look at me, im so pretty

Burning Down Paris, freaking awesome. I’ve heard the name before and I’ve heard about the 80’s black drag queen movies, but never realized they were the same thing. I was particularly moved by the one guy who was always doing his makeup in the mirror. One of the old-school guys. He really seemed upset that the balls were changing and becoming something new. Reminiscing about the old days in the 60’s and 70’s where they dressed as Vegas showgirls and made their own costumes, he spoke quite poorly about the new state of the balls. Focus on designer clothing, too many categories, too many people, too much change. But with that, I could help but see him as a little hypocritical. He’s afraid and upset by change? That should be what every drag queen wants. Change of society’s mentality about them hopefully even gaining acceptance. But maybe that’s exactly what it’s not about. He doesn’t want acceptance. Dressing in drag would be no fun if it didn’t elicit a response. This is why I strongly disagree with that article we read. Drag-queens aren’t trying to emulate woman in order to hide and feel powerless, it’s done for that show, that “look at me! Don’t you think I’m crazy!!?”

Has anyone read today's SF Chronicle? I myself haven't, but I did glance at the headlines since a lone yellow Chronicle kiosk sits by my morning bus stop. At the top left hand corner of the front page I saw a feature about a "new cut" of Blade Runner. When will that movie ever leave me alone? We watched the opening scenes of it in my history class, and I my professor's having yet another lecture on it for me to look forward to in the very near future. Right before finals! Oh, joy. I'm sorry, but I think one fast-forwarded and one real-time viewing of that Ridley Scott movie is all I can take, let alone critical analysis on it. While making up my own dialogue to it would be fun, I must admit the few bits of dialogue are inadvertently hilarious. However, the wait for that hilarity to happen is too long for me, as I am much too impatient. And I still can't get over the scene when _________ (the weird replicant who almost kills Deckard [why did they have to change all the characters' names?]) smashes Tyrell's head in with his fingers. What's worse is that dove flying away in slow-mo. What the hell? Wasn't that symbolism already overused by the '80s? All I can say is at least I don't have to be subjected to Ichi the Killer film history criticism.

I know i have two consecutive blogs but i think that i needed an extra one from some previous week. I was reflecting on this class in particular as i was trying to procrastinate this upcoming paper. The theme of this class really made it appealing. Though some books were not a favorite of mine, Blade Runner and Frankenstein, everything really came together in the end and i understand why we read all of these books. I think that my favorite book was by far Maus and i think that when i get through with finals i will read Maus 2. The other thing is that i wanted to thank you Talissa for all the help throughout the semester and being so good with emails and just always being available.
I learned so much more in this class than i did in my R1A class and i had a lot more fun doing it. Im still going to say that im one of those science people but i can more confidently say that i can now write a decent paper, analyze text and clearly get my thoughts across in written words.

I cant believe that the school semester is coming to an end so fast. With the end of the semester apporaching i find myself bogged down with numerous papers. In terms of this last R1B paper im kinda excited. Its way better than Frankenstein. Maus has presented a way of conveying literature to the public. I know i talked about comics and literature in my last blog but i thinking a little. If we presented great works of literature in the same way that Art Speigelman presented a story about the Holocaust would be have a more educated, aware society? By presenting text with pictures would we be able to get kids to read more? I dont want to take away from the importance of reading and vocabulary but in terms of literature awareness i think we would see a much bigger interest. If an author is able to covey a story about one of the most tragic events in our World's history and still be taken seriously then why cant more authors do the same?

My shame is unspeakable

I really should stop working on blog nights. After I lapse into the Zen state necessary for masterful card-swiping, I quickly forget all about my homework. These blog posts aren't the only thing I forgot about tonight—it's really nothing personal, Hybrid Writing Blog! Please take me back! No answer... that hurts. Before I convince whoever happens to read this that I've completely lost my mind (I haven't), I'd like to say that I haven't gotten a full night's sleep in about a week and I'm currently reeling from some baaaad sushi. If whoever reads this (read: Talissa) takes nothing else from this muddy stream of consciousness, please take this most earnest exhortation: don't eat at Tako Sushi. The last time I ate there I came out unscathed, but the time before that was very nearly murder by Poke Roll. I like to think the proprietors are involved in a vast and intricate conspiracy to assassinate me, but I don't have enough paranoia to keep that idea afloat. Also, it just seems more logical that they're simply unscrupulous and more interested in profiting on students' strong stomachs and weak culinary standards. After all, they print "God Bless You!" at the bottom of their receipts! How bad could they be? Very, it turns out. I thought I'd play it safe tonight by avoiding rolls with raw fish, but it didn't matter. The soft-shelled crab in my Spider Roll must've died on its own, and well before I was born.

