Sunday, March 9, 2008

Yes it's true, we're moving and more



As has been announced again and again, WNE is moving. Well, there's more to it than that. A rival blog has bought ours and gobbling it up like the disgusting establishment consumer driven corporate monster it is. Part of the mission of this blog is to stick it to the Man but the Man has stuck it to us. This isn't actually a huge travesty. Lots of media outlets are being taken over or closed down.
Sad it is. Especially when it's Rupert Murdoch doing the grabbing. And while our new owner (me) is not completely a greedy tyrant, he isn't a saint either. There are changes going on. WNE's editor (also me) has been meeting with our new owner at his posh skyscraper offices on the bustling business street of 57th Street in Hyde Park and I've got to say, it's pretty nice. I'll have my own editor's office with a beautiful view of Lake Michigan and the rest of the current senior staff will as well. We also have a lovely gourmet cafeteria and the new owner brings in world-renowned chefs weekly. I honestly fought hard to retain the status quo but with all the new bells and whistles involved in this change, I couldn't resist. Please forgive me.
We're moving to wordpress because WNE is really not the blog it once was. It's bigger, more demanding in the quality of writing, and really it requires more organization and space. We need an area for our musings and crap. We need a little separation and order. All this wordpress can provide and blogger cannot.
I originally started the blog (which had a different name and went through a series of name changes before we were blessed with the Write No Evil title) because...well...I don't exactly remember why but since then I've yearned to own a blog similar to Elm Rock City's. Well that's not going to happen. A dog can't become a cat. WNE needs to be the best it can and so part of this move is so that we continue to strive for excellence in that mode.
Now here's the announcement I've been dreading most. The Write No Evil name won't come with us. The company that bought us, The 57th Street Company will take the title. Here's why:
  1. www.writenoevil.wordpress.com was already taken
  2. I've gotten tired of it. It means nothing. Its tone no longer matches the blog's. As I said, we're a bit more serious now.
  3. Most important, the new name is also the name of a real (like seriously real) business venture we're starting. We're moving into the freelance journalism business. There's going to be more serious journalistic writing and reporting on the blog and we're also offering our services as writers.
So here it is, WNE is evolving into The 57th Street Company! The new name is based on a street where Ben and I grew up. On 57th Street of Hyde Park are numerous quality bookstores and also restaurants but those eateries vary in tastiness. There are also a lot of memories on that street. Some of them are good, some of them are bad but all of them are worth commemorating. So, being the sentimental sap who needs everything to have meaning that I am, the blog's name is changing. The "Company" meaning is intended in both ways, as an actual group of people and a business. It's an entirely new entity.
One other thing about our move. We now have tabs! These tabs are important. Most of our serious writing will happen in the main newsroom of our new offices but the various farts and dumb ideas that each of our senior staff produces goes to a personal tab, not the front page. I must confess though, this is news to everyone, including the staff. I haven't told them yet. I can already feel the many objections but this is a deal breaker for me.
Let's end on a good note! I am also happy to announce we are promoting our very own Little Max to Chief Comic Correspondent. He's going to head our Comic Unit and will do an excellent job. Congratulations. The URL is below. Please forgive us once again for the various kinks that will be going on in the first few weeks as we get used to everything. But rest assured, we're still here and we're only getting better.


Check out the new place!


Sincerely,

Daniel
Write No Evil Editor

Poll Results: Everyone Is A Liar

I popped into the WNE offices today to pick up my banjo and the yogurt culture that I had left on top of the radiator. On my way out, I peeked into Daniel's office and was surprised to see that his desk had been replaced with some kind of large device shrouded in a thick velvet curtain. I could see Mos Daniel's two-tone shoes underneath and asked what the hell was going on. He called back that he was very busy, something about moving our operations up-town, and would I write the poll results, thank you very much.

Our most recent poll confirms what I have known since birth, which is that 50% of humanity are cowardly liars unable to acknowledge their own failings. So, it's not really "all" of you, but it worked better than anything else.

When we asked you, the readers, what you were happiest about having back now that the TeeVee Writer's Strike was over you answered:

16% (1 vote) were happiest about having Jon Stewart back in their lives
16% (1 vote) were overjoyed at the possibility of watching Jack Bower explode something
16% (1 vote) just wanted to watch Grey's Anatomy, which I assume is an educational program for Med Students
50% (3 votes) said that they didn't care about Television, or the state of anyone's strikebeard because they claimed they read books.

All you people you claimed to read books, you should be ashamed of yourselves. I don't need to know what kind of sick habits you have, but if you have to cover them up by claiming that you read books, then honestly I don't want to know.

Perverts.

