Onboard memory… ENGAGE!
Dexter does not work the way I want him to. He does not work for the following reasons:
What I need, for this to work my way, is a character who is conscious of the violence they enact and doing so willfully, thereby making a literature of violence, making a language of it, using it to communicate, to tell stories.
If it’s used to satisfy an urge, then it has a possibility of working, just because it can be conceptually construed as having no other outlet than the violence: the story cannot be correctly told.
Dexter does not work. Yes, he is conscious of the violence he enacts, but the part of him that does the work itself is dissociated from him, from the narrator, from the character. It becomes the Dark Passenger telling a story and using Dexter to do so—which is exactly NOT what I want or need for this to stand a chance of happening.
I need violence to be a mode of communication of the self, self expression. Dexter is interesting because it IS expression, but not of him—it’s the Dark Passenger’s expression, the Dark Passenger using Dexter to tell these stories, to somehow communicate with the outside world that he only gets to reach when this violence occurs.
The Dexter of the novels is very much two personas: Dexter himself, and the Dark Passenger. In the show it seemed, for a moment or so (more like a season), that the man who killed was all there was. There was nothing making him do it; he did it because it was the way things HAD to work, for things to get done.
BOOK
With the Dark Passenger so deeply involved in these interactions, there is no longer any self: Dexter surrenders to the Dark Passenger: The narration is generally first person and the Dark Passenger is referred to as it, never giving it much physical effect. When the Dark Passenger “takes the wheel”, it becomes “we” instead of an “it” and an “I”.
/BOOK
For all of this to work for me and on my terms, the one who violences needs to be an “I”—it has to be present and aggressive and active. It CANNOT be passive and passenger-like.
What would work is the following: if Dexter and the Dark Passenger switched places—if Dexter was the presence in the head of the Dark Passenger, then all of the action would have no other choice except to be active and aggressive. One cannot tell a story by doing nothing!
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Quick Thoughts
What is it to be bound by the power and magic of names?
Warren Ellis makes a very interesting point through his character Don Bastardos aka Fidel Castro in the second issue of Doktor Sleepless. Bastardos brings up the point that a drug fell out of pop culture favor when it became known that said drug had a different name which was much less palatable. With the name more sterile and medical than, say, adventurous or wanderlust evocative, the drug disappeared.
From what I’ve observed, western magical tradition is most involved with having the right name to call a deity or spirit or some other such being. If one has the right name, one controls the not-human.
And to think that the not-human was, you know, NOT human, right? To not be bound by the same set of problems and workings as we are, what would that be like, how much magic could one make of all this, this stuff, unformed and just waiting to be wrought into a thing so beauteous that… words just fail.
BUT!
“To be in any form, what is that?”
Warren Ellis makes a very interesting point through his character Don Bastardos aka Fidel Castro in the second issue of Doktor Sleepless. Bastardos brings up the point that a drug fell out of pop culture favor when it became known that said drug had a different name which was much less palatable. With the name more sterile and medical than, say, adventurous or wanderlust evocative, the drug disappeared.
From what I’ve observed, western magical tradition is most involved with having the right name to call a deity or spirit or some other such being. If one has the right name, one controls the not-human.
And to think that the not-human was, you know, NOT human, right? To not be bound by the same set of problems and workings as we are, what would that be like, how much magic could one make of all this, this stuff, unformed and just waiting to be wrought into a thing so beauteous that… words just fail.
BUT!
“To be in any form, what is that?”
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Violence
It's back. And it's possible. I can feel it.
Dexter is the crux, I just have to work it right.
It's time for the second run.
And this time around, it might just work.
***side note***
This is going to turn into a digital note pad for the violence business.
You're just going to have to deal with it, aren't you?
Dexter is the crux, I just have to work it right.
It's time for the second run.
And this time around, it might just work.
***side note***
This is going to turn into a digital note pad for the violence business.
You're just going to have to deal with it, aren't you?
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Some Words on SciFi
I've found that there are an overwhelming amount of people who do not respect science fiction. I was, in fact, laughed at (no bullshit) for saying that I liked to read science fiction.
I remember talking to one of my professors in school, and I was shocked when he told me that SF and Fantasy are not respected as genres, by and large, by the academic community. This seems absolutely ridiculous to me for many reasons, not the least of which is that the genre called "Magical Realism" or "Slipstream" (of which Jorge Luis Borges reigns supreme and Haruki Murakami figures promenently) is legitimate in academia. This is fine, but I feel as though it is a branch of SF, just like Steampunk and Cyberpunk.
Main point being, books like The Lord of the Rings and Dune and authors like Philip K. Dick and Philip Pullman are thrown to the wayside with incredible speed. There is a large difference between not liking SF and laughing at it. I, as a fan, have issues with it: it's phenonmenally difficult to write SF well, to write it in a compelling manner such that your reader does not drop it for either lack of ability to understand all of the new information being thrown at them, or simple disinterest. To write SF well, one needs to create a universe, and that is NOTHING to scoff at. Look at the biographies of Tolkien and Frank Herbert, and from there it's easy a fraction of the work put into these worlds.
One point, though it is not fair to make as much as it is worth considering, is that good SF is more difficult to write than good regular fiction, whatever that means. One has to create a world that is potentially based on the one we inhabit, and make new languages, hierarchies, never before thought of systems of operation (including, but not limited to, computers, lifestyles, occupations, etc.)... essentially a whole new everything, and very few people understand this.
