Friday, December 30, 2011

Oh Heck, I'm Going To Be Political Again

I don't do this very much.


No, seriously, I don't. Look back at my archives. I mean, there was this one about voting...but before that? Not a lot. And for good reason: I don't want this to be a political blog, because I am lazy intellectually. I don't want to have to think hard about politics. It's too much effort.


But tonight--


The topic du jour is the New York Times' questions to Republican candidates about their views on the limits of presidential power. I think this is a great idea: it forces the candidates to publicly define their conception of the limits of the office they aspire to hold.


My uninformed opinion of the candidates responses are below. Keep in mind that this is MY opinion, and that it's my OPINION. I'm not trying to make absolute statements about the candidates. If you, adoring masses, disagree with me, that's fine. Comment and let me know your thoughts.

  • Newt Gingrich speaks in sound bites. Does he think in sound bites? Or is the brevity of his answers calculated, to pander to the short attention spans of readers?
  • Jon Huntsman loves to talk precedent.
  • Mitt Romney repeatedly references the past.
  • Rick Perry does the cookie-cutter thing: he used the following sentence to begin his answers almost 50% of the time. "The Constitution clearly vests in the President full executive authority, and an absolute duty, to protect the nation when vital American security interests are at stake. "
  • Ron Paul continues to cement his legacy as one of the most consistent presidential candidates in a long while.
  • Paul's answer to the "Interrogation and Surveillance" question cracks me up.
I still don't know which of these candidates will receive my vote--if any of them do. Paul's answers are perhaps the most reassuring, however: he seems to have a firm conception of the boundaries of the office of President.

So...yeah.

Long live impulse!

Thursday, December 29, 2011

Out of the Canyon: An Essay

The following is an essay I wrote in the fall of 2010. I recently unearthed it, and it expresses so fully some of what's been on my mind recently regarding the West and creativity and all that--I just decided to post it. It's a bit of a long read, but I'd appreciate feedback.

Out of the Canyon
Black Canyon of the Gunnison, July 8, 2010

The Coleman lantern perches on the the bench of the picnic table beside me. The mantles, tiny suns the size of quarters, fling their incendiary glare into the darkest corners of the primitive mountain campsite in which I sit. I hold my book angled to catch the pale yellow rays. On an adjacent mountainpeak, a coyote sings the blues. I lift my head at the hollow howl, then return to my book.

--my book! It is a deep ocean of narrative. Currents of plot seize me, overpower me, enthrall me. Characters surface, as mysterious and foreign as the shark from Jaws, grip me, carry me away with them. And booming like the bass song of the surf, attacking then receding, are the waves of what I call the Glory. The Glory--everything in a book that touches me. Perhaps they are splashes of theme, or swirls of literary device. Symbolism. Parallelism. Point of view. Every stylistic brushstroke, every intoxicating emotion, all the elements that catch hold of my heart and will not let go. I have been dragged far, far below the surface of my novel. Not even the contemplative passage of a raccoon through the campsite can bring me to the surface. The raccoon continues on its amiable way towards the dumpsters, and I swim deeper into the ocean that is The Big Sleep.

The blunted roar of flammable gas from the Coleman--it catches, hesitates, and then resumes. Then it falters again, and apologetically expires. The not-darkness of a full-moon night dissolves onto me. I pull myself, dripping, out of the murky depths. I shake my mind's fist at Raymond Chandler, Creator of those depths, author of their intoxicating allure. I stretch, I yawn, I look around me.

and then

OUT OF NOWHERE

I feel the open-handed slap of that otherworldly something I cannot even begin to describe. Sometimes I feel the slap when I see the snow skirling into its drifts down by Lake Michigan. Sometimes I feel the slap when I sit in class and watch the world lurch on its axis--out of sheer boredom. Sometimes I feel the slap when I stand at the top of one of the dozens of old fire towers that dot Wisconsin's natural forests, and I see Autumn's chuckling match set to the green summery leaves, and they ignite.

When I feel the slap--when I see the world lurch and rearrange itself subtly--something happens to me. Perhaps I make a resolution to change my ways and be a better man. Perhaps I write a poem which I will never revise. Perhaps I only plan to write a poem...or a short story...or a novel...or a cycle of novels...

If I plan, though, and I do not do--if I only plan, I never do.

I feel that slap now, on the mountaintop in Colorado. I pull my cell phone from my pocket, grimace at the cracked screen, and peer at the display. No signal. It's shortly after midnight. I am here alone. The Big Sleep bends forgotten on my chair. I look out over the short scrub around the campsite, and suddenly I see my America, stretched out beneath me. The country, the whole country, in four dimensions, its history as real as its height, its width, its depth.