Wednesday, March 5, 2008

Comic Strip "Perry Bible Fellowship" Becomes Semi-Retired

In my continuing bid to claim the title of "Official WNE Comic Correspondent," I write to you all with sincere sadness at the news that Nicholas Gurewtich is moving his excellent comic strip Perry Bible Fellowship to the back burner. Gurewitch made the announcement fresh on the heels of releasing a book of selected strips, and appearing on Fox News (of all things).

PBF, as it is often abbreviated, is an off-beat comic strip that appears both in print and on the web. An award winning strip, two Ignatz awards among others, it's known for its varying artistic styles and often dark sense of humor.


PBF084-No_Survivors.gif


What a first time reader of PBF will realize is that PBF can be scary, gross, or even down-right disturbing but always funny. Gurewitch has a profound skill for the unexpected, and creating truly uncanny situations that surprise even the most ardent reader. It's the kind of comic that sometimes makes you cringe a little bit -- just a little -- after you finish a strip. Decapitations, cat drowning, death, evangelism, and questionable parenting never felt this good.

Common in Gurewitch's comics is putting the reader in a truly unique environment in every strip. The kind of place where dinosaurs have telepathic discussions with each other, or where an unrequited lover can attempt to prove himself in the worst possible way. It's not just Gurewitch's punchlines, the set-ups of PBF are golden, and shine with a genuine wit and intelligence not often seen in modern humor (let alone comics). For instance, in his strip titled "Preserves," Gurewitch explores a world inhabited by human-like beings who have peanut butter or jelly jars for heads. It works so well that the first panel could stand on it's own, but of course it doesn't and ends brilliantly.

What the artistically minded tend to celebrate most, and what is obvious to even a layman such as myself, is that Gurewitch commands more artistic styles than most comic artists. Equally comfortable with Chinese brush styles, gothic Gorey-eque work, or a heavily detailed style, to name but a few, Gurewitch is a true renaissance artist. These styles aren't just for show, either. Instead they inform and enhance whatever place Gurewitch takes us. Unlike many strips which are often constrained in their styles, PBF explored whole new visual worlds.

PBF's reputation as a horrifically funny and ingenious strip will not be taken anytime soon, and though it will be missed by its readers (this author included) it has offered a funnier, more complex counter to an industry often filled with mediocrity.

Sunday, March 2, 2008

Poll results


First, an apology from the editor about the lack of posts lately. We're here. Most of the staff was on vacation though. Worry not! The r&r is over and we're pontificating again!
Now for the poll results:
So this week we went on the external a little bit and explored what the most important event has been nationally and internationally and it was a tie.

40% of polltakers (2 votes) said that Fidel Castro stepping down was the biggest event of the week.
40% (2 votes again) said that Kosovo declaring its independence was the most important news.
20% (1 vote) said that Barack Obama getting the upperhand in the democratic election was what deserved the most attention.
0% said Hillary Clinton accusing Obama of plagiarism was important, which is good for Obama...I guess...

And here we see that people recognize what's going on in Europe and Cuba has a direct impact on life in the States. I wonder if that's because of the never ending Iraq War?
I'm a little surprised at the Cuba thing. As The New Yorker put it, "And so it should end so ingloriously! No fighting to the last man at the battlements, no martyr's surrender to an assassin's bullet, only a creaking, shuffling exit through the ward's doors, hospital gown flapping."
With many more changes going on elsewhere in the world, I would have thought Cuba was only a faint thought in the back of everyone's minds, written off as a docile pariah. I guess not.

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Good news for and at The Washington Times

As I predicted, the new editor of The Washington Times, John Soloman, is making some good changes. He starts tomorrow but today he's already begun changing the ridiculous style rules at the Times. Now they can acknowledge that there's gay marriage! From The Washington City Paper:
John Solomon took over the Washington Times on Jan. 28.

But he arrived today, via a message from the paper’s copy operation.

The news, in short: No more scare quotes.

Longtime Washington Times readers know well what this is all about: Under the regime of Wesley Pruden, the Times, unwilling to acknowledge anything so radical and immoral as gay marriage, treated the term in its pages as gay “marriage.”

Likewise other terms. In the old Washington Times, there were no illegal immigrants, just “illegal aliens”; no gays, just “homosexuals.”

Now comes the following memo from the Solomon regime, wiping out this legacy in one flick of the wrist:

All:

Here are some recent updates to TWT style.

1) Clinton will be the headline word for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

2) Gay is approved for copy and preferred over homosexual, except in clinical references or references to sexual activity.

3) The quotation marks will come off gay marriage (preferred over homosexual marriage).

4) Moderate is approved, but centrist is still allowed.