Imagination at its finest, I believe, is embodied in creation. And what better way to showcase it, than writing a new place to exist and function?
I remember talking to one of my professors in school, and I was shocked when he told me that SF and Fantasy are not respected as genres, by and large, by the academic community. This seems absolutely ridiculous to me for many reasons, not the least of which is that the genre called "Magical Realism" or "Slipstream" (of which Jorge Luis Borges reigns supreme and Haruki Murakami figures promenently) is legitimate in academia. This is fine, but I feel as though it is a branch of SF, just like Steampunk and Cyberpunk.
Main point being, books like The Lord of the Rings and Dune and authors like Philip K. Dick and Philip Pullman are thrown to the wayside with incredible speed. There is a large difference between not liking SF and laughing at it. I, as a fan, have issues with it: it's phenonmenally difficult to write SF well, to write it in a compelling manner such that your reader does not drop it for either lack of ability to understand all of the new information being thrown at them, or simple disinterest. To write SF well, one needs to create a universe, and that is NOTHING to scoff at. Look at the biographies of Tolkien and Frank Herbert, and from there it's easy a fraction of the work put into these worlds.
One point, though it is not fair to make as much as it is worth considering, is that good SF is more difficult to write than good regular fiction, whatever that means. One has to create a world that is potentially based on the one we inhabit, and make new languages, hierarchies, never before thought of systems of operation (including, but not limited to, computers, lifestyles, occupations, etc.)... essentially a whole new everything, and very few people understand this.
Imagination at its finest, I believe, is embodied in creation. And what better way to showcase it, than writing a new place to exist and function?
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Warren Ellis and His Work
Warren Ellis is a writer who has rocked various genres. Visit his homepage to find out what's in his brain. Search for him on amazon to find a bibliography. .
Anyway, two weeks ago, the week of July 23rd, was a big week for him. His first novel, Crooked Little Vein, hit the stands, and the next day the first issues of two new comic books he's writing hit the stands as well. These two new comics are Doktor Sleepless, and Black Summer.
For those who have not read Transmetropolitan yet, I highly recommend it. A brilliant critique of the future of America. A future that's not so distant that one cannot see the relations between now and the later/present presented. It is not for the weak or feeble minded, so if you think yourself among them, run now.
I came to tell that Ellis knows his audience incredibly well. After all, he built it from the ground up. People like me have been worked over by the meme that is Warren Ellis' persona.
All three of these books are filled to the brim (overflowing, in the case of Doktor Sleepless) with the Strange and the Weird. Ellis' love for these is immense.
Anyway, I was going to say more, but I decided to go and read Doktor Sleepless and Black Summer again. So good-bye.
Anyway, two weeks ago, the week of July 23rd, was a big week for him. His first novel, Crooked Little Vein, hit the stands, and the next day the first issues of two new comic books he's writing hit the stands as well. These two new comics are Doktor Sleepless, and Black Summer.
For those who have not read Transmetropolitan yet, I highly recommend it. A brilliant critique of the future of America. A future that's not so distant that one cannot see the relations between now and the later/present presented. It is not for the weak or feeble minded, so if you think yourself among them, run now.
I came to tell that Ellis knows his audience incredibly well. After all, he built it from the ground up. People like me have been worked over by the meme that is Warren Ellis' persona.
All three of these books are filled to the brim (overflowing, in the case of Doktor Sleepless) with the Strange and the Weird. Ellis' love for these is immense.
Anyway, I was going to say more, but I decided to go and read Doktor Sleepless and Black Summer again. So good-bye.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Where I'm From...
I've just spent the last couple of hours reading up on Warren Ellis' Second Life columns at Reuters (which can be found here). One of these focused on where SL came from, and this got me to thinking... where am I from? So let's find out. It'll be an adventure for both of us.
I was born in NYC, and have lived here damn near my entire life (I don't remember the parts that didn't happen here, so they don't really count to me), and I intend to keep it that way. City boy born and bred, concrete in the blood. Really. I'm not at home until I curse out somebody for what is probably a bad reason, but it makes me feel better.
But this isn't about the City that I love with every fiber of my being; this is about my mind.
The first book I remember reading is a book about a fox who was hunted year after year, and always escaped.
This was his game. After this, I got heavily into David Eddings' fantasy novels. I read them furiously. I still read them.
Then I got into comics. I read Archie comics when I was younger, as most did. I abandoned them for manga (japanese comics) not long after, and it was there that I found Sanctuary, a manga about the total overhaul of Japan from the political and yakuza (japanese mafia) perspectives. This was when I realized that comics could move people, that they could do the same work as books, as "high" literature, and so on. They were a legitimate medium, and (though I couldn't articulate it as such at the time) this is a conviction I hold to this day.
Next came Blade of the Immortal, a comic about life, violence and the consequences of both. Heart-stopping-ly illustrated and powerfully written, it still amazes me.
Books had kind of drifted off into the background at this point. It was all about comics for me. I got a job at my comics store, and I tore the place apart looking for new things to read. I read PREACHER, SANDMAN, the X-MEN, many other things. A kid who I knew years ago came through one day, and told me about a great book by Haruki Murakami called Hardboiled Wonderland and The End of the World. (I'm gonna stop with the links. Do the damn work yourself.) I read it, was thrilled, and while looking for more books of his, found another author with the same last name, Ryu Murakami, and figured I'd give him a try. I bought Coin Locker Babies, and it was odd as all hell, kind of beautiful in the way that blood-splatter can leave one in awe.
