November 11th, 1918 at 5 am they decided to put off signing until 11 am to make the final war end at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month. They wanted a catchy way to always remember when all wars ended.

2,738 people died in the war on November 11th, 1918. Only one of those deaths occurred after 11 am.

I don't mean to give you a cynical edge to the day. This is just a bit of information that always makes me think on November 11th.

ninja

2009-11-04T10:11:00.000-08:00

AedonTor:
i think i'm gonna have to pull from a story idea i had a few years ago
it wasn't formed much
but i think it gives me a bit more hope

VenerableMonster:
awesome

AedonTor:
until i begin to hate it with an unquenchable hate

VenerableMonster:
haha
no
no hate
just writing
go

AedonTor:
but i'm so good at the hate, not so much the writing

VenerableMonster:
you just gotta grit your teeth and write
you can hate after

AedonTor:
if by gritting my teeth you mean chewing up the pages, than yes
err then yes

VenerableMonster:
no

AedonTor:
yes

VenerableMonster:
no eating your writing

AedonTor:
violence cures all

VenerableMonster
no
bad andrew
don't make me rename the captain >_>

AedonTor:
...
i can live with that

VenerableMonster:
no you can't
haha

AedonTor:
wait.. are you gonna kill me?

VenerableMonster:
ooooooo, that actually works really well for how i've situated the characters
would give me a chance to do interesting stuff with your daughter

AedonTor:
... the captain always die
daughter?!

VenerableMonster:
and it would be a sufficient push for the main char as well
haha yea
Christy the ships cook.
it was a stroke of inspiration i had

AedonTor:
the love pirate?
my daughter is a love pirate?

VenerableMonster:
she is the love interest of a supporting main character pirate

AedonTor:
ah, so not THE love pirate

VenerableMonster:
THE love pirate is a dude

AedonTor:
and how do i feel about this supporting main character?
do i give him extra duties

VenerableMonster:
heh, he's your acting first mate in light of the death of your former. you act as a mentor to both him and the main character who were young runaways that joined your crew a few months back.
i'm not sure i like having made him acting first mate
especially given his character
eh
that's how it is for now

AedonTor:
psh... i treat him like a son and what does he do... puts the moves on my daughter!

VenerableMonster:
haha, he's not really putting on any moves. he's awkwardly inept around females. that and your daughter is rather intimidating

AedonTor:
did you just call my daughter intimidating?!
heh

VenerableMonster:
haha, she's rather strong willed

AedonTor:
did you see my facebook status?
i'm supposed to ask you what my parrot's name is

VenerableMonster:
hmmmm
i haven't had any parrots yet. maybe i'll get you one after the battle
were you rereading steampunk recently?

AedonTor:
... maybe

VenerableMonster:
i just saw your previous status
eesh, i gotta go get ready for class or i'm gonna be late

string

2009-11-02T06:51:00.000-08:00

There was a broken harp that could not be sold. It had been splintered at one time and was now held together by a coarse binding thread. Several strings were missing and could not be re-set due to its injury. It wore no paint save a poor wood finish which had not been done properly and had mostly come off. The strings that still remained were no longer tuned nor could they ever be truly fixed. The harp could not be sold, and it knew great sorrow.

Yet one day a man entered the store: a greatly rich and honored man. He saw the harp and gave everything he had to possess this harp. The man sold all that he owned, everything to his name, and spent it all to buy the cost of this broken harp.

The man set about to play the harp and despite all of the man's skill the harp, with its numerous faults, could not play the music, not the way it should sound. Thus the harp wept.

The honored man asked, "Why do you cry?" The harp answered, "Because I am not worthy of you, master, and certainly not the price you payed. And I cannot even serve you in your music. To what good do you want me?" The man said, "Your worth does not come from what you are. It comes from who I am, and what I paid for you."

grave

2009-10-28T13:46:00.000-07:00

He could not help but smile. It was a lot of money but entirely worth the expense and more. Every blooming flower, every carvéd rock. People would know his name and dream to be him. How marvelous, how beautiful it all would be. He drew untold comfort from knowing that all would be right once he was in the ground. He almost could not wait to die.