5) We will use illegal immigrants, not illegal aliens.

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

FDR, Lincoln and Bush

Reading The Prince again for a class, I came upon the famous discussion of cruelty. Machiavelli draws the distinction between cruelty well used and badly used. Cruelty well used is performed "at a stroke," ruthlessly but cleanly. Cruelty badly used is prolonged and gradually undermines a prince's hold on his subjects' loyalty. Machiavelli concludes by saying that a prince who uses cruelty well will find favor with both God and men.

In other words, the ends justify the means. Thoughts of Machiavelli naturally led me to the current administration's flaunting of both the Constitution and international rules in its treatment of prisoners, suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, etc.

Bush hasn't succeeded at attaining his ends; he leaves a disastrous war, bloated government, deficit, and economic recession behind him. But what of other presidents? Did the ends justify the means?

Franklin Roosevelt flagrantly violated the constitution when he gave the order to detain 120,000 Japanese-Americans, most of them citizens. Yet no one would consider his presidency a failure, even though the Internment is now common knowledge.

Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and declared martial law at the start of the American Civil War.

All profoundly illiberal and unconstitutional measures, even though they were mitigated, to a certain extent, by the fact that these presidents, while scrapping civil liberties in this specific case, still upheld the legal and political system in general. Moreover, both presidencies are viewed as successes because Lincoln and FDR saw the nation through two great crises.

I don't think it's enough to say that the two former presidents were justified by the fact that the threat to the country was greater in their cases. This isn't even true. Terrorists hit Manhattan on 2001; the Japanese never made it further than Pearl Harbor and the Aleutians. Which enemy posed a greater existential threat?

So I think Machiavelli may be right. The difference between FDR and Bush is not the degree to which they threw aside civil liberties in times of national crisis; FDR was far more illiberal than Bush has been, anyway. The difference is that FDR shepherded the country through the dark years of war and into an era of prosperity. The same, or similar, could be said of Abraham Lincoln.

In times of war, our democracy congeals around the executive branch. Our judgment of a war president is not based upon his regard for civil liberties. It is all just a question of cruelty well used or badly used.

Friday, February 22, 2008

Poll results

So this week the WNE poll posed a scenario that actually happened. On Derek Kravitz's blog, he notes that an ATM at the University of Missouri generously gave $20 bills but charged $10 to bank accounts. Word got out quickly and students (mostly) lined up around the block to get some cash. I see two sides to this:
  1. It's really immoral and qualifies as stealing
  2. Look, yes it's wrong but I'm a poor college student here. It's the system's fault for making everything so expensive that I have to override any ethical apprehensions I have.
75% (6 votes) of WNE poll takers voted on #2
25% (2 votes) went the other way and voted on #1, adhering to principals.

I'm actually not surprised by these results. Desperation really does seem to trump principles.

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Continuing The Conspiracy Chit-Chat

Within a week of Febuary 7, five undersea cables that connect the Middle East to the wide, wide world of the internet were severed. It started slow, with a single break being blamed on a ship dropping anchor further from port than normal. People didn't really get nervous until the next four broke in rapid succession. Only one of these could be explained -- it wasn't a break, but a disruption of service caused by a power outtage.

So, that leaves two unexplained breaks and one shifty sounding anchor accident. While the technology blog Gizmodo is inclined to blame Godzilla, rumors were starting boil and tin foil suddenly found itself being shaped into hats all across the internet. But a recent announcement in various news agencies that sabotage has not been ruled out as a possibility, and is actually quite likely (one article with the title "Sea Cable Snappage Was Sabotage: Middle eastern cables destroyed deliberately") has reinvigorated the conspiracy discussion.

It's important to note that no one has drawn any conclusions yet, and the investigation continues.

Could this be the new face of warfare? Cut off a country's access to the internet to prevent news of the attack from getting out? In the past few years, movies shot form cell phones and posted to YouTube helped to cause quite a stir and directed public attention where it might never have been before. (Tasers, anyone?)

But who knows. It's probably just a giant squid pissed at seeing his wife's oviducts on the internet.

