Hi all. I am making an attempt at this blog now before I completely forget once the day begins anew. Honestly, the more I was attempting to analyze Grossman's novel for this paper (due in a day or so), the more I found a pattern similar to that in Dick's novel: there's this cyclic blur of distinction between superhero and supervillain, just as there is between android and human. It seems as though the more you think you know about them, the less you truly do, especially in the case of the supervillains (and their reasoning for being such villainous individuals). I found it a headache and a half to make that clear cut distinction anymore besides the fact that they were slapped with a label that they eventually followed through with. It's as if they were evil because they were told they were supposed to be, and therefore were committing crimes in order to fulfill the role assigned to them.
Anyways, back to the current novel at hand. When reading Equiano's account of his "home country," it definitely did feel romanticized. Everything was so perfect, so right, as if bathed in a pool of glorious ideality... the utopia of Africa. I now change my vote (kind of late I know) to the side that the authenticity of his story matters. Although there is the tradeoff between interpreting the story of the silent masses in order to actually even get the story out there, I feel like the fact he concealed the origin of his stories somewhat negates any positive impact he may have had on his audience. There's always emphasis placed on the legitimacy of a text, and to go so far as to claim it to be true without any disclaimers may even have the opposite effect that Equiano was aiming for: his dishonesty may lead any readers who would have otherwise been moved to change their views based on reading his story to see himself and everyone he is representing (the slave population) in an even more negative light: as liars who will use any means necessary, even dishonesty (which is a big no-no in the Christian/Puritan world) to achieve their ultimate goal. In the end, it may hurt the cause of the slaves.
My apologies if you actually read this probably incoherent rambling. Good luck to all on the papers!
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Happy Birthday Talissa!
I need to make this short and sweet cause i have a midterm and another paper due tomorrow but that movie that we watched was aweful. I was hoping it would give me some insight to the book since i thought that the book was confusing but the movie was probably more confusing than the book. Its a pity that harrison ford had to do something so shitty, i wonder if he knew what was going on during the course of the movie. I think that the movie managed to confuse me even more and now im definetly not writing on Bladerunner.
I need to make this short and sweet cause i have a midterm and another paper due tomorrow but that movie that we watched was aweful. I was hoping it would give me some insight to the book since i thought that the book was confusing but the movie was probably more confusing than the book. Its a pity that harrison ford had to do something so shitty, i wonder if he knew what was going on during the course of the movie. I think that the movie managed to confuse me even more and now im definetly not writing on Bladerunner.
So... our first draft of our second paper is due tomorrow. And I have nothing. I like this blogging thing we have going on, though. It's informal, so I don't get freaked out if what I type is completely idiotic or boring or simple-minded. I mostly concerned about simple-minded thoughts. And brief, insignificant comments. I know many escape me.
I like Demetri Martin. He has short, random stories. I write short, random sentences. But I don't have a law degree.
What the hell? Just to check up on Demetri Martin trivia, I went to imdb.com, and since I was there, I looked at today's birthdays. In any case, I come across this Dave Callaham and click on his name since his profile picture is of a really cute baby. Who can resist, right? But the thing is is this guy's thirty years old. And one of the two bits of info on him is "College roommate of Magoo." "Magoo" is, of course, a link to another guy's page. And it's a dog--the masturbating dog in Garden State. Again, I think, what the hell? And this, mostly due to my own frustration/procrastination/undying wish to find inspiration concerning my paper, is the state I am in presently.
On a lighter note, happy birthday, Talissa! I hope you're having a fantastic birthday extravaganza! In celebration of this special occasion, a little comedy with pictures: an excerpt from "Person" because "Material Enhancers" is unavailable : ( (JUST KIDDING! P.S. People should speak in full words and not acronyms, unless you're talking about radar, laser or scuba.)
I like Demetri Martin. He has short, random stories. I write short, random sentences. But I don't have a law degree.
What the hell? Just to check up on Demetri Martin trivia, I went to imdb.com, and since I was there, I looked at today's birthdays. In any case, I come across this Dave Callaham and click on his name since his profile picture is of a really cute baby. Who can resist, right? But the thing is is this guy's thirty years old. And one of the two bits of info on him is "College roommate of Magoo." "Magoo" is, of course, a link to another guy's page. And it's a dog--the masturbating dog in Garden State. Again, I think, what the hell? And this, mostly due to my own frustration/procrastination/undying wish to find inspiration concerning my paper, is the state I am in presently.
On a lighter note, happy birthday, Talissa! I hope you're having a fantastic birthday extravaganza! In celebration of this special occasion, a little comedy with pictures: an excerpt from "Person" because "Material Enhancers" is unavailable : ( (JUST KIDDING! P.S. People should speak in full words and not acronyms, unless you're talking about radar, laser or scuba.)