Around this time, I was introduced to TRANSMETROPOLITAN, Warren Ellis' masterpiece. It blew my mind. It made me think, it made me want to write, it made me want to work. If you know me at all, I've talked to you about TRANSMET already, so I won't do that here. It's damn good. If all comics were to be purged by god, and was I told that I had to choose one, and only one comic to save, it'd be TRANSMET in a heartbeat.
So, through this journey, I think we've learned something. I was not born of fire and piss and vinegar, and all that other bullshit. I was born of anger at stagnation, violence, and strange-ness, all of which can be found in all of the books that I've mentioned as important to my growth.
And because someone's said it before me, and it better than I can, I leave you with this:
"Change or die."~Warren Ellis
[originally posted 4/1/07]
I was born in NYC, and have lived here damn near my entire life (I don't remember the parts that didn't happen here, so they don't really count to me), and I intend to keep it that way. City boy born and bred, concrete in the blood. Really. I'm not at home until I curse out somebody for what is probably a bad reason, but it makes me feel better.
But this isn't about the City that I love with every fiber of my being; this is about my mind.
The first book I remember reading is a book about a fox who was hunted year after year, and always escaped.
This was his game. After this, I got heavily into David Eddings' fantasy novels. I read them furiously. I still read them.
Then I got into comics. I read Archie comics when I was younger, as most did. I abandoned them for manga (japanese comics) not long after, and it was there that I found Sanctuary, a manga about the total overhaul of Japan from the political and yakuza (japanese mafia) perspectives. This was when I realized that comics could move people, that they could do the same work as books, as "high" literature, and so on. They were a legitimate medium, and (though I couldn't articulate it as such at the time) this is a conviction I hold to this day.
Next came Blade of the Immortal, a comic about life, violence and the consequences of both. Heart-stopping-ly illustrated and powerfully written, it still amazes me.
Books had kind of drifted off into the background at this point. It was all about comics for me. I got a job at my comics store, and I tore the place apart looking for new things to read. I read PREACHER, SANDMAN, the X-MEN, many other things. A kid who I knew years ago came through one day, and told me about a great book by Haruki Murakami called Hardboiled Wonderland and The End of the World. (I'm gonna stop with the links. Do the damn work yourself.) I read it, was thrilled, and while looking for more books of his, found another author with the same last name, Ryu Murakami, and figured I'd give him a try. I bought Coin Locker Babies, and it was odd as all hell, kind of beautiful in the way that blood-splatter can leave one in awe.
Around this time, I was introduced to TRANSMETROPOLITAN, Warren Ellis' masterpiece. It blew my mind. It made me think, it made me want to write, it made me want to work. If you know me at all, I've talked to you about TRANSMET already, so I won't do that here. It's damn good. If all comics were to be purged by god, and was I told that I had to choose one, and only one comic to save, it'd be TRANSMET in a heartbeat.
So, through this journey, I think we've learned something. I was not born of fire and piss and vinegar, and all that other bullshit. I was born of anger at stagnation, violence, and strange-ness, all of which can be found in all of the books that I've mentioned as important to my growth.
And because someone's said it before me, and it better than I can, I leave you with this:
"Change or die."~Warren Ellis
[originally posted 4/1/07]
Body Mods, Art and the Modern
this is a responce to this. please read it.
we live in america, a country founded by people so uptight, the british kicked them out. most of the uptight-ness that came with the territory (forgive the expression) has been exorcized, and one of the things we're left with is a community of artists who think everything is art. this claim is most utterly false.
it should be known that i have a very serious bias against what is called "modern" and "post-modern/ contemporary" art. throwing paint at a wall does not make you an artist in the exact same way that sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken. modification is not art by default. to say it is, is to say that the kid who crushes chain links into his face is an artist. i don't think we want this.
i think tattoos and piercings are pretty damn interesting. these are traditions that have existed for generations upon generations, and for good reason: they can mean something. the canvas of the body modification artist is the flesh. this is not a piece of paper on which one can erase mistakes, or even throw out if everything goes to hell. because of this exact fact, the body mod artist CANNOT claim the same creative affluence that, say a painter, could. if they screw up, it's for life. there are no second chances.
the discipline of body modification should be taken more seriously due to its permanence. the body mod'er is more than just an artist, he/ she is the artwork and the artist all in one!
this is what i believe to be the next step in "art," making one's self the subject of experiments and curiosity and potential beauty, moving the canvas off the frame/ whatever and on to the body. again, this is not new, but it is being re-discovered on a much larger scale then ever before. there's a reason tribal tattoos and piercings and scarifications are called tribal.
body mods are treated as though they are art, like paintings and sculpture. they are not. they are more.
[originally posted 3/25/07]
we live in america, a country founded by people so uptight, the british kicked them out. most of the uptight-ness that came with the territory (forgive the expression) has been exorcized, and one of the things we're left with is a community of artists who think everything is art. this claim is most utterly false.
it should be known that i have a very serious bias against what is called "modern" and "post-modern/ contemporary" art. throwing paint at a wall does not make you an artist in the exact same way that sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken. modification is not art by default. to say it is, is to say that the kid who crushes chain links into his face is an artist. i don't think we want this.
i think tattoos and piercings are pretty damn interesting. these are traditions that have existed for generations upon generations, and for good reason: they can mean something. the canvas of the body modification artist is the flesh. this is not a piece of paper on which one can erase mistakes, or even throw out if everything goes to hell. because of this exact fact, the body mod artist CANNOT claim the same creative affluence that, say a painter, could. if they screw up, it's for life. there are no second chances.
the discipline of body modification should be taken more seriously due to its permanence. the body mod'er is more than just an artist, he/ she is the artwork and the artist all in one!
this is what i believe to be the next step in "art," making one's self the subject of experiments and curiosity and potential beauty, moving the canvas off the frame/ whatever and on to the body. again, this is not new, but it is being re-discovered on a much larger scale then ever before. there's a reason tribal tattoos and piercings and scarifications are called tribal.
body mods are treated as though they are art, like paintings and sculpture. they are not. they are more.