[Inquirer, Sydney Morning Herald]

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Gail Collins skeptical about big overly dramatic satellite shooting

In a rare pause from the usual political analysis (especially because there's a great deal of meaningless political gossip going on) insightful columnist Gail Collins ponders the shooting down of a military satellite that's gotten so much attention in the media lately. The column is particularly humorous as Collins reveals that she, like me and others, are manic paranoids.
Back to the subject though. I've been rather amused by the whole topic. It all seemed really ludicrous to me. I mean really? The government has to launch a missile to destroy a piece of its own equipment? With all this sophisticated technology and resources in the U.S. we have to blow up something we made recently and sent into space? Is shooting down a dysfunctional spy satellite really worthy of so much time on CNN and so many graphs in the Times, Washington Post, and LA Times?
Collins reveals why it is: Because something here isn't right. As she says, the military warns that not only is the satellite dangerous because it's the size of a school bus and is speeding to Earth, but also it contains noxious gases that can be life threatening if inhaled in large quantities. The government is worried that the satellite will land in, perhaps, a schoolyard and kids will all stand around it and just breath in the fumes for a while. Nobody else will notice or point or anything. The Fire Department won't come and quarantine the area.
Yeah, right.
Plus the statistical probability of being hit by something like this satellite are slim.
Something, besides the gas, stinks here. The excuse itself is like one from a bad ABC movie; as if viewers were meant to see right through it. That's another mistake for the government. I forsee a scandal ahead. One's been overdue anyway, it's been like...a month! Far too long these days.
Collins goes on to suggest some actual reasons to destroy the satellite:

"Other conspiracy theories include:

— The Pentagon is afraid the supersecret satellite will fall into the hands of our enemies, revealing the sophisticated new technology that conked out shortly after leaving Earth and utterly failed to accomplish its mission. [Because we can't let them have our defective technology.]

— Pentagon is hoping to bolster support for the missile defense system by demonstrating that it has many other side benefits, such as the ability to shoot down rogue satellites full of poisonous gas that could force victims to endure inconvenient waits at the doctor’s office.

— Pentagon wants something to think about besides sectarian religious feuds in the Middle East."

Well whatever it is, Collins now has bragging rights when the real reason comes out. And it will.
I highly recommend reading Collins' column, not only because she's my favorite columnist, but also because I can only think of one other time where something was published by her not on politics since the twentieth century. It's really a celestial event.

This post also published on my personal blog.

J.M. Coetzee's Diary of a Bad Year

J.M. Coetzee's new novel came out in June of last year, was reviewed about two issues ago in the New York Review of Books, and fell into my grubby hands a little after winter break. I've never been a big Coetzee fan, but after reading this book I think I'll withhold judgment until I can dig a little deeper into his corpus. "Diary of a Bad Year" is an intellectually stimulating and moving work of fiction.

The novel follows a senescent writer, known variously as Senor C or Juan, as he compiles a collection of short diatribes on culture, politics, and philosophy for a book called "Strong Opinions". He meets a gorgeous young woman named Anya who lives above him in in his Sydney apartment building and offers her a job as his typist. Her husband Alan, motivated by a mixture of avarice and jealousy, conspires to defraud Senor C of his money.

This is the bare outline of the plot. Yet the novel tells this simple story in an unconventional way. Not content with showing us a few isolated snippets of Senor C's opinions, nor to present only one perspective at a time, Coetzee divides the page into three separate rows of text, each narrating a distinct strand of the story from different viewpoints. At the top are the opinions themselves, written in the old scribe's elegant, formal locution. In the center, the writer narrates his own real-time experiences. And, after a time, a third row appears, narrated from the perspective of Anya.

The novel begins with C's opinion on the state; underneath, in spare strokes, C tells of his first encounter with Anya:

My first glimpse of her was in the laundry room. It was a mid-morning on a quiet spring day and I was sitting, watching the washing go around, when this quite startling young woman walked in. Startling because the last thing I was expecting was such an apparition; also because the tomato-red shift she wore was so startling in its brevity.

Next page, the discourse on the state continues. Underneath:

The spectacle of me may have given her a start too: a crumpled old fellow in a corner who at first glance might have been a tramp off the street.

So far, so "Grumpy Old Men 3". The sense of creepy old man lust only intensifies when C describes Anya's ass as "so near to perfect as to be angelic." What are we to make of C's claim that Anya's beauty elicits in him a "metaphysical" or "post-physical" ache? Is this just an academic gloss on a pretty mundane sexual urge?

Coetzee delights in dashing our expectations. Instead of having Anya be unaware of Senor C's lasciviousness, she actually goads him on. Instead of giving us Anya only through C's idealizing eyes, she is given her own autonomous voice and reveals herself to be an intelligent, sensitive, and sympathetic character.

Senor C's (this is the name Anya gives him, mistaking his South African for South American origins) strong opinions range from insightful to glib, but the arguments themselves, at least for most of the book, are not of prime importance. What's being explored here is the connection between the mind and the body, the private and the public. C's opinions reveal a vibrant intellect; his life is shabby and his body decrepit. What happens between the two selves?