"Blade Runner"
Although I'm sure there are far more interesting things that I could be writing about right now, I can't get past that movie. Half the time, I was completely lost and the other half, I was hiding behind a piece of paper (I really don't like blood and violence). All I can say is: WHAT HAPPENED?! There seems to be a disconnect between the book and the movie because the main messages that I was interpreting from each seemed to be extremely different. While the book seriously seemed to have a legitimate question to pose (what IS humanity?), the movie apparently cut that out when they cut out Mercerism. I keep thinking that I missed out on part of the movie and that's when they went into Mercerism with depth and vigor. But no. Instead, I was exposed to a lot of screaming and shooting and strange, animalistic fight scenes in the dark and rain. It seems as the though the movie completely went off on a tangent from the book and literally MADE it into an action film. The book seemed to focus more on the internal struggle of Deckard while the movie managed to strip it down to... what else? sex and violence. Maybe I'm being a little critical, but the movie seemed to get the whole "mind-boggling" part of Dick's novel down, but not for the same reasons. It was more of a general confusion as to why things were happening rather than specific debatable points (ie THE GOAT!). Honestly, I think the movie might have just been a little too commercialized and trying to appeal too much to a broad audience, as done so by... sex and action/violence. It was one of those movies that made me appreciate the book that much more!
P.S. What was up with all the Asian people as street vendors? It felt like Harrison Ford was chilling out in a major Chinese metropolitan or something. I couldn't help but wonder if there was some type of racism hidden in there or at the very least the perpetuation of a stereotype that is somewhat unappreciated...
P.S. What was up with all the Asian people as street vendors? It felt like Harrison Ford was chilling out in a major Chinese metropolitan or something. I couldn't help but wonder if there was some type of racism hidden in there or at the very least the perpetuation of a stereotype that is somewhat unappreciated...
ny times review
Enough with the diversity criticism. Has anyone taken the time to wikipedia
What interested me was
To be honest, some of the critiques reflect a lot of my feelings when reading the book. I totally sympathized with Dr. Impossible, wading through the Champions drama only to get to the next chapter. And it’s hard to believe that
Since we're on the topic of author/ity and representation and inclusion of various peoples in literature...
Why is it necessary for authors to make characters homosexual or ethnic?
Do they really have a social responsibility to make it representative of actual society?
I found it a bit disturbing that Austin Grossman was considering rewriting the characters to please a few opinionated readers. Granted that I assume authors do revise and revise based off of feedback from peers, I don't think an author should have to rewrite his novel because someone said it doesn't represent society well enough. I feel as if the author has complete rights (ignoring publishers and editors rights) to do what s/he wants with his work.
In the case of Invincible and the online blogger. I feel like you can't really say that the novel isnt representative because after all it is a fiction world. A world where there are aliens, human animals mixes, robots, etc. Since it is a world outside of the world we live in, can you really try to mix in our idea of reality into a different world?
Would the blogger be pleased if Austin made Dr. Impossible African American? That is what she asked for isnt it? more ethnic diversity. Yet I don't think the blogger would be happy about that because if the villain was African American, then Austin would just be contributing to the stigma that african americans are more likely to commit a crime. The only way for the blogger to be pleased is if Austin diversified the characters in such a way that agreed with the blogger's views on breaking stigmas.
So in the end....authors should retain full authority in making characters how they choose based on their own beliefs.
Why is it necessary for authors to make characters homosexual or ethnic?
Do they really have a social responsibility to make it representative of actual society?
I found it a bit disturbing that Austin Grossman was considering rewriting the characters to please a few opinionated readers. Granted that I assume authors do revise and revise based off of feedback from peers, I don't think an author should have to rewrite his novel because someone said it doesn't represent society well enough. I feel as if the author has complete rights (ignoring publishers and editors rights) to do what s/he wants with his work.
In the case of Invincible and the online blogger. I feel like you can't really say that the novel isnt representative because after all it is a fiction world. A world where there are aliens, human animals mixes, robots, etc. Since it is a world outside of the world we live in, can you really try to mix in our idea of reality into a different world?
Would the blogger be pleased if Austin made Dr. Impossible African American? That is what she asked for isnt it? more ethnic diversity. Yet I don't think the blogger would be happy about that because if the villain was African American, then Austin would just be contributing to the stigma that african americans are more likely to commit a crime. The only way for the blogger to be pleased is if Austin diversified the characters in such a way that agreed with the blogger's views on breaking stigmas.
So in the end....authors should retain full authority in making characters how they choose based on their own beliefs.
In Response
I apologize in advance for the Harry Potter final book spoilers. I just couldn't resist after seeing Tran's post.