§ § §

He felt sick. Like a dog. If only he were a dog. He had nothing to leave his family. He would be more of a burden in death than in life. If only he could just go lost. Just run off into the woods. Like an animal. Why does something like death have to be complicated?

rahne

2009-10-28T13:07:00.000-07:00

Bill Sienkiewicz

#15

2009-10-08T09:53:00.000-07:00

Well I liberated this blog from my geekery for long enough. I think it is time enough for me to immerse myself back in my tormential chains.

So a site I frequent had been heaping high praise on a TV show that has been airing the past couple years. I had seen promos for the show before its release and just shrugged it off. I didn't especially care for the look and the feel I thought they were trying. Due to the property they were making a show out of, I was still willing to give it a look but as with any TV show nowadays, I don't schedule to watch it and thus they pass me by and I generally am left unconcerned with the loss. But then I started seeing praise for this series I had let pass by me and I actually started to somewhat regret not following the show, but not enough to really make an impression. Then the previously-mentioned site dropped a fact about the show that really spiked my interest. The creator for the show was responsible for a show I highly enjoyed in the early to mid 90s. So now I was given a stronger kick to pursue some means to watch the show. What show? The Spectacular Spider-Man. (Hey, why's everyone leaving?)

Yes, yes, I am that guy. I watch cartoons. Or at least I would. If I watched much TV anymore.

Anyways, Spider-Man is an interesting property for me. Personally I think he is almost the perfect superhero ideal for me. Which actually isn't saying that he is my favorite character. He is an ideal, a model of the genre. My most memorable experience with the Webhead was around 6th grade, in the height of the comic craze of the early 90s. I didn't buy many comics, though I ate up any story/card/show/book I could get with especially the Marvel characters. My best source was the library which had collections of the Silver Age origins of many of the Marvel characters. I enjoyed these immensely but none more so than Spider-Man's. Whereas the Fantastic Four may have best exemplified the Silver Age growth in comics, and put Jack Kirby on the map, Amazing Fantasy #15 and then Amazing Spider-Man I feel actually reached beyond the Silver Age and began the movement to the Modern Age all the way back in 1961. I could talk about this topic for far too long a time so I will leave it as a statement with no evidence. The best way to write. All that to say, Steve Ditko and Stan Lee made an impression on me with the (not-so) merry adventures of Peter Parker.

3 points if you can name the artist(s)

I have since read up to just shy of the death of Gwen Stacy. I have read other snippets here and there and am aware of some of the happenings of the Webbed One, but have never especially gotten back into reading Spider-Man. I think the task seems daunting, and I am not sure how to fill out some of my reading gaps, or how to construct the continuity when there were 4+ series going in tandem. Or perhaps it is the knowledge that the series can in no way keep up the Ditko-Romita glory days in my estimations. I also have to have something stir up one of my personal binge periods.

My Spidey background poorly explained: check. Onto the show.

I found a means to watch some of the episodes of Spectacular Spider-Man and have made it through the first season and a little ways into the second. The most enjoyable thing about the first episode was that they drop, by my count, 13 villains in the first episode. Not all are villains yet, and not all are the main conflict of the episode, but they show you what you are in for right off the bat. (My count: Norman Osborn, Harry Osborn, Octavius, Clint Marko, Eddie Brock, Hammerhead, The Enforcers (that's 3 people), the Vulture, the Rhino, Curt Connors, and a shadowy figure who gets revealed later so I won't spoil it.) And then of course the supporting cast, Aunt May, Gwen, Harry, Flash, Kong (from the Ultimate line), JJJ, the Robertsons, Betty, Liz Allen, etc. Yes, Mary Jane is absent at first (thank you). They take the approach that Lee-Ditko-Romita took for her introduction.

I hesitate to add this... Don't judge the show on the intro.

The show is able to execute a lot of what makes the Spider-Man property so fun. But I think the biggest drawback is their scheduling. The first season is 13 episodes, and I think they felt they needed to fit so many different things in that amount of time that it hindered their exploration of the characters they do have. Don't misunderstand me though, they are doing a good job with the characters, and using each episode to build the characters for the next, but with a new villain each episode and pushing for key moments, etc., they don't have time to sit back and grow these characters properly. Eddie Brock for example: they draw from Bendis' approach in Ultimate Spider-Man for Eddie and Peter's relationship (which I think is a good idea). But his character arc seems to stumble through a few steps to get him to his more venomous moments (or I missed an episode...). I think it could have been built up much better if they gave him more time.