[originally posted 3/25/07]
photography
photography is a new discipline for me. i know basically how words work on a page, and how pictures work in panels, and how they both work together, but putting something in a frame to stand all on its own is something new.
for what seemed at the time too long, i was always asking my photographer friends, "what's the difference between a picture, and a picture of a thing?" their answer, most of the time, would be "what?" it is a strangely worded question, and still one that makes me think. to rephrase it, "what makes a good picture/ what makes a good picture different?"
a friend of mine told me that there were two schools of thought: one that focused on the moment captured, and the other on composition. he used the soldiers raising the flag at iwo jima as an example of "the moment," but we never got around to settling on a good example of composition.
the way i look through the lens is a combination of both moment and composition, however most of my photos fall more under the composition section; i was told about the way the frame is/ can be split into thirds, and this being the main compositional technique available to me at this time, is the one i find myself using most often. there is also the matter of the angle of the photo, which i've been playing with recently. it's a strange thing to set up the frame (sorry, can't think of a better word) in such a way that the geometry of the surroundings play an interesting role in the end result.
i know the concept of looking at the world through the crosshairs of a gun (the way audubon did) which sort of works with static energies and finality, and i know the concept of looking at the world with the intent to open it up and spread its workings around, and now i'm learning about looking at the world through a lens of something like reproduction and exact communication. all this is strange to me, this trying to adapt myself to work with the camera, or vice versa. i feel the burden of objectivity in a whole new light. it feels oddly empowering, i suppose.
[originally posted 3/19/07]
for what seemed at the time too long, i was always asking my photographer friends, "what's the difference between a picture, and a picture of a thing?" their answer, most of the time, would be "what?" it is a strangely worded question, and still one that makes me think. to rephrase it, "what makes a good picture/ what makes a good picture different?"
a friend of mine told me that there were two schools of thought: one that focused on the moment captured, and the other on composition. he used the soldiers raising the flag at iwo jima as an example of "the moment," but we never got around to settling on a good example of composition.
the way i look through the lens is a combination of both moment and composition, however most of my photos fall more under the composition section; i was told about the way the frame is/ can be split into thirds, and this being the main compositional technique available to me at this time, is the one i find myself using most often. there is also the matter of the angle of the photo, which i've been playing with recently. it's a strange thing to set up the frame (sorry, can't think of a better word) in such a way that the geometry of the surroundings play an interesting role in the end result.
i know the concept of looking at the world through the crosshairs of a gun (the way audubon did) which sort of works with static energies and finality, and i know the concept of looking at the world with the intent to open it up and spread its workings around, and now i'm learning about looking at the world through a lens of something like reproduction and exact communication. all this is strange to me, this trying to adapt myself to work with the camera, or vice versa. i feel the burden of objectivity in a whole new light. it feels oddly empowering, i suppose.
[originally posted 3/19/07]
responce to column 3 - journalism
this entry is a responce to this.
journalists have a very special place in the world we live in. they are the ones out there watching the world change minute by minute, day by day, they are our lens to the world. remember, this is a voluntary position.
as such, they should be responsible for their writings, and despite the efforts of any organization, they should tell the truth.
most of us cannot go about the world, learning and asking questions about its workings and goings on. this task is given to journalists. it is their job to tell the rest of us what's happening. i do not think that it is too much to ask that their findings be reported objectively; they have chosen to write about the world, and spread its guts all over the newsprint, so they should do so with a certain decorum.
if a news item contains a horrific tale of death and dismemberment, then it should be told. i, as a reader, do not care how it made you feel when you had to watch the body parts collected off the side of the road. i want to
know why the collision was so terrible, "what went wrong?"
if there is an achievement, i do not want to know how you, the journalist failed at the same task, or how you admire Ma Kent for cooking the world's best apple pie, because, after all, America made apple pie great and Ma Kent follows a grand tradition of pie makers, from her great great etc. etc. i want to know what makes her apple pie so good that i should run from all the way across this country, kick down her door, and hold a gun to her head in order to insure the pie's freshness.
when telling the world what the world is doing, truth and objectivity should be paramount endeavors, right next to making sure the paycheck comes.
[originally posted 3/14/07]
journalists have a very special place in the world we live in. they are the ones out there watching the world change minute by minute, day by day, they are our lens to the world. remember, this is a voluntary position.
as such, they should be responsible for their writings, and despite the efforts of any organization, they should tell the truth.
most of us cannot go about the world, learning and asking questions about its workings and goings on. this task is given to journalists. it is their job to tell the rest of us what's happening. i do not think that it is too much to ask that their findings be reported objectively; they have chosen to write about the world, and spread its guts all over the newsprint, so they should do so with a certain decorum.
if a news item contains a horrific tale of death and dismemberment, then it should be told. i, as a reader, do not care how it made you feel when you had to watch the body parts collected off the side of the road. i want to
know why the collision was so terrible, "what went wrong?"
if there is an achievement, i do not want to know how you, the journalist failed at the same task, or how you admire Ma Kent for cooking the world's best apple pie, because, after all, America made apple pie great and Ma Kent follows a grand tradition of pie makers, from her great great etc. etc. i want to know what makes her apple pie so good that i should run from all the way across this country, kick down her door, and hold a gun to her head in order to insure the pie's freshness.
when telling the world what the world is doing, truth and objectivity should be paramount endeavors, right next to making sure the paycheck comes.