Raymond Chandler's hard-boiled detective (and why do we call Philip Marlowe hard-boiled? is he an egg? No, he is a piece of jerky, lean and tough and salty and unprepossessing and somehow very endearing) is my brother. He drives through torrential rains outside Los Angeles to right wrongs, a fedoraed white knight riding a mechanical steed. And I sit in the back seat of his car, 71 years later, breathless as his dramatic life continues to unfold so unassumingly and honestly.

Was Philip Marlowe a real man? Well, technically speaking, no. But speaking technically is speaking unimaginatively--and speaking emotionlessly. "So did Philip Marlowe exist?" I ask my conscience. And my conscience grudgingly admits, "Yes. For the last two hours he existed. For the last two hours you looked over his very real shoulder as he found the tacks in the road, uncovered psychosis and perversion, crossed and double-crossed and triple-crossed. You saw him win--you saw him lose. You shared his secret thoughts. You know him. You are his brother."

As I lean back, still stretching, and stare at the Jackson Pollock sky, I realize what the slap is telling me. The universe that Philip Marlowe inhabits: it is mine as well. I have partaken of his story, just for this evening, and we now share this plane of existence. The cast of characters in my universe grows with every book I read: Samwise Gamgee, Holden Caulfield, Ishmael and Queequeg, Sherlock Holmes, Anne Shirley, Randall Flagg, Jack Reacher, Laura Ingalls Wilder, David Webb (but everyone knows him as Jason Bourne), Sam Spade, Nicholas Nickleby, Jack Ryan, Hercule Poirot, Lady Macbeth, Lennie Small, Lord Peter Wimsey, the poor hapless Baudelaires: all of them wander somewhere in my universe.

I am what I read.

--and, like a puff of wind, my muse flees.

The sage palisading the campsite smells like untamed lavender.



That's it. What did you think?

Long live dredging!

Monday, December 26, 2011

The Slack-Jawed "WHAT?"

I have friends, believe it or not, friends who are In Touch with popular culture (or, as I believe the kids are calling it these days, "popped culture", though I might be wrong about that). I myself am not particularly culture-savvy. I mean, I know that the Spiderman movies are the hot new superhero thing, what with Tobias Macguire (son of Mark Macguire, famous football player). And I hear that Mr. Marshall Mathers has been releasing several new songs to the public, some of his rappings. But I'm not...In Touch with popular culture the way a lot of people are.

In all seriousness, I'm rather interested by the bug-eyed, slack-jawed "WHAT!?!?!!!" reaction I get when I:

a) announce that I'm unfamiliar with some apparently pivotal part of American popular culture.

HER: Just like in Jaws!
ME: I never actually saw Jaws.
HER: WHAT!?!?!?!!!
b) announce that I don't appreciate an apparently pivotal part of American popular culture.

HIM: Listen, it's a Michael Jackson song!
ME: Yech, I really don't like Michael Jackson.
HIM: WHAT!?!?!?!!!
I have actually begun to predict when the WHAT!?!?!?!!! will happen. Some things are WHAT-worthy (I never saw The Big Lebowski. WHAT!?!?!?!!!), and some things are not (I don't really like the little-known John Carpenter-penned sci-fi film The Philadelphia Experiment. *crickets*).

The WHAT!?!?!?!!! is beginning to get to me. It's a knee-jerk reaction, of course, but the underlying mentality is rather disturbing. It betrays this conception that there is a certain pool of experience from which everyone usually drinks, and if you don't drink from it, you're...weird. While I accept the existence of the pool, I don't appreciate the judgement.

I try to follow my own tastes. It doesn't always work, of course: I am more likely to see a film if it receives approbation from critical observers. But I'm trying to develop my own critical palate. It's depressing, every time I hear a WHAT!?!?!?!!!, to remember that the majority of consumers in America (and possibly worldwide, but I'll only stretch my uninformed opinion so far) willingly drink from the popular pool of experience, and don't think about what they're drinking.

Long live semi-independent thought!


UNSPOOLING: Yellowstone Kelly

I'm nothing if not opportunistic, some of the time. (Perhaps that means that the rest of the time, I am nothing, but that's a monologue for another day.) I was cruising the darkest reaches of Netflix last night, searching for something new to watch, and I found a '50s western called Yellowstone Kelly that was only available for streaming until January 1. Naturally, I watched it.


Boy, am I glad I did.


I'm not sure if I love the Western genre or if I despise it. There's plenty of room for creativity: with the colorful, varied history and the variety of scenery the American West provides, there's no excuse for formulaism. Regrettably, too many studios churned out cookie-cutter lawman flicks in the '30s, '40s, and '50s, with the result that the market became oversaturated. Today, many consider the Western a dying genre.