So with that elaborate and unnecessarily detailed explanation of why I'm not at my absolute best right now, I proceed to the rest of the post. After all, I'm not here to make excuses; I'm here to make a freeform prose composition at least loosely related to the class. Well I referenced the blog title earlier in this post, and I'm sure that counts. And if not, whatever. Frankly, I'm sick of talking about Maus. I like it and have come to respect it as a work of art and storytelling, but enough is enough. Eight to ten pages and several class discussions have given me a bit of a Maus overdose. Then again, I may be unfairly channeling my weariness and mild food poisoning at Maus. If so, sorry Maus. In any case, I'd rather talk about something else. But now I've painted myself into a corner because I've already written about every other work we've read, and would actually sooner Maus than any of them. Fine, talk about Maus I will.

I don't think that all of Spiegelman's animal metaphors are as well thought out as they could've been. I like the use of mice to represent Jews because it's provocative, subversive, and effective. Having Germans be cats and Americans be dogs follows pretty logically from that and also gives a clever nod to the power hierarchy of the era. But what of the other representations? Poles as pigs? I'm not even sure I understand what Spiegelman is going for there, but I feel like it should offend me. Is he saying that Poles are greedy? Dirty? Delicious for gentiles but off-limits to Jews? The metaphor just doesn't quite hold up. Pigs are also renowned—among domesticated beasts, at least—for their intelligence. Surely Spiegelman isn't attempting to compliment the people who sold his people out. Then what? I can't really think of any other obvious pig associations, and something obscure would defeat the purpose of having such a heavy-handed metaphor in the first place. French frogs and Swedish moose? I call that giving up. Making the French into frogs is just making an ethnic slur literal. Not impressive. Swedish moose? Well, what other animal lives in Sweden? The strangest of all are the British fish. Is that some kind of nod to their naval power? Their drinking culture? Did Speigelman even mean for it to have any symbolism? I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that the pressure to represent every nationality with a different animal must've forced Spiegelman to make these somewhat iffy decisions. Metaphors don't come for free, it seems.

On the Issues of Essays

Well I'm not sure if we were given a topic or whether we are supposed to write an entry, but just in case:

In class we spent most of the time editing essays so I'll devote this to other essays i have edited. My skills in creatively coming up with a topic for this week seem very lacking, whatever. My cousin is sending in her college applications this week and she asked me to go over them with her. I am probably the worst person to do this with since I know nothing about parallel structure, verb agreement, or where commas are supposed, to, go. But I hoped to try and help her with the big picture and reading her essay I was 1) very jealous that she was a better writer than me and 2) surprised about the content in her essay, she revealed something that I had not known about her. That got me thinking how much of anyone do we actually know? I think people make it seem like we are all similarly confident but behind that veneer lies a still more conforming person who is unsure whether or not everything they do is right. Who knows what's inside each person that deeply affected their past and now their present selves and how little we know...but these are all Berkeley thoughts. Deep thoughts from the deep: sri sri kunal...aaauuummmmmm