[originally posted 3/14/07]
heads up
here's what's gonna happen:
my girlfriend and I have decided to do a writing exercise such that one of us writes a column, and the other has to write a response. the initial columns rotate, and she had the first. my response is forthcoming.
links will be provided.
her column
[originally posted 3/12/07]
my girlfriend and I have decided to do a writing exercise such that one of us writes a column, and the other has to write a response. the initial columns rotate, and she had the first. my response is forthcoming.
links will be provided.
her column
[originally posted 3/12/07]
The Captian has left the building...
Captain America, also known to the more well read and knowledgeable as Steve Rogers, died yesterday. Not really yesterday, but in the eyes of the public, he died yesterday. he got taken out by sniper fire.
to those of us in the industry, and I include myself among them, this is problematic. this means a drop in sales, after today. it also means I have people coming to my store trying to buy up my entire stock of the goddamn book. this is not cool. leave some for people who read the damn book.
this is only the beginning of the problems. Cap, as we fondly call him, is an American icon. he's been with us since world war two, fighting Nazis, and briefly the commies (though this was largely nick fury's department, with the space race and all). Cap stood for truth, justice, and the American way, whatever they mean. he fought the good fight, even after he was unfrozen from a block of ice and joined up with the avengers.
cap was a symbol of America, almost like superman, but more human. because after all, Steve Rogers was a human being. he was the patriotic hero of a generation, and continued to be so, until his demise yesterday. he risked his life time and time again for mom's apple pie, and... I don't know. whatever else is American these days. freedom fries. who the fuck knows. but he did it.
yesterday, someone almost cried when they read this story. I can understand this without hesitation. I have no qualms with being touched by a fictional entity. god knows, one changed my life.
but here's the problem. HE'S NOT FRONT PAGE NEWS. it does not matter except to the few who really care that he died, and even they know that this is just a goddamn stunt. nobody dies "for real" in mainstream comics. superman died, and he's back. so did red skull, Bucky, Jason Todd, hawk eye, the list goes on and on.
IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT HE'S DEAD. grieve personally. not publicly. he's not worthy of your tears, because his death is not one that meant something, then or now, and it never will. it'll ripple in the marvel universe, but it'll fade away in a couple of months. it always does.
NOBODY DIES IN MAINSTREAM COMICS!!!!
if someone like Jessey Custer, or Spider Jerusalem, or kabuki died, it would not matter. why? because he's not a marketing tool, he's not you old man's hero. most importantly, his story will never be over. he's part of an engine unlike anything we know, he's part of the corporate company owned armada of heroes. the story of these characters that we love and hate and are ambivalent about will never end. they'll be over, finally, when the company folds, and not a goddamn second sooner.
because they're part of such a beast, all that can be done with them is more. they cannot end, because if they do, the money stops coming. they exist in a world where stories go on forever, where the folklore is forever continued, new stories are told, and death is meaningless, because it is not lasting.
Steve Rogers, Captain America, whoever, FUCK YOU. no. excuse me.
Marvel Comics, fuck you. you've made your money. now earn it by letting him stay dead! but you won't, because you're probably down three quarters running, just like a few years ago, and civil war bombed like you never expected. that'd be a lie. the readers bought it, and you made your ends, and it never mattered. because you were just going to screw it up anyway. grow as a group of humans, not as a company, and let whatever respect and attachment you have/ had for these characters prevail over your bottom line, and keep them dead. they'll matter more this way.
[originally posted 3/8/07]
to those of us in the industry, and I include myself among them, this is problematic. this means a drop in sales, after today. it also means I have people coming to my store trying to buy up my entire stock of the goddamn book. this is not cool. leave some for people who read the damn book.
this is only the beginning of the problems. Cap, as we fondly call him, is an American icon. he's been with us since world war two, fighting Nazis, and briefly the commies (though this was largely nick fury's department, with the space race and all). Cap stood for truth, justice, and the American way, whatever they mean. he fought the good fight, even after he was unfrozen from a block of ice and joined up with the avengers.
cap was a symbol of America, almost like superman, but more human. because after all, Steve Rogers was a human being. he was the patriotic hero of a generation, and continued to be so, until his demise yesterday. he risked his life time and time again for mom's apple pie, and... I don't know. whatever else is American these days. freedom fries. who the fuck knows. but he did it.
yesterday, someone almost cried when they read this story. I can understand this without hesitation. I have no qualms with being touched by a fictional entity. god knows, one changed my life.
but here's the problem. HE'S NOT FRONT PAGE NEWS. it does not matter except to the few who really care that he died, and even they know that this is just a goddamn stunt. nobody dies "for real" in mainstream comics. superman died, and he's back. so did red skull, Bucky, Jason Todd, hawk eye, the list goes on and on.
IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT HE'S DEAD. grieve personally. not publicly. he's not worthy of your tears, because his death is not one that meant something, then or now, and it never will. it'll ripple in the marvel universe, but it'll fade away in a couple of months. it always does.