This is also a problem of any re-envisioning of classic stories. People push so hard for the classic stories that you bypass the years of buildup that made those classic stories work so well. It is a problem with comic book movies, the Ultimates line, the cartoons, etc. Anyways, there is a few other ways this shows up in the series, but Brock is probably the best example.

Then of course there's Peter's love life. Stan Lee always loved his love triangles, and Peter's had a few. But they were always triangles. The cartoon has introduced all of the classic Spidey love interests all at once... Which is a bit excessive. A few of these characters have been tweaked as well. Gwen got the Mary Jane Ultimate Spidey treatment for example. They are finally starting to step back on some of these and focus more on a triangle, which helps them progress things more smoothly.

There's also some of the eye-rolling high school moments. But I still think it is the right setting for the cartoon. There's just some stupid moments I have to persist through because of it.

There is also the art style. It is almost a funnies style look when you first see it. I don't mind cartoony stylization but this looked like The Batman series again. However seeing it in motion has been a different experience. It actually has a bit of a Humberto Ramos look to some of the designs. They do some great storyboarding as well for the action especially. Well except for the football scenes. I have only two annoyances now with the style. The pupil-less eyes and the look of Venom. Peter's eyes are the most distracting with their nonpupils because his iris pretty much fills his eye thus making him look like he has button eyes. As for Venom, there's just something about his look that doesn't work for me when it is in motion. I have yet to put my finger on what it is. He just doesn't look fluid, he looks like a block.

Humberto Ramos

But overall the series captures a bit of the Spidey magic from my youth. Well actually from someone else's youth, but I stole it for my youth, too. It is far from perfect, but I would say it is a more inspired take than the movies have been for me. Though in the movies defense, it can't produce the serialized storytelling that a show can. And Spider-Man can only truly be told that way for my tastes. Here's hoping the establishment of most of the big name villains will allow the series to start growing in more freedom and invention. I have already been seeing this freedom in the second season.

And of course as I am getting into the series I learn that it is a bit of limbo right now. Sony lost the Spider-Man TV rights and DisneyMarvel hasn't yet given them the go ahead on another season. It would seem like a slam dunk with the quality reviews that are coming in, but I don't know the ratings or if there could be political hangups. I also learned that being under Sony limited the characters they could use in the cartoon. So if they do get renewed they could have more freedom in the Marvel universe. Hopefully they would handle an expansion like that carefully.

Or I can just wait for the musical!

Checklist:
Peter: A bit of a jerk at times, but I look at it as he's still learning his Uncle's lesson.
Aunt May: Better than the comics so far.
Gwen: Not the same to me. Like I said earlier, Mary Jane from Ultimate Spidey.
Harry: Annoying as always.
Norman: I'm looking forward to exploring his machinations.
Green Goblin: Not sure yet. I'm sure we'll see more.
Flash: Too over the top.
Kong: Umm, needed but still over the top.
JJJ: Movie inspired. That's fine.
Betty: Dealt with and done. Good.
Randy: Now that's a man's voice.
Robbie: Or his father's voice... that's weird.
MJ: Not as annoying as she was originally in the comics, still says tiger too much, heh.
Liz: Hmm, Allen does not make me think ethnic.
Eddie: Ultimates approach: good; full exploring his motivations: bad.
The Conners: They do a good job of bringing them into the picture. Works for me.
Vulture: Beyond an odd color choice, good.
Enforcers: Decent modernization.
Sandman: Wait, he didn't kill Uncle Ben?! They did fine with Marko.
Rhino: Fine.
Chameleon: Nice take on a classic story.
Doc Ock: Fine. Made better in the second season. Movie-inspired look.
Electro: Zappity zap. Good redesign, though the tubes are odd.
Shocker: Origin switch. That's fine.
Black Cat: Done right.
Mysterio: Yep.
Kraven: Felt like those fellows from Gargoyles. Didn't like the post-op Kraven.
Captain Stacy: Happy to see him included.

Gotta give Skottie Young some love.

retraction

2009-10-02T23:45:00.000-07:00

Well now they've gone and made my posts full of lies and deceit. They have brought Nate Grey back to life.

coincidence

2009-09-28T08:11:00.000-07:00

I read a book yesterday. It was entertaining, but there were certain aspects that bothered me. One of which was the string of coincidences that it took to construct the story. Now, I've never done any sort of informed study on coincidence in narrative, or discussed it to any great length with anyone but the voices in my head... err, umm, ignore that last comment... but I've been working out my own little theories etc., recently, and now you shall fall victim to my ramblings and said topic. Or you'll go away and not read this.