So I must agree with Patrick on the “intellectual” papers about Maus. I’m still trying to clean the vomit out of my laptop. Yea, the first one is great, hell, maybe even the second if you’re lucky. The story goes like this, there are two types of Maus papers found in the 90’s. a)OMG!!! It’s not a history of the Holocaust, it’s a history of the recording of the history of the Holocaust. OMGOMG (I feel that this type of writing is permissible as we are writing in a weB LOG, also, note the number of OMG’s, this will make itself evident for later) Art is upset with his father? But he was in the Holocaust, how could you be upset with him? I mean he suffered so much for you! Are you ungrateful? YES, get over it. The second type is flattering to Art’s style of drawing, which is totally cool. Different size frames, continuous pictures crossing frames, etc. But again, how many papers can be written on the same thing? I mean, don’t literary journals have referees? Ok, so as I’m scooping up the vomit, I’ve been reading the critiques in chronological order, starting from those closest to the release of Maus I, then BAM 9/11. Ok, big day, lots of suffering etc. Art writes a book about his experience during 9/11 (did I mention he lives in lower Manhattan?). The academic community proceeds to set its death grip on the subject. OMGOMGOMGOMG Art has a traumatic experience he can finally call his own! Aren’t we all happy? Let’s write a million papers on it.
Which brings me to my point… If the academic community has such a hard time coming up with fresh and original ideas about the subject, where do we stand? Good luck everyone.
*Disclaimer*
I must apologize to those who have or ever will contribute to literary journals. This post was made merely in jest and I assure you that the scientific community is no better (if not worse) at publishing copy after copy of the same boring drivel.

weird picture maus II

Ok, so I don’t know if you guys have read Maus II (you really should, it’s good, and, it’s where it’s at… I mean, most my paper is based on that one) but on the third to last page, Art includes a picture of Vladek. But get this… He’s wearing the striped Auschwitz prison uniform! Vladek tells us that he passed a photo shop that had a prison uniform that people could get their pictures taken in as a souvenir. How FREAKING WEIRD is that. Now, I’m all for getting your picture from Splash-Mountain. But if Splash-Mountain gas, shot, murdered, raped, maimed, (the list goes on) millions of your brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, children, friends, countrymen (the list goes on) would you buy a picture? Wouldn’t the ID tattoo and the indelible memories of pain and suffering be enough of a souvenir? Now, I’m all for remembering the Holocaust so that such atrocities will never be repeated, but Vladek looks quite stoic and, dare I say? Proud to be wearing the uniform. The whole idea kind of goes against the scene where art talks to his therapist about how if surviving is honorable, then is dying dishonorable? Personally, I’m a bit outraged.


shaunt

darn biased stories

First off, I can't help but wonder how much of Maus is true. It's not the comic presentation that causes me to question is authenticity of the text, but rather the way that Spiegelman himself tells the story. There are many points in the book where it seems like IF this story is represented as it occurred, that Vladek seemed to tailor his story more to what Art was looking for to write his comic book than to really just tell his own story. And you wonder if this was a kind gesture on Vladek's part or a hinderance to the actual Holocaust narrative. It kind of reminds me of how a movie based on a book would go. Yeah sure, you get the overall plot going on still and it's BASICALLY the same thing, but a lot of little things are cut out in order to make the movie a hit and sensational. There could be a parallel drawn in this to the way that Maus is formulated. For all we know, Vladek as well as Art could have been editing or "tweaking" the story as need be to make it more appealing to readers and make it a better selling product. True, the fundamental story may still be there, but the way that things are emphasized and also as importantly, DE-emphasized may skew the way that the story is received by readers. I feel like the comic book form, because you get visual images as well as the layered narrative, is getting at the idea that this story is not really all so much another Holocaust narrative to be shared with the world but rather a story that's rooted at a much deeper and personal level in relation to Spiegelman himself.

Hmm, seems like I'm well on my way to sounding like many of the other literary criticisms already out on Maus.

nervous ticks

Nervous ticks…
In Maus, Art depicts himself as constantly smoking cigarettes while writing. This obviously must be very important to him. Rarely there is a scene of him drawing without one in his mouth. On a slightly hilarious parallel, Austin Grossman seemed to have quite the tick of his own. About every two seconds, he would push his glasses up. Even multiple times in a row. Now, as a person who wears glasses, I quickly took note of this interesting habit. I myself at a younger and insecure portion of my life tried to change the way that I pushe up my glasses. I went for a cooler, hipper thumb and middle finger on the two sides rather than the seemingly geeky index on the nose bridge approach. But I simply could not maintain the ‘cool’ style. I would always revert back to my natural motion. This of course, makes me think that Austin doesn’t even realize what he is doing, nor does Spiegelman realize that he is smoking. What is it about writing that brings out these nervous ticks. Be it a toe-tap, glasses push, cigarette (probably not so many of us anymore), or whatever. Is our body simply uncomfortable while writing? Implying that the activity is quite unnatural and we are subcounciously trying to jump out of our skin? Or perhaps these ticks are important to develop a proper rhythm in our writing. As I sit here, in the deepest basement of moffit, I can see people sniffing, twisting their hair, biting their nails, cracking their necks, each person with a movement and style as individual as their writing voice. I call upon all of us, develop a unique tick, make it work, and most importantly, make it your own!