NOBODY DIES IN MAINSTREAM COMICS!!!!
if someone like Jessey Custer, or Spider Jerusalem, or kabuki died, it would not matter. why? because he's not a marketing tool, he's not you old man's hero. most importantly, his story will never be over. he's part of an engine unlike anything we know, he's part of the corporate company owned armada of heroes. the story of these characters that we love and hate and are ambivalent about will never end. they'll be over, finally, when the company folds, and not a goddamn second sooner.
because they're part of such a beast, all that can be done with them is more. they cannot end, because if they do, the money stops coming. they exist in a world where stories go on forever, where the folklore is forever continued, new stories are told, and death is meaningless, because it is not lasting.
Steve Rogers, Captain America, whoever, FUCK YOU. no. excuse me.
Marvel Comics, fuck you. you've made your money. now earn it by letting him stay dead! but you won't, because you're probably down three quarters running, just like a few years ago, and civil war bombed like you never expected. that'd be a lie. the readers bought it, and you made your ends, and it never mattered. because you were just going to screw it up anyway. grow as a group of humans, not as a company, and let whatever respect and attachment you have/ had for these characters prevail over your bottom line, and keep them dead. they'll matter more this way.
[originally posted 3/8/07]
the pose of the narrator
this is sort of an extention of a previous entry, the one about thee's and thou's as constricting language. more like a semi-colon, seperate but related thoughts. here goes.
i'm currently taking a break from watching something called BROKEN SAINTS. it was originally released as a web-animation, i think done with flash. but this is intricate. sort of like a comic with moving pictures, and the artwork has a painted quality. high end production. looks pretty. but that's not what this is about.
this is about the pose of the narrator. i'm about five minutes or so into the first chapter, and the dialogue/ inner monologue/ narrator's voice is crap. this is easy to tell for the following reasons: first, because a portion of the writing is in caption boxes, like in comics. the narrator says things in a fashion similar to the way people who think writing poetry means writing in vague and intentionally... i can't think of another word except pretentious.
crap similar to "i see the coulds surround me and i lose myself, lost inside my inner depths." crap like that. thank god, that's not part of the script, but it could be. the pose of the narrator is such that they scream "PAY ATTENTION TO ME! TAKE ME SERIOUSLY!" i think that's what it might be. i think the writing thus far takes itself too seriously, big dramatic pose with no real reason or effect. or rather that the effect is one that can't even being to work, because it's so goddamn end-all be-all. here's a line from the show: "burning faintly... in the ether of the night," and it's spoken all dramatic and crap.
this is hideously upsetting to me. i can't stand reading crap like this, and i know why. i know that this is a stage that most writers have to work through before they can write anything worthwhile, i know i did it for a while. looking back on the crap i wrote from a pose similar to this makes me want to cry, but i console myself because i know i can put it in its place, and move forward, i know that my writing has improved, at least to the point where i stopped thinking that everything i wrote had to be world-altering.
i think that this problem comes from the want to be taken seriously. a young writer tries so hard to write, and each sentence is so labourious, that they cannot bare to be dismissed, they cannot bare to be ignored. with this in mind, they try as hard as they can to chose language that they think has the tone of serious-ness, that has the tone of so-called real writing. they fail to realise that this will do nothing but alienate an audience, if they're lucky enough to keep one past the first page.
writing is in and of itself a serious endevour, but this does not mean that the writing has to be serious. it's like trying to tell a story where the narrator is, unbeknownst to the writer, is an academic trying to sound intelligent. the end result of this is a bone-dry narritive: the words are not intrensically serious or intelligent; talent does not lie in words, but the use thereof.
for example, take John Milton: "She fair, divinely fair, fit love for gods, / Not terrible, though terror be in love / And beauty" (Paradise Lost IX, 489-92). this is not that hard a thing to say, and i'll prove it; here's my re-writing: "she's so pretty, gods love her, and terror lies in both love and beauty." the two bits say basically the same thing, however, Milton is a god among sentence-architects, while i am nothing close. it's not what you say, but how you say it.
the narrator should not suck, this is self-evident.
there we go. rant's done. i know it's a step in the right direction, but even so, it still bothers me that i have to be party to the garbage. occupational hazard of being a reader, after all.
[originally posted 11/19/06]
i'm currently taking a break from watching something called BROKEN SAINTS. it was originally released as a web-animation, i think done with flash. but this is intricate. sort of like a comic with moving pictures, and the artwork has a painted quality. high end production. looks pretty. but that's not what this is about.
this is about the pose of the narrator. i'm about five minutes or so into the first chapter, and the dialogue/ inner monologue/ narrator's voice is crap. this is easy to tell for the following reasons: first, because a portion of the writing is in caption boxes, like in comics. the narrator says things in a fashion similar to the way people who think writing poetry means writing in vague and intentionally... i can't think of another word except pretentious.
crap similar to "i see the coulds surround me and i lose myself, lost inside my inner depths." crap like that. thank god, that's not part of the script, but it could be. the pose of the narrator is such that they scream "PAY ATTENTION TO ME! TAKE ME SERIOUSLY!" i think that's what it might be. i think the writing thus far takes itself too seriously, big dramatic pose with no real reason or effect. or rather that the effect is one that can't even being to work, because it's so goddamn end-all be-all. here's a line from the show: "burning faintly... in the ether of the night," and it's spoken all dramatic and crap.