Either way, Yellowstone Kelly was not cookie-cutter. It was unique. It was different. It used some traditional cliches, especially narratively. Its characters were fairly well-drawn. The cinematography was excellent.


A few positive points stood out to me, in particular. First, the fistfights: any Western worth its salt will have at least one fistfight. Audiences expect it, and it's a good way to build tension between characters without seriously injuring or killing any of them. My problem with most fistfights, especially in the heyday of the Western, is that they're more like boxing matches: the fighters seem to think that leg strikes and other grappling techniques are forbidden. And honestly? Nobody boxes in real life. If it's a fight, you're mad, and you'll do whatever you can to hurt the other guy. You're not going to just punch him.


Thankfully, Yellowstone Kelly broke the mold. I noted with approval that the titular character used elbows, knees, kicks, and even a clothesline to take down his opponents. It was fresh, it was new, and it was appreciated.


There was also a nice bit of parallelism, parallelism for which I saw the potential fairly early on, but didn't expect to be fleshed out. I won't give it away, but it revolves around two similar relationships focused on a single MacGuffin. I was very pleasantly surprised by the literate nature of the parallelism.


Perhaps I enjoyed Yellowstone Kelly more because it's set in my favorite part of America, the Northern West (Montana, Wyoming, Idaho). That fact, coupled with the glorious cinematography, may have biased me to enjoy the film more than I would have otherwise. Full disclosure here, people.


I give Yellowstone Kelly 4 Reels on Ian's Totally Subjective Film Rating System.









Long live gems!

Saturday, December 24, 2011

The Quick 'Un

Hello, friends!

Want to be smooth and suave and awesome?

Google the following text.

sqrt(cos(x))*cos(200x) +sqrt(abs(x))-0.7)*(4-x*x)^0.01, sqrt(9-x^2) from -4.5 to 4.5

My jaw dropped. Did yours?

Long live innovation!

Thursday, December 22, 2011

Delete Friend?

I promise, this isn't going to be a Ludite rant.


So I use the Facebook, and I tweet the Twitter (by the way, can we please agree that snarkily adding definite articles before popular social-media websites is just the worst?). I am Involved on Facebook and Twitter. Sometimes, "friends" annoy me, usually by being idiots or consistently spelling "consistently" wrong.


So I block them.


And then I feel like this:


Great success.


Let's put aside the question "is it right to feel this way toward your fellow man?" We're putting it aside because we already know the answer: "No, most certainly not." The question I'm interested in is "why do I feel so happy when I block idiots?"


Some answers:



  • I don't have to look at their misspellings any more.


  • It gives me a feeling of power--I can dictate who's in my life and who isn't.


  • There's a remote chance that they totally idolized me and now they'll see that I'm gone from their lives and that'll force them to change their ways and before ya know it, they'll be back on the straight and narrow, and I just set some kind of record for Most Contractions Used In A Sentence.


  • Wait, what? Look back at the second answer I gave.



I can dictate who's a part of my life and who isn't.


Facebook, and to a lesser extent Twitter, provides me with the power to kind-of-absolutely-control my existence. I can even delete people from my life if I want, if "life" here is equated to "profile" or "brand" or "online presence" or whatever it is to be called. The point is that I can erase people from my universe.


That's not a form of--of murder, is it?


If in real life I find someone annoying, there are a few ways I can remove that annoyance from my life. I can physically remove myself from their vicinity (analogous to deactivating an account). But that's a retreat. That's an admission that the annoyance has defeated me.


I can seek to avoid them, ignore them, analogous to "un-friending". But they're still out there, and they tend to turn up like bad pennies when I least want to see them or hear from them.


So what remains?


I dunno. Now I feel guilty about blocking people.


Great success, conscience!


Long live maundering...

Sunday, December 18, 2011

UNSPOOLING: Pontypool

What the HECK did I just watch?


The simple answer is "Pontypool, a 2009 Canadian horror-thriller".


But things aren't that simple.


Is it a sermon preaching the gospel of postmodernism?


Is it the most innovative zombie movie of the last decade?


Is it a triumph of low-budget filmmaking?


Is it a story that absolutely defies definitive interpretation?


Is it a masterpiece of experiential fiction?


It's all of those things, and it's none of them.


This one will take a while for me to fully unpack. It's not a movie everyone will enjoy. It has quite a bit of language and some fairly gory gore. It's a movie for discerning viewers.


There are too many thoughts whirling through my head right now, too many to comprehend, too many to enunciate. Pontypool is one of the best films I've seen in a long time. And for that, it gets 5 Reels in Ian's Totally Subjective Film Rating System. See this movie! You won't regret it.



Long live slack-jawedness!