Two post-scripts

I. First, I apologize for making anyone who reads this schitzophrenic and selfconcious of every body-movement made while writing… and…
II. How rad the austin’s glasses push is. I think someday he’ll figure out a way to fight crime with it.

shaunt

I'm still stunned by that anyone would think Maus to be a piece of anti-Semitic work. There's just no way people should think this way. Spiegelman, a Jewish man living in New York City with a wife who converted to his religion, a man whose parents barely survived the Holocaust, could not possibly be anti-Semitic. It just doesn't make sense. Sure, the epigraph at the beginning of Maus is a quote from Hitler, but the rest of the story rejects and effectively disproves that outrageous, alarming Hitler tried to make to justify his onslaught of terror. I can't even think of words to describe anything close to what the Holocaust was like and how destructive and far-reaching and inhumane it was. For Spiegelman himself to have that Nazi mentality while putting on the Jewish mask would not only make him hypocritical but also evidently make him one hell of an illusionist. If he were living a double life as a Jewish man who created one of the most moving Holocaust stories only to be covering his self-hating anti-Jewish mentality, then he must be incredibly gifted in the arts of ruse. Or, we as a group unfortunately suffer from gullibility. Are we too trusting? I think not, but I also believe we want to see the good in people. In some people, it's easier to see the good than in others. After all, Hitler, however dire the consequences, was a brilliant orator. He was able to sway the masses. Some people just have charm more disarming and more powerful than one's deep-seated beliefs. Just a few weeks ago, one of my friends mentioned how much she despises Mike Huckabee's political platform, yet hearing him speak makes it impossible to hate him. This, coming from a political science major and uber liberal, simply baffles her good sense. While it baffles me that Maus could be read as anti-Jewish material, it baffles me that I might be playing into the hands of a guy who's outcharmed my better judgment.

Ok, so over the break I watched at least 12 hours of Seinfeld DVD's, therfore this post will be done as if it were taking place in the booth at Monks with Jerry, George, and Elaine.

Badibadib bawn bown bi bown

Jerry: So what’s the deal with all these bribes in the holocaust? I mean, why do you need a gold watch in Auschwitz? Are you trying to find a new girlfriend?

Kramer: You never know (funny face/head bobble).

George: It couldn’t have been that bad there. I could really see myself in Auschwitz. You don’t have to decide what to wear everyday, the Germans give you something to do, and you never have to see your parents. Talk about heaven.

Elaine: You know George, you might be right. With all the starvation, suffering, and misery, you’d be a real catch.

Ok, running the risk of becoming even more offensive, I’ll stop the Seinfeld dialogue.

But seriously, What’s the deal with the bribes in Auschwitz? When so many people have so little left to live for, how do ‘valuables’ still hold any value? An argument could be that they can be used to bribe the guards. But this doesn’t hold up since the guards would seemingly kill you and take your gold as soon as you offer it to them. Why would the guard risk helping a Jew if they could simply steal their valuables. And if one could not bribe the guards, then what do other inmates want with the money? I can’t believe that people would be saving this stuff for when they get out. ‘ohhh, if I play my cards right, then I’ll totally have this sweet watch when I get out of Auschwitz.” Yea right.

vladek=jerk v. 2

But on a continuation of my previous post, if Vladek is such an ass, then why does Mala stick around? Vladek treats her like dirt, constantly tires to control her, and what does she get out of the situation? Monetary support. Perhaps she has no other choice. Too old to work she most likely cannot support herself. But what happened to her previous husband (I think that it should be safe to assume that she at one point in the past was married to someone. Perhaps he died in the Holocaust?) But even more strangely, Art thanks Mala in the Thanks section of the book. ‘Thanks to Mala Spiegelman for her help in translating Polish books and documents, and for wanting Maus to happen.’ Strange, Mala even took Vladek’s name. I know that the older generation is more traditional, but from the portrayal we get, Mala and Vladek hardly seem like a married couple. Vladek is even buried next to Anja, as seen in the final image of Maus II. Where does that leave poor, poor Mala? Nowhere. It’s from this that I begin to wonder how much Art exaggerates the asshole nature of his father. Perhaps he laid the caricature on thick. I don’t think that he has ever claimed that his book is realistic and cartoons generally don’t play much with subtlety, rather the characters are big and bold and have well defined traits.