Conventions of discourse require that the writer's existential situation, which like everyone else's is a perilous one, and at every moment too, be bracketed off from what he writes. But why should we always bow to convention?

Anya's boyfriend turns out to be of some interest, as well. He opines on many of Senor C's arguments, roundly criticizing them and revealing himself to be a philosophical materialist and political realist; thus a counterweight to C's philosophical idealism and political liberalism. When Anya takes him to C's place and he begins to criticize C on having a naive conception of human nature and having only accomplished anything in the realm of the fanciful, we expect an epic battle between the two philosophical viewpoints. Yet again, Coetzee doesn't deliver on the expected; Senor C says not a word in response.

Ultimately, accepting the uncertainess of his "strong opinions" in the face of his "existential situation" is C's greatest challenge. Here the warmth of human contact serves where the intellect falls down, and Anya becomes his soft, soothing escort to the other world. "Diary of a Bad Year" may not be perfect. It wasn't totally necessary to show every one of C's strong opinions and thus break up the narrative to such a degree. Still, it's a touching and intriguing novel, full of dark humor and insight.

Jason In The Funny Pages

This past Sunday saw a welcome addition to the New York Times Funny Pages from the amazing Norwegian cartoonist "Jason."

It's called Low Moon, and I don't know why you're not reading it right now.

Much of Jason's work relies on timing rather than dialog to tell his stories. It's not unusual for whole pages to pass without a word spoken between any of Jason's anthropomorphic characters. Jason's strong lines, and fiercely regular panel work underline an overall feeling of disconnection and silence between his characters. In our modern world, filled with denizens increasingly detached from those around them it sometimes seems a little too real to be comfortable. For many mainstream comic readers, this might feel slow and draggy -- verging on the boring.

But Jason is making a new kind of comic. A wittier and more subdued experience instead of the bombastic explosions of extravagance which has long been the staple of the medium. Instead, Jason's comics carry a quiet weight, and can feel cripplingly lonely at times, and incredibly funny the next.

More off beat artists and writers like Jason have come into the comic market in recent years, and have started to make a mark on the industry. A lot of attention is being given to these so-called "indie" or "indie-style" comics, and it may just revolutionize the industry.

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Guns Don't Kill People, CounterStrike Kills People

The Entertainment Consumer Association has stated the obvious, but it seems to have been necessary.

We’d like to extend our condolences to the families, friends and classmates of those who were affected in the school shooting at Northern Illinois University.

Separately, we are disgusted, but no longer shocked, to find that anti-game activists are again rushing to conclusions about what drove Stephen Kazmierczak, the clearly disturbed 27-year-old who police say was responsible for this tragedy, to commit such an act.

Blaming video games for the behavior of the mentally-challenged is vile on many levels. And, as Generations X and Y mature, it is extremely likely that just about all of us have played at least one video game at some point in our lives.

Drawing a parallel between games and violence without any substantive proof is sensationalism for its own sake. This is a sad event, made worse by the irresponsible actions of attention-seekers and the media that has given them a platform for their reckless venom.

[Game Politics]

I'm not quite sure what I can add to this statement, except to say that while it saddens me that these things apparently need to be said, at least someone did.

I am oft concerned that people are quite willing to blame art and entertainment, and are more than willing to ban them then they are to ban firearms. I would remind them which amendment comes first in the bill of rights.

Wikileaks Taken Offline

The New York Times just came out with an article on a judicial decision that has sent ripples of consternation through the blogging community this weekend. On Friday, a California court ordered Wikileaks, a website devoted to disclosing sensitive information about governments and corporations, to be taken offline. The injunction to disable the site's domain name was the outcome of a suit by a Cayman Islands Bank implicated in money laundering by documents posted on the site. But, haha, it seems like neither the judge nor the bank understand that shutting down the domain name doesn't keep people from seeing mirror sites and the like.

Monday, February 18, 2008

Stanley Fish on Identity Politics

Distinguished academic Stanley Fish came out last night with another thought-provoking post on his New York Times blog, Think Again, about the use and abuse of identity politics. As both the Clinton and Obama camps sling mud at each other for playing the gender and race cards, the topic seems particularly relevant to the current state of political discourse.

Fish, typically, uses some slippery logic to make his argument that voting according to the race, religion or gender of the candidate is not very much different from voting for a candidate based on a particular interest such as the candidate's stance on abortion. This "interest" conception of identity politics is, to quote Fish, "based on the assumption (itself resting on history and observation) that because of his or her race or ethnicity or gender a candidate might pursue an agenda that would advance the interests a voter is committed to." Well, okay, but why assume this if it's not the stated policy of the candidate? As almost everyone knows, there are stronger forces at work shaping a candidate's policy than his ethnicity, race or creed. And what are these special identity-dependent interests? He gives the example of American Jews supporting a candidate who wants to maintain strong ties with Israel. Of course, this has nothing to do with the ethnicity of the candidate and in fact most Republicans and Democrats support Israel to varying degrees without being Jewish. Jewish votes for a pro-Israel candidate are policy votes for what amounts to a special interest group; this isn't identity politics as Fish defines it or as it is commonly understood. Finally, is it acceptable that people vote solely on issues that affect their group? What about the common interest?