this is hideously upsetting to me. i can't stand reading crap like this, and i know why. i know that this is a stage that most writers have to work through before they can write anything worthwhile, i know i did it for a while. looking back on the crap i wrote from a pose similar to this makes me want to cry, but i console myself because i know i can put it in its place, and move forward, i know that my writing has improved, at least to the point where i stopped thinking that everything i wrote had to be world-altering.
i think that this problem comes from the want to be taken seriously. a young writer tries so hard to write, and each sentence is so labourious, that they cannot bare to be dismissed, they cannot bare to be ignored. with this in mind, they try as hard as they can to chose language that they think has the tone of serious-ness, that has the tone of so-called real writing. they fail to realise that this will do nothing but alienate an audience, if they're lucky enough to keep one past the first page.
writing is in and of itself a serious endevour, but this does not mean that the writing has to be serious. it's like trying to tell a story where the narrator is, unbeknownst to the writer, is an academic trying to sound intelligent. the end result of this is a bone-dry narritive: the words are not intrensically serious or intelligent; talent does not lie in words, but the use thereof.
for example, take John Milton: "She fair, divinely fair, fit love for gods, / Not terrible, though terror be in love / And beauty" (Paradise Lost IX, 489-92). this is not that hard a thing to say, and i'll prove it; here's my re-writing: "she's so pretty, gods love her, and terror lies in both love and beauty." the two bits say basically the same thing, however, Milton is a god among sentence-architects, while i am nothing close. it's not what you say, but how you say it.
the narrator should not suck, this is self-evident.
there we go. rant's done. i know it's a step in the right direction, but even so, it still bothers me that i have to be party to the garbage. occupational hazard of being a reader, after all.
[originally posted 11/19/06]
just a quick one
something's been bothering me for the last few minutes: king james. to clarify, i mean the King James version of the Bible. all the "thee"s and "thou"s and such. this has become a venue of authority in popular forms of religious texts.
when somesort of god is envoked in popular texts, there is a "thy suffering" or some such business woven in, even if it isn't a christian god that's at issue.
i was reading FULL METAL ALCHEMIST, and in the first chapter, the sun god Leto can "save thee from all thy sins" through prayer and faith.
it feels like this mode of speech is used to create the image that the dialogue of god can only be accessed by the initiated, the ordained, the learned, so forth to be called the clergy.
i dislike organized religion. and communists. deeply. deeper than a bullet burried in a wall that was fired through a body at point blank range by a magnum. such is my hate. there exists one and only one statement with which i'll share with karl marx: "religion is the opiate of the masses." enough with communism now.
if i were to subscribe to any form of religion, it would be protestantism. i choose the protestant faith for the following reason alone: personal interepretation of the text at hand- the bible. PERSONAL BLOODY INTERPRETATION! if i choose to believe in an invisible man, than i'll do it my own way, if i do so please.
if we are all god's children, then why must i become clergy in order to have a deeper relation with god? what about that makes one more special than the other?
main point being, i feel like this dialogue of "thee"s and "thou"s is used to distance, rather than to bring closer together, which is what, arguably, any given religion is supposed to do.
if i see god in a spoon, i'll talk to the spoon any way i like.
[originally posted 8/26/06]
when somesort of god is envoked in popular texts, there is a "thy suffering" or some such business woven in, even if it isn't a christian god that's at issue.
i was reading FULL METAL ALCHEMIST, and in the first chapter, the sun god Leto can "save thee from all thy sins" through prayer and faith.
it feels like this mode of speech is used to create the image that the dialogue of god can only be accessed by the initiated, the ordained, the learned, so forth to be called the clergy.
i dislike organized religion. and communists. deeply. deeper than a bullet burried in a wall that was fired through a body at point blank range by a magnum. such is my hate. there exists one and only one statement with which i'll share with karl marx: "religion is the opiate of the masses." enough with communism now.
if i were to subscribe to any form of religion, it would be protestantism. i choose the protestant faith for the following reason alone: personal interepretation of the text at hand- the bible. PERSONAL BLOODY INTERPRETATION! if i choose to believe in an invisible man, than i'll do it my own way, if i do so please.
if we are all god's children, then why must i become clergy in order to have a deeper relation with god? what about that makes one more special than the other?
main point being, i feel like this dialogue of "thee"s and "thou"s is used to distance, rather than to bring closer together, which is what, arguably, any given religion is supposed to do.
if i see god in a spoon, i'll talk to the spoon any way i like.
[originally posted 8/26/06]
in america, we have soap operas. they are stupid for the vast majority, and sterotypically they're things that housewives watch every day at home to pass the time- it helps them pretend that they have lives. blah blah blah.
in china, they too have soap operas. one interesting thing is that all TV shows that are not games shows are referred to as such. but this is not the point. a large portion of these shows are set in what time period? you guessed it, the good old days of dynastic (which is a word) china. we know this time period mostly through movies with people flying around and kicking ass and taking names and mouths continuing to move despite the fact that their dialogue has ended. i'm talking about kung fu movies. actors like Jackie Chan, Jet Li (whose character in HERO is called Nameless), and more classically Bruce Lee. masterpieces like DRUNKEN MASTER 1 and 2, NEW LEGEND OF SHAOLIN, ENTER THE DRAGON, and for the newcomers, CROUCHING TIGER HIDDEN DRAGON, HERO, and HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS.
there are countless stories about real people, like General Guan Yu, and fables of their actions: he escaped from prison and ran across a desert back to his king because he was so loyal, despite countless efforts on the part of his captors to retain his services (General Guan is one of the greatest military minds and personel that ever lived). these stories are told over and over again, and new stories are created in this time when anything was possible. a time of honor and love and violence...