Vladek=Jerk

What’s the deal with Vladek? Why is he such an asshole? All the time... It really starts from the beginning. What happened to Lucia Greenburg? Vladek was going out for three or four years. That seems like a pretty long time (especially back then [didn’t people get married right quick?]). On page 15, she even tells Vladek that they should get engaged; he pretends to ignore her and says he should take her home. Now that is a pretty big slap in the face. Especially considering that Lucia is in her nightgown and Vladek is putting his clothes back on! Scandalous!!!!!!!!!! But he doesn’t stop there. A small text square (indicating Vladek’s contemporary voice) say that ‘her family was nice, but had no money, even for a dowry.’ How could be such a jerk? I first wondered maybe this was his current misery mind putting a spin on his past, but the fact is that he didn’t marry this girl for three or four years! Obviously he had some trepidations and the only one Art shows us is how his father didn’t want to marry into her poor family. But, at the drop of a hat, he has no reservations about marrying Anja in order to get to her rich parents. I don’t think that the holocaust caused the issues with money that Vladek has. Perhaps it exacerbated them a little bit, but they’ve been there all along.

Maus and Pinky and the Brain

Don’t read if you like the cartoon strip Cathy

OK, this might be a stretch but... did any one else used to religiously follow pinky and the brain? I have no finer memories than when I used to come home from school, make myself a huge bowl of Coco Puffs and plop down in front of the TV to watch not only the infamous Brain try to take over the world with his hilariously gentle minded cohort Pinky, but also Beast Wars (a newer generation Transformers show (all computer generated graphics) where the characters are robots that can transform into various animals). But let us not forget Animaniacs, Garfield, Chip and Dale Rescue Rangers, and countless other animal based cartoon shows that populated the Saturday morning lineup. In fact, every single cartoon I used to watch as a kid involved animals except those based on pre-existing superhero books. I wonder what has stemmed this fascination with animal cartoons. But, finishing my daily post-school afternoon cartoons, my sugar rush unsatiated by only two meager half hour shows, I would religiously read the comic section in the newspaper. Strangely enough, nearly all of these feature human characters and not animals. It makes me wonder what causes the divide. I guess it must do with the target audience. Do children love animals more than adults? Since I’ve learned everything I know about the working world from Office Space, I’ll assume that comics in the newspaper don’t feature animals because a fat, ugly, cat annoying named Cathy, who is perpetuating her fatness, ugliness, and annoying tendencies by screaming about her fatness while eating carton after carton of ice-cream wouldn’t look as nice pinned up on one’s cubicle as a real human version of the aforementioned.

(ps. Yes, this devolved into an anti-Cathy rant, but rightfully so! There are too many bad comics in the newspaper. Pinky and the Brain even had an episode denouncing Family Circus! Such genius and wit)

mice or men?

One thing that stuck out at me was the very human-like hand of the spirit of Vladek's dead grandfather on p57. The dead grandfather is rendered as a mouse, but it has an abnormally large human hand protruding from the folds of his robe. And what on earth is that square thing on it'd head. Is it part of its hat?

Anyways, after this observation of the hand, I began noticing that the mice in Maus are not really mice. It is true that they have mouse heads but the rest of their body is pretty much human. They all have hands with five fingers instead of claws. Their bodies are shaped like humans too. On p15, Lucia is depicted in a sexy nightgown where we can see her ample cleavage and voluptuous womanly body. I don't think female mice can have cleavage. Also, not many of the mouse pictures depict the characters with tails. The only one I could find was on p17 where you can see Anja's tail in her photograph. Do the mice walk around with their tails stuffed inside of their pants? I imagine that it would be very uncomfortable.

So what does this mean? That mice with tails are not attractive? Maybe it's Spiegelman's way of humanizing the mice so that we do not forget that in the real Holocaust, real people died. Perhaps he wanted to introduce his concept of depicting his characters as mice and cats, but he still wanted an element of humanness to exist to evoke sympathy from human readers. Or maybe Spiegelman thought it was just easier to draw human bodies doing things instead of mouse bodies.