But that's just my opinion.

Sunday, February 17, 2008

Raison d'etre

It's been a stressful weekend for me and I suppose WNE. We've articulated my role as the editor and are deciding where to go next. As I was telling Max, and Ben was telling me, WNE is going in a new direction. This realization, when I saw it, made me panic at first. And then wonder as to what we should do with the blog. In the last month there have been more entries by WNE staff than I've seen on any blog in a single month (although the Goings On About Town blog may contradict that statement) and I at least am finally starting to feel tired. Thankfully, I have overly eager colleagues to write in my stead. But I'm not vacationing. We concluded this weekend that my job is to tinker with the site and be aware of what's being posted (and potentially take something down if I disagree with it passionately). So while I rejuvenate I will still be reading the blog and commenting and all that jazz. I will continue to post also -although at the moment my inspiration well is bone dry.
Another frightening realization I had this weekend is that I long for a solo blog where I don't have to polish stuff as we do here before it's posted. I want a blog where I can just throw something up and be done with it. So look out in the coming days for my personal blog. WNE has served me that way in the past but now it's shifting to more an online magazine project which we here are embracing. In the coming days we're going to be experimenting with it a bit and probably move it to a different site, thanks to some cleverness on Max's part. So look out.

The State of Nature On Stage

Last night was opening night for the new improvisational University Theater production, "State of Nature." It was one of the most memorable opening nights on record. Rarely in theater does a show have such an immediate and profound affect on its audience.

"State of Nature" is an ensemble piece developed over the past two months by five seniors, three juniors, two sophomores and three freshmen. The cast's preparation didn't put as much emphasis on acting as one might expect. In January they read Hobbes' "Leviathan" all the way through in one sitting and went home. This was the sum total of their group rehearsing. To prepare mentally each actor deprived him or herself of all food save some watery gruel specially provided by our dining hall. They also pledged to deprive themselves of all but two hours of sleep a night, but this didn't deviate significantly from their sleeping habits before rehearsals began.

Last night, forty-give minutes before the show started, UT crew placed various items of food on the stage, as well as thin blankets, some animal hides and canteens of water. The theater was cooled to about forty-five degrees. Five minutes before showtime, I caught a glimpse of a uniformed policeman leading a blindfolded troop of naked actors onto the stage from the side entrance. The program assured us, however, that for the sake of realism the police had been told to stand down no matter what transpired on stage.

As the curtain went up, the audience was hushed and still with anticipation. There on the stage were the naked actors, standing as if in a daze. "Must be the diet and sleep regimen," I thought. For a minute they just stood there, looking around and shivering. Then senior Joel Fisherbak made the first move. Freshman Tanya Gelding was standing over a glistening ham, as if to instinctively guard it from the others; I could see Joel's eyes flash as he lunged for it, elbowing Tanya in the solar plexus and kicking her in the teeth when she hit the ground. Bits of dental matter flew everywhere. The audience clapped. "What realism!" I heard someone say. "It's just like in the 'Leviathan'!" The other actors quickly claimed their bits of property, but, in true Hobbesian form, no one kept it for very long. The state of war was on. The stench of blood filled the room.

Surprisingly, it was another senior, Emily Smatterson, who was the first to die. Joel had claimed her by knocking her out with a joint of mutton and dragging her off to upstage right. Unfortunately this made him momentarily forget his water canteen, which was snatched up by sophomore Amadeus Walker. Joel left Emily to fight him off, and freshman John Cho used the opportunity to quietly ravish her. In fact, John was the cause of all but one of the many on-stage rapes last night. I asked afterwards what kind of a guy John was, and I learned from his friends that he was a physics major who was "quiet," "polite," and "unobtrusive." Given his performance, John clearly had amazing potential, if he hadn't been brained by Joel in the second act. Joel, apparently in a rage, killed Emily just after discovering her with John, who ran away laughing.