I think a major coincidence can be used in narrative, but I think its best usage is when it is the initial crux of a story. That coincidence can be the reason the story is worth telling in the first place. The problems arise when coincidence is used to bridge some plot points because the storyteller doesn't take the time to think out a logical filling to their hole. I would imagine much of this is done without thinking on the storyteller's part. They just see the resolution and fail to think about the full impact.

Now, what I have found, from both myself and others, is that if the audience is sold on the story they will usually overlook these monumental coincidences. They are at this point along for the ride and will buy anything the story throws their way. When people are fully immersed in their entertainment, that is the world they perceive in, and they believe what they are told. There often takes some sort of mental disconnect for people to start seeing plot holes and incongruities and the more painful brand of coincidences.

An example of this would be the most recent Star Trek movie. I was discussing it with a friend who enjoyed the movie much more than myself (though I did enjoy it, just to a limited degree). And I cited one of my complaints as a very large coincidence that occurs in the middle of the movie in order to get some major cogs in the mix. He had not thought about it because he was fully immersed whereas I was being a bit stuck up about the whole thing and looking for holes. (This does not make me a better critic. In fact, I think I have lost something in my audienceship that often removes me from my story experiences. That is a discussion for another time. (probably never, heh) So again, it does not make me a better critic, it makes me more of a naysayer who does not represent the worthwhile audience, and thus should probably not be speaking. (That was your queue to stop reading.)) Anyways, in this example, the coincidence is a very crucial bridge/information dump to get the final resolution in motion. If I wasn't out of the movie before, this really took me out, and then I started finding other nonsensical circumstances etc.

I would say the thing to look for in a coincidence is whether or not it betters the story. Not the effects of the incident but the incident itself. The very fact that it is a coincidence needs to be worthwhile to the efforts of the story. Otherwise things start feeling unsettled. Now again, the beginning, or the beginning of the crux is often a fine place for a coincidence. An example; I have heard Dickens referred to as a wide user of coincidence. I have limited experience with him, and all I can recall from what I have read is the major crux of A Tale of Two Cities being built on a rather rare coincidence. However, if you took this away, or made it a logical conclusion (like if they were brothers, or perhaps related) I honestly don't think the story was worth telling. Often even in non-fictional storytelling, it is the coincidence that makes the story get told.

Now, what exactly falls victim to the usage of an unneeded coincidence? What does it hurt? Well the first thing would be believability. Now one might argue, "So you are arguing for believability in a movie called Star Trek... are you seeing a disconnect, Mr. Selfimportantblogperson." Well yes, any fictional story permits any degree of coincidence, and some degree of believability gets thrown out the window when every you watch a movie steeped in fantasy, future or faery. But coincidence is a universal occurrence and people have a limited tolerability towards it, and if you rely on it too awkwardly you will start dropping the curtain hiding the man controlling the show.

Another victim to the coincidence is the storyteller misses a key opportunity to build their characters. When you make the event happen outside of the character they are not movers. This works well to start out, but you want to start making your characters movers of events, even if they are moving wrongly and faulted. There is a place for a character needing to react to things out of their control, in which case they aren't the mover but that is what you have other characters and systems for. Save the coincidence for the initiation of the story (or again a key beginning).

I have seen another approach to this, which was quite ingenious, though potentially dangerous to the story. (I bet Robert Jordan/James Rigney danced a jig when he thought this idea up). And that is build into your world system a means for a coincidence to actually make rational sense. Now, you need to again be wary of the second problem I discussed, and not over use this to the detriment of making the characters active in their problems and resolutions, but despite many other things that went wrong with the series, I don't feel that his use of the rational coincidence was detrimental.

Now there is another important factor to discuss: I believe in divine providence. So is my reluctance to accept an amazing coincidence to resolve a plot gap but would rather the human factor be key in bringing about the resolution my personal desire for humanity to control its destiny? Am I doubting God when I have this natural aversion to coincidence for resolution? I would argue no. Though there may be more substance to these questions than I would like to admit. But I will ignore that substance to make myself feel better. (Okay that's not entirely true, but I have no idea where I'd go with it in the midst of this writing. Heck, I'm having a doozy of a time trying to start this next paragraph as it is.)