Wow. I haven't blogged for a really long time. Perhaps I should respond to each of Patrick's posts to make up all of the blog entries. But I think it'd be much easier to create my own entries. Besides, I like Maus so I will probably make all of my entries on it. I think the reason why I enjoyed it was because I am completely a visual person. I learn visually and I think feel more strongly through visuals as well. The whole time when I was reading Maus I felt like I was watching a movie because the angles kept changing as a video camera would and sometimes the frames will zoom in or zoom out, creating the illusion of motion. However, although I do enjoy the visuals in a graphic novel, I also do like the freedom of reading a novel without pictures so that while I read I can make up my own pictures and interpretations in my head. I think graphic novels are interesting because you can visualize what the illustrator sees which is especially very cool if the illustrator has interesting concepts and details. For example, I thought it was awesome when Spiegelman drew his Jewish characters with pig-masks. I like how on p155 the way the Germans catch Vladek and Anja is by taking off their masks.

I know someone said in class that he/she did not like the illustrations. I actually like them a lot. I don't think they are realistic. It's not something that I would frame and put on my wall for fifty years, but the point of the drawings is not just to look pretty. I think the drawing style is expressive and has character which allows it to convey ideas to the viewer more efficiently.

Nov 14 - Maus

I thought i would take this opportunity to talk about my philosophy on english papers about fiction novels (or graphic novels, for that matter).

There seems no better way to dislike a book i initially liked than to have to write a 10 page paper about it. Five pages, well. That seems reasonable. I mean there's definitely something to be said for expressing ideas and making arguments (plus i really like the idea of having multiple evolving thesis in a paper instead of the 5 paragraph intro, body, supporting evidence, conclusion paper with nice transitions and topic sentences).

However, the more i read the academic papers about Maus, the more i throw up all over my keyboard. They're SO intellectual! I mean, of course they will be since they're academic, but it blows my mind to read some of these things. Elaborate frameworks dedicated to describing how different structures in Maus play out. I mean, they're probably true, and it makes sense to write it out if you're interested, but to have paper after paper after paper about this same stuff constantly making arguments...

I'm really not sure what i'm supposed to write. There are definitely parts that i think very interesting (i liked the book)... but what i took most from it was the emotional impact of reading and seeing a story about someone's experience in the holocaust. What the book did most for me was made me gawk when i walked into a convenience store at how luxurious and easy everything around me is. Just having a matress. or even a blanket. THat's the power of the book.

I could talk about the various ways in which Spiegelman did this. I'm glad he thought about it because he made a great product. But i'm most interested in exploring my reaction to the book, not how the book illicited this reaction.

Of course it's an english class. And i get into the thesis writing once i've started. It's just so difficult (especially with a graphic novel) to come up with an interesting topic and thesis that can be 10 pages long while also keeping my interest. I hope it goes well.

Nov 7 - is Equiano the greatest possibility of our times?

No way. i don't believe in the framing of the question to begin with. I don't believe a single person can be the greatest possibility of our times, no matter what they stand for. The second buddha is said to be community... now there's something to think about.

Our society is so focused on individuals. Blindly focused. We don't even see that works like equianos are certainly team efforts. YOu can stick a name at the top for communication purposes, but really there are hundreds and thousands of people who are actively and indirectly supporting work like this.

It's a skewed vision of the world if we only see the charismatic leaders at the top as people who make change. It's disempowering, and more than that, it's so far from the truth. Yes it's helpful to have a gifted leader, but a gifted leader needs many more gifted followers in order to make any sort of change happen.

I'm a big fan of: Ghandi, MLK, Jesus, the Buddha, Patanjali, Avram Davis, Echkart Tolle. Whatever. But i'm not pinning the hopes of "our times" onto a single person. Please. It's so insulting to the supporting staff that really make something work.