Then something unexpected happened. Junior Ben Garadin, it seems, was the first to remember the audience. Walking slowly over to the edge of the stage and peering into the gallery, Ben Garadin appeared thoughtful for a moment. People in the front row, who had brought other tasty morsels (the food on the stage was almost completely devoured), shook them in his face. He stepped back a few paces and then sprinted off the stage and into the first rows, tearing at everyone he could find with his fingernails and stealing all he could get. Audience members seemed somewhat concerned, but their fears were allayed when a UT crew-member came on stage in riot gear and announced through a mega phone that this was all part of the show. A few minutes later, Ben appeared back on the stage, wearing a woman's fur coat stained with blood and carrying three chairs, with which he began to construct a primitive fortification upstage left. Other actors, following his lead, began to systematically attack the audience, bringing back on stage with them women, clothes, and food. Joel brought back three rings and a lovely necklace, which he wore for the rest of the production. He also apparently painted his face using a woman's lipstick.

As the uninjured audience members left the theater for intermission (the actors were put into cages), the general consensus was that Joel would establish some sort of stable dominance over the others and thereby create a kind of hierarchical tribal organization. As for the robberies, rapes, and bleeding wounds, no one seemed too upset about them. When I asked a man if he was angry that his wife had been carried on stage by Ben Garadin and then accidentally dropped, causing instant paralysis, he replied, "Well, it's the state of nature, isn't it? It was Ben [Garadin's] right of nature to do that. Actually, I've never been so invigorated in my life, and I've seen a lot of theater."

Hopes that Joel would establish dominance were dashed, however, when midway through the second act, exhausted by the constant fighting required to keep his possessions, he fell asleep and was killed. Tanya Gelding and freshman Bridget Blunker, fashioning crude knives out of sharpened stiletto heels, gouged Joel's eyes out and then strangled him with a strip of torn curtain. Audience members rose to their feet in spontaneous ovation. Tanya and Bridget bowed, defecated on Joel's corpse (a surprisingly common occurrence), took his possessions and walked offstage holding hands. They had formed, at least for now, a kind of defensive alliance.

Only a few actors remained. But at the very end of the show, they appeared to realize the futility of their situation and gingerly approached each other. They left their possessions behind, unguarded. After talking briefly, they shook hands, and a number of armed UT techies came on stage. Everything appeared to be sorting out as the coercive power of the sovereign took its effect, but apparently sophomore Sui Chin hadn't heard about the contract. Appearing from a trap door with a brick, he knocked Ben Garadin unconscious and stole his food. The stage was thrown into pandemonium as UT crew shot into the air, breaking all the stage lights. The theater was plunged into darkness. The audience went berserk.

Bizzaro World Found

The New York Times is reporting on the discovery of "a miniature version of our own solar system 5,000 light years across the galaxy." WNE Labs astronomers have confirmed this report, but have made a shocking discovery. It appears that this lilliputian variant of our celestial neighborhood is located right smack in the "Bizarro Quadrant," according to lead WNE Labs Scientist Franklin R. Zarathustra.

Though we currently have no means of contacting anyone on "Bizarro Earth," top Bizzarologists have speculated as to what life on their humble maroon planet would be like. For instance, on Bizarro Earth nearly all the cars are small, fuel-efficient, well-designed, affordable, and all made domestically in Bizarro America. A Bizarro-Chevy would typically last a family of 4 (Bizarro families tend to be small in order to stay within the means of the family and to keep the population at a reasonable number) 135 years, usually becoming an heirloom.

Bizarro America is believed to be a mid-sized country which prides itself on a history of vicious authoritarianism. Blurry Hubble images suggest the existence of a large statue of a man dressed in a suit, with eyes of fire, standing off the coast of Bizarro Manhattan. Radio spectrometry on the statue suggests the existence of an inscription which reads, "Stay the hell away from us, you dirty freaks. I'll hit you with my big stick. And let that be a lesson to the rest of you!" Ironically, Bizarro America has a small, effective, democratic government which has delivered a balanced budget for the past 298 years. Most of it's tax money is spent on schools, as well as artistic and scientific endeavors. Bizarro NASA, for instance, is believed to have a space program 235x cooler than our own, and for half the money.

Some terrestrial analysts worry that Bizarro Earth could lay conquest to our home planet, but top brass in the pentagon disagree. Recently declassified reports indicate that the ubiquitous weapon of Bizarro world is the hug, and that wars usually fought in the form of strenuous negotiation or make-out sessions. Images from the Bizarro Middle East show hundreds of violent rioters being pacified by police forces with milk and cookies.

If anything, it would appear that the denizens of Bizarro world have much to fear from us. Highly opinionated, but very civil, the entire planet has excellent taste in art and entertainment. Because of these discrimination standards, it appears that our own entertainment industry is lethal to most Bizarro People. Recently, a misfired transmission from a television satalite accidentally beamed 4000 hours of TV programs directly at the planet. Advanced telemetry hints that this may have killed millions of Bizarros, whose heads exploded when "Friends" and "CSI" interrupted regularly scheduled Bizarro programs.