I am growing amazed by the number of various discussions this just created in my head. (Did I just admit to having voices in my head again? Drat!) And there are certainly far more I have yet to stumble on. Several more, which my limits hinder me from stumbling upon. I feel bad ending this at an unresolved point which is probably my most interesting of the write, but I cannot find a means to resolve the can I just opened. Especially not succinctly, and I have already out-written a digestible length of blogspeak.

face

2009-09-18T10:46:00.000-07:00

I had built it all on a fact. A fact that was more of a wish. A wish that was a clump of sand. Sand that poured from my hand.

Now to what do I turn? When I thought I was following the way. Can I hear the wind off the mountain? Can I see the break of the forever day?

In the land of a burning thirst. Upon my weary legs and heart. I lift my eyes to a sun that blinds. Left feeling the sound of my distance.

To where is a shore, a river? I can not commit to a direction. Which leaves me retreading my fading pace. Where shall I rest or where shall I fall?

Laying in dust is a cold bed. Laying in fear is a fevered dream. Laying in death is an end to it. Yet thus the sphere breaks upon my face.

soulish

2009-09-12T13:05:00.000-07:00

In honor of buying a Disneyland annual pass:

Jason realized his mistake at 3:32:21 am. He had already sold his soul to his dentist last year. And he couldn't take the car back now. Maybe the dentist and the dealer wouldn't realize it. Maybe only one would ever need to make use of his soul at any given time. But what if?

He laid there sweating in his bed. Thinking of all the possibilities. Would they break his legs? Take his home? Follow behind him and recite his college Calculus text book with the voice of Ben Stein?

"I really need to start offering my first-born."

forest

2009-09-08T19:50:00.000-07:00

Quelled: the fire of day. Scorned: the path of water. They tell of the coming of the one who would free them. But they pursued the chains of the wolf. They danced to the empty night. They sang to the fox and the boar. What do they see in their dead fires? How do they keep the gold in their hearts? The dark is in their ears. Their talk is the wine of the dirge. How can they feast? How can we stand?

wind

2009-08-24T13:37:00.000-07:00

He had finally come to the end. It was much quieter than he had been expecting. There was just a wind and a light song. At times he thought the song was the wind. He could never figure out the tone of the song. He thought it might have been a sad dark song, then a serene peace, or perhaps an ironic joke. It looked like he would never find out now. He tried to hum it as he crested the end. Suddenly the words to the song exploded in his head. And he wept.

jack

2009-08-08T20:31:00.000-07:00

Peripheral vision: gray shaggy, a frozen laugh on a cell phone. Old couple, dragging and chattering. More heard than seen as I create the rules. Smile! Jesus Loves You! New rules. White bike; ack! Tree. And noise. Blocked by a happy old man. Being chauffeured by an apparent daughter in blood, law, or spirit.

Green, white, red. Blue parked. Little girl playing with a laundry cart against her doorstep. Turns to look with a pacifier half the size of her face. String of people, tailed by a cell phone. Another laundry cart and a hard hat(?). I hope the coin laundry knows people are walking off with their carts. "Grab my hand!"

Root beer float and donuts... Green, white, green. Something creative, something creative, nope. Royal old chairs. Dry weeded fountains. Awesome, actually. A road blocked with laughter.

I wonder if that creates any arguments. You might as well mow the fellow's lawn, you're already fertilizing it. Awesome dog. Not so awesome dog, dog, cat. "Hi" - her; "Hello" - me. Huh, these lots are deeper than I thought. What is that person watering? And this person is just watering their lawn. "... every day, hun." Heh, I made him jump.

No parking in the park parking lot from sunset to 7:00 am. I regret to inform you, Mr. Park, that you do not have a parking lot for me not to park in. Music. Party. A neighbor is out reading, enjoying the shared music. Or protecting his home from the party. Football: dribble, dribble, dribble. She apparently wants to be as far from the party as she can get without leaving the property. And this fellow the same, but in the next lot. Oh, that's cause he's smoking. Cough. Rewind. Perhaps I should bite before I chew. Live play.

No parking at Parkin Gardens. But there's a move-in special! And an excavation. Two paths. Hesitation. Sidewalk. Oldies? Maybe not. Why thank you for sharing your music. Neon lights for a beauty salon. Taco nachos. Free car. Fresh fruit cup and cut.