Oct 31 - Equiano

Equiano. I'll be the first to admit that i exaggerate and make unfair and negative comments about the books and authors in this class. Now that i've got that off my chest, i'd like to defend Equiano and the validity of his book. In class we talked about whether the book was "true" or not, which is a different question than is the book "valid." However the two became very linked in our discussion. Whether equiano was born in africa or whether he was born a slave, or whether he had been a free black man his entire life it somewhat inconsequential to me. His story stands in for an experience of life at the time that was not being represented to the masses. THere were probably a lot of stories that were unrepresented to the masses, but probably none quite as important as a slave narrative.

THe issues were real and his book was a powerful tool. I really liked the short piece we read about how he is a DJ--using different samples from different mediums to create a synthesis that reflects his own vision.

The whole discussion of what "true" is (in this context) makes me think about how people agree on anything. It's basically just a majority rules system in which the people with the most power get to say what is true. In retrospect slavery is obviously terrible and immoral and all these other things... but certainly this was not so clear to white slave-oweners at the time. I would be really interested to learn about the process by which something that is obvious (slave owning is OK) goes to being confusing (is owning slaves ok?) to being obvious the other way (of course owning slaves is one of the worst practices of human kind).

The idea of slavery physically creeps me out.

Oct 24 - Blade Runner (the movie)

Happy Birthday Talissa!

I was pretty shocked at Blade Runner. It was so BAD! and so Violent!! Who would would have thought? Ridley Scott is one helluva guy.

He basically took out all of the intellectual stuff and put in more romance, strippers, fight scenes, blood, and violence. I think making the opera singer into an exotic dancer is perfectly characteristic of how the book was converted into a movie. Or perhaps how the Rachel Rosen model was converte from just a regular model (in the book) to a PLEASURE ANDROID (in the movie). I'll give him a little credit to his name because it was the 80s and I was one of the few good things to come out of the 80s (besides parachute pants, of course).

I do understand that a lot of the book had to be taken out because the book itself didn't make any sense, let alone trying to make sense of mercerism to a pop-culture movie audience during a feature length film. That would have been a REAL nightmare. I did like the actor who played Roy Baty, however, i think is only because i thought he was a pretty convincing android. He just looked slightly inhuman. The end when he was running around in his underpants like a crazed animal was entertaining in the same way that people create traffic jams as they slow down to look at car accidents. I thought the decision to have the android save Harrison Ford at the end also seemed a little silly--kinda hollywood. I mean... he's an android. what does he care about saving the life of a human? especially if he can feel vengeance (since he got angry when rachel was killed).

Perhaps the best part was the very end when that dude said: "SHE WON'T LAST LONG.... BUT THEN AGAIN, WHO DOES?" I mean. it was worth watching the entire movie just for THAT.

Word.

Oct 17 - Grossman Lecture

Let's be honest. Austin Grossman is insane. I don't think he looked up for a cumulative 1 minute during the entire 90 minute class period.

Ok. I'm glad we got that out of the way.

I really did appreciate how he introduced his topic of "are comics literature" with the initial question of "who cares?" Because I certainly couldn't think of a reason to care. I think he mentioned stuff about funding, which was the only real reason i could think of to care... i mean, otherwise it's just a bunch of people having stuff intellectual and academic discussions that are both totally boring (to me) and totally pointless (to the rest of the world). But I suppose if comics were officially delegated as literature than they would be better financially supported and i'm in favor of that. I Think the genre as a whole has a lot to offer. Pictures are pretty sweet. Some say that pictures tell a thousand words. Well i don't know about that, but I know that they can definitely tell a more convincing story... of course books are pretty good too and i have a feeling that nobody will ever read what i'm writing on this blog, especially if i put iti n the middle of a paragraph. And this reminds me of a story in which my brother had two write 3 papers in a class about "pragmatics" in which the lowest grade on one of the paper would be dropped and so he got As on the first two papers so on his third paper he simply writes, "being pragmatic, i'm not going to write this third paper because there's no point." Of course the professor gives him an A and asks him to meet him in his office. "Nobody's ever BEAT me at my own game like this... what's your major son?" and my brother responded "film." and the professor looked a little disappointed. ANd Grossman really knows how to put together a story of superheroes though i think that his idea that most books need to be more "awesome" seems to be a little simoplistic. One man's awesome is another man's total bummer.