Scientists fear that our reality television may soon be reaching the planet, as well as our commercial radio, 24-Hour News stations and the FOX network. Widespread hysteria and mass suicide is expected to follow in its wake.

Saturday, February 16, 2008

Are Comedies Unsatisfying By Nature?

I don't know how many times I've walked out of the theater after watching the latest comedy, whether it be glittery Will Ferrell flagship or intimate indie cockel-warmer, and thought, "That was bullshit!"

I don't mean by this that the movie wasn't funny. Nor even that it wasn't satisfying, in a way. Nor that it has no relation to reality, because what kind of preposterous grumbler would I be if I required all movies (or plays) to wear reality's grim clothes? What I mean is that no matter how good the movie is, the ending will always be unsatisfying. In fact, in most cases it will border on illogical. And the question becomes for me: Do comedies, in seeking a clean resolution, always have to compromise whatever has come before in terms of character development and plot?

Not that what we would consider "tragedies," which in a classical sense there are very few of at the multiplex or at theaters today, always meet strict criteria of logic in their endings. Just that it seems like in comedies there is a systematic problem enfolded in the nature of a comedy that makes it impossible to have a logical, and thus, for me, a satisfying ending. This problem is the requirement of a clean resolution.

I'd have to get into particular instances, of course, to truly explore my theme. I don't have enough space to do that. But consider this: Even Shakespeare's comedies suffer from this problem. Many times it feels as if Shakespeare uses fifth acts to quickly tie up any loose ends remaining in the plot and marry off all the sonzabitches before the curtain closes. This is particularly true of "The Taming of the Shrew" and "Much Ado About Nothing" but it's true of all the comedies, more or less. Meanwhile, modern commentators busily chip away at the notion that Shakespeare wanted to have a clean resolution at all. But that's only because the endings are never satisfying, not necessarily because Shakespeare wanted us to take it another way.

Comedy is suffering, just like tragedy. But comedy is also tragedy averted. So it seems comedy by its very nature wants to have its cake and eat it too: Give me the suffering, but avert the tragedy that usually follows from suffering so I can laugh at it. Do so at any cost: Make the woman who hates her lover fly back into his arms for some reason, etc. Yet as we all know, suffering isn't always mutable; second chances aren't always given.

Then again, most of us probably wouldn't be happy going to the movies to watch unrelieved suffering. So maybe I am just that irrelevant crank again, raving about the reality principle. But it seems interesting to point out that comedies are delicate houses of cards; let one bit of suffering go unrewarded, one bit of love go unrequited, and the whole thing will collapse. We'll all go home with a bitter taste in our mouths. Some playwrights, screenwriters and directors deliberately let this happen, but don't tell me you'd rather watch their work than the traditional, pure comedies.

Insomniac dignity

So I go in with some friends to a cafe called Rendez Vous and decide to order cake. I'm attracted to the two chocolate cakes: The Triple Chocolate Cake and the Dark Forest Cake.

me: What's the difference between the Triple Chocolate and Dark Forest?
Server breaks out laughing: Are you serious?
me: What?
Server: They're two totally different cakes.
me: They look similar
Server: No they don't
I point to the labels both of which are in front of the rows of Triple Chocolates
Server: Oh, well, forget it. You win, I lose. You 21, me nothing.

What happened here exactly?

End Of DVD Format War: I Don't Care

The whole HD-TV craze caught me off guard. I hadn't heard anything about HD-TV since a zinger in the Simpsons about seven years ago. All of a sudden everyone is going out and deciding, "Zounds! I need a TV with more definition!"

And like a flock of seagulls following a garbage scow, the next-gen DVD war began. Would Sony's Blu-Ray take the day? Or would Toshiba's HD-DVD win handily?

bluraystupid.gif

Word is that Blu-Ray has come out on top. Seems that Walmart, BestBuy, and all those other soulless, wallet-emptying barn stores were at least part of the deciding factor. That, and apparently Sony paid off some major Hollywood studios.

But who cares? Change is inevitable. This only affects the rabidly rich early adopter crowd that plonked down serious benjamins to ride the wave of the future. Honestly, I find these kind of discussions about which is better, the advantages of HD in general, or if video is really 1080i (or whatever) incredibly vexing.

The only joy I take from this news is that the format "war" is over (how are those other wars going?) is that it won't be generating news anymore. That, and I wrote this while taking a tremendous dump.

[Reuters, Gizmodo, Post-Gazette}