in america, a time period like this doesn't quite exist. i think i know why. america is too young- it doesn't have the history to draw upon. to speak momentarily on the old american literary problem, how do we create literature that is not new-european lit? they thought it couldn't be done, here when my favorite US of A was still an infant. le infant terrible (that's a reference to TRANSMETROPOLITAN, in case you're wondering). but it was done. emerson and frost and whittier all proved this (yay snow poets!).
the american revolution was a time of heroes, but not ones worthy of legend. the only names that even attempt to echo in this day and age are Paul Revere on his horse and George Washington with his wooden teeth. what next, but the civil war. we all know Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant. and i know Grant was a drunk- the story goes that his urine could strip paint.
i have recently read one story set during the reconstrucion- it's called LOVELESS and it's killer. but it doesn't measure up in mythos.
here's the big one: the wild west. cowboys and indians, the frontiersmen, westward expansion, and that fun stuff. this is where it gets interesting. people like Wild Bill Hickok, Calamity Jane, and John Wayne, the Duke himself. yes, John Wayne was not really part of the west, but he's mythic none the less. don't like it, go fuck off.
the west was, for a time, the subject of so much media! we had comics and movies and books and televison! the tales of these folk were known far and wide. Calamity Jane, with her tongue that could tan leather, and Wild Bill who might have been able to out-shoot the Duke himself. and it is only now that the west matters again. if you look at mass media (in which i'm counting comics- again, don't like it then fuck off), you'll find that the west is back. sort of. HBO is showing DEADWOOD, a great show about a settlement that would later become part of California. it's got Wild Bill and more. it's angry and drunk and it's got more profanity that an angry crew of truckers on st. patrick's day.
we are trying to bring legends back to america, and it all starts here. in the wild west, before space was even a thought, there was adventure and fear and hope and legends! there are no enigmas in contemporary america. you hear no tales of justice or evil reaching far and wide, save those that wear turbans. because that's what's hip right now.
THE END...
PS- if you're shallow enough to treat that last bit as a dismissal of the current situation, then you really need to stop reading right now, and never come back. but at least comment and tell me so.
PPS- there will probably be more on this. i cannot promise, because i've largely said what i wanted to say. but if there will be more, than it'll be named as such.
[originally posted 8/21/06]
some things to come
in case you dont know, there is a really big and important story/ myth/ thing in chinese culture called JOURNEY TO THE WEST. it's one of the four classic novels of chinese literature. and it informs almost every method of storytelling used in chinese pop culture (i.e. comics, TV shows, movies, novels, etc). it's like the ILIAD and ODYSSEYand the BIBLE all rolled into one for chinese culture- it has power and influence on that level.
it's set in dynastic china, which is the crux of my argument. we dont have something like this in american culture. we have something close, but not quite. there will be more on this later. i promise. i've been wanting to write it for a long time now.
sooner or later, there will be a thing about atheism. why, you ask? because i want to talk about it. the fact that i'm an atheist doesn't hurt, either.
there will be a thing on comics. i love comics. yes i do. i love comics. how about you?!
and more likely than not, there will be more than one thing about violence in lit. it's my senior project, so deal.
[originally posted 8/16/06]
it's set in dynastic china, which is the crux of my argument. we dont have something like this in american culture. we have something close, but not quite. there will be more on this later. i promise. i've been wanting to write it for a long time now.
sooner or later, there will be a thing about atheism. why, you ask? because i want to talk about it. the fact that i'm an atheist doesn't hurt, either.
there will be a thing on comics. i love comics. yes i do. i love comics. how about you?!
and more likely than not, there will be more than one thing about violence in lit. it's my senior project, so deal.
[originally posted 8/16/06]
The newness begins
the new-ness begins...
hello. i am max.
i do not use capitals when i'm not writing by hand, or writing a paper. this will be a space for many things, for me ranting mostly, but it will also be for my writing, and for cool things that i find and that i feel like sharing.
i am beyond an amature at the web-page thing, so it'll take some time for me to get used to it, but hopefully it'll provide some entertainment for you all; more hopefully, it'll be good for me. i now sort of feel obligated to write something. this is a very good thing. summer has been writing free for me. i now have a new toy. hehehe. be scared.
i will leave comments open at all times, so if you want to tell me something, please go ahead. i am a fan of information.
that's whats up.
[originally posted 8/14/06]
hello. i am max.
i do not use capitals when i'm not writing by hand, or writing a paper. this will be a space for many things, for me ranting mostly, but it will also be for my writing, and for cool things that i find and that i feel like sharing.
i am beyond an amature at the web-page thing, so it'll take some time for me to get used to it, but hopefully it'll provide some entertainment for you all; more hopefully, it'll be good for me. i now sort of feel obligated to write something. this is a very good thing. summer has been writing free for me. i now have a new toy. hehehe. be scared.
i will leave comments open at all times, so if you want to tell me something, please go ahead. i am a fan of information.
that's whats up.
[originally posted 8/14/06]
Headsup!
What follows is a re-posting of my entries from fullalbums.com/max, in chronological order. Tell me things?
another entrance
Greetings.
I am Max.
This is my new home.
While I'm getting set up, please feel free to read my old posts over at http://www.fullalbums.com/max. They'll be here soon enough, but not just yet.
Enjoy.
I am Max.
This is my new home.
While I'm getting set up, please feel free to read my old posts over at http://www.fullalbums.com/max. They'll be here soon enough, but not just yet.
Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)