Oct 3 - Invincible

I really enjoyed reading this book, though I think at points it definitely dragged along. I can see how the first chapter was definitely written as a solo piece and then got expanded to an entire book. I think the premise of hearing the scared and self-conscious inner-dialogue of superheroes and supervillains is funny, but does it really merit an entire book? I guess so, considering it is an entire book and that I liked it. But it's a question that came up.

Also, I found that i didn't care about Fatale at all. Whenever books twist with different storylines I always gravitate pretty strongly towards one of them. If it's a good book then i am stuck to whichever one i am reading and don't want to switch at the next chapter but then become engrossed immediately.

But there's something about dr impossible that is much more compelling than Fatale. HE just has so much more going on... i mean he is the smartest person the planet. And as much as it is a cheap trick, i always thought it was funny when he referred to past incidents like freezing the moon or impersonating the pope--classic. Fatale was so low-energy. She seemed pretty depressed. And i suppose like most superheroes her sole purpose in life is in reaction to other people. Superheroes are mostly reactionary not proactive. IT just seems like a really unfulfilling way to go about life. I think life's already got enough downers in it to read about some depressed cyborg. Clearly the only thing she truly has to live for is some weird identity of who she should be, but it just seems so hollow.

Sept 26 - Androids

I enjoyed reading Androids, though i don't think i would recommend the book to anyone i cared about (life is too short, no?)

I'm all for robots. Plus i really like Dick's short stories. The book just seemed so dry to me.

The book brought up a few interesting ideas, i guess. I mean would rather read it than Frankenstein.

Ok.

The idea of having animals as status symbols is at least somewhat interesting. It's the manifestation of a the idea of capitalism and individualism mixed with this world in which the new scarce commodity to have are animals. It's really not so different than today, though it certainly looks weird from the outset. Of course, I would say having an animal around has more intrinsic value than owning a $300 pair of jeans anyway. I suppose Dick is making the point that what we assign monetary and emotional value to as humans is quite arbitray to its utility to us, and more on how people (at least in the US) tend to gravitate towards modes of expression that distinguish our success and monetary worth.

Which is somewhat odd considering that in this world people have a switch that will allow them to feel any emotion they want. Again, it's the logical projection of all the various drugs that influence people's moods--anxiety, anti-depression, ADD, OCD, etc. I think Doctor's proscribe these drugs with good intentions and that people who take them obviously find some amount of short-term relief, but in the long run it seems like a complete suppression of authenticity and denial of problems. In the future, they can flip a dial. Now we can take drugs. Obviously (to me), the problem is not that people who are anxious need to be fixed, it's that our society is structured in such a way that large amounts of people are constantly in need of emotional balance and have no resources.

Phew.

Sept 5, Frankenstein

Frankenstein. Ah yes.
I remember this book. I wanted to have my thesis for this paper be "Mary Shelley is extremely" ugly. I eventually chickened out on this thesis because of Talissa's authoritarian view on what "english" papers should "be."

Anyway, the basic idea was that Mary Shelley was basically using the Monster as a projection of herself. She gives the Monster a lot of sympathy through the plotline--it's this charming creature that just so happens to be hideously ugly the the point that it scares off everyone it sees. Even when it is doing heroic deeds like rescuing a child from a river it still is scorned by all of humankind because of it's disgusting face--of course this situation was cleverly crafted by Shelley. She thinks of herself as extremely heroic and simply the butt-end of a cynical and superficial society. Her pitying tone in which the mosnter constantly decries the vices of the evil society that scorns it based on its appearances is what initially tipped me off.

But then i did some research on wikipedia and found that Mary Shelley was constantly being abandoned--her mother died when she was little and then her nanny left because she was having sex with some dude. And then percy shelley, her husband was a total asshole and kept wanting to sleep with other women. So it was an ongoing issue.

Finally, I used google image to find a picture of her, and sure enough, she was ugly. I mean, she wasn't THAT ugly... but it was a PAINTING. Meaning that whoever painted it obviously made her much better looking than she actually was. Plus i was trying to prove that she was ugly, and this fit my thesis.

And here my troubles began...

OK. My plan is to make up the 9 weeks in which I didn't post a blog and everyone did. And I'm going to respond to what people were responding to then. Like a medley. Hopefully it will look like some kind of relay-race, or maybe I'll throw a postmodern twist on it and try to hybridize my responses about this hybrid-writing class.