Since I've already somewhat gone over my thoughts of the film, yet have a strong desire to respond to Tran's post below mine, and we don't have a particular topic to blog about, I hope this isn't too out of line? I actually came across the same information regarding Dumbledore a few days ago and also thought it coincidentally enough, paralleled Grossman's lecture regarding Feral and Elphin completely. Though I think there is a slight difference. When J.K. Rowling revealed that Dumbledore's one true love was Grindelwald, everything regarding Dumbledore's past in the final book just clicked for me. Prior to that revelation, though though their relationship was somewhat implied in the novel, since it wasn't directly stated, Dumbledore's actions seemed unclear. Friendship just doesn't sufficiently justify a complete reversal in ideology that we see in Dumbledore's character and neither does foolish youthfulness. The alteration of philosophy is just too extreme for it to be believable. Yet by having Dumbledore be in love with Grindelwald, not only does Dumbledore's past become significantly more complex and tragic, his "evil" ideology of youth as he went along with Grindelwald is seemingly more justified in that love does blind us. Thus, it becomes a necessary component to his character and an overall comprehension of the novel that I believe should have been blatantly stated within the text.
However, with Invincible, I don't see the same necessity. Inclusion of Feral or Elphin's sexual orientation, though socially more representative, just doesn't seem plot relevant, nor does it significantly add any further complexity to either characters. It just doesn't build upon the interpretation of the novel and therefore though I see a social necessity to be inclusive of all individuals, information that doesn't add to a deeper understanding of the work just seems superfluous and would be taken more as a side note rather than as a major plot point like is the case in the final book of the Harry Potter series.
-Kathy
Since I've already somewhat gone over my thoughts of the film, yet have a strong desire to respond to Tran's post below mine, and we don't have a particular topic to blog about, I hope this isn't too out of line? I actually came across the same information regarding Dumbledore a few days ago and also thought it coincidentally enough, paralleled Grossman's lecture regarding Feral and Elphin completely. Though I think there is a slight difference. When J.K. Rowling revealed that Dumbledore's one true love was Grindelwald, everything regarding Dumbledore's past in the final book just clicked for me. Prior to that revelation, though though their relationship was somewhat implied in the novel, since it wasn't directly stated, Dumbledore's actions seemed unclear. Friendship just doesn't sufficiently justify a complete reversal in ideology that we see in Dumbledore's character and neither does foolish youthfulness. The alteration of philosophy is just too extreme for it to be believable. Yet by having Dumbledore be in love with Grindelwald, not only does Dumbledore's past become significantly more complex and tragic, his "evil" ideology of youth as he went along with Grindelwald is seemingly more justified in that love does blind us. Thus, it becomes a necessary component to his character and an overall comprehension of the novel that I believe should have been blatantly stated within the text.
However, with Invincible, I don't see the same necessity. Inclusion of Feral or Elphin's sexual orientation, though socially more representative, just doesn't seem plot relevant, nor does it significantly add any further complexity to either characters. It just doesn't build upon the interpretation of the novel and therefore though I see a social necessity to be inclusive of all individuals, information that doesn't add to a deeper understanding of the work just seems superfluous and would be taken more as a side note rather than as a major plot point like is the case in the final book of the Harry Potter series.
-Kathy
Sunday, October 21, 2007
When J. K. Rowling revealed that Dumbledore is a homosexual, it reminded me of when Mr. Grossman mentioned that Feral and Elphin are also gay. When I found out, I felt even more admiration for Dumbledore and excited at the same time. Admiration because culturally, I know the troubles and hatred that homosexuals have gone through to be comfortable with who they are. I know most of you don't agree with the idea that race and sexual orientation doesn't matter, but the way I see things, it does. I come from a very diverse city, but when I came to Berkeley, I encountered people who are very conservative who argues that homosexuals are sinners (i.e. that loud crazy guy in Upper Sproul). As much as we hate to admit it, we have been weened to judge others.My point is...So it's kind of like everyone's fallen in love with Dumbledore, and now that his secret is revealed, what are those people who aren't as open-minded going to think? Do they suddenly ignore all of Dumbledore's great traits and hate him because he's gay? Or are they going to accept it? If Rowling never made that comment, then readers would keep on going around believing that their great hero is heterosexual and never had kids because he never found love, and blah blah blah. So by revealing it, she challenges your beliefs. She retains her authority. Now I'm rambling and I don't even know if I make sense anymore, but mooo.
So my point is, I kind of like the idea of the author telling us what certain things are supposed to mean. Call me whatever you want, but I'm just straight out of high school, and I still need people telling me what to do. By discussing the book Invincible, we came up with a lot of ideas and interpretations. But what is correct? We'd have a never-ending debate. I talked to Talissa about that Mister Mystic scene, and she suggested that magic is an area that Dr. I hates and stuff, but I felt like there was something more about that scene and the importance of Mister Mystic. Then Mr. Grossman said that Mister Mystic was so lame in that scene because he already knew Dr. I was going to lose. That made so much more sense to me.
Rambling with no sense of direction and not being judged on is great =]
--tran
So my point is, I kind of like the idea of the author telling us what certain things are supposed to mean. Call me whatever you want, but I'm just straight out of high school, and I still need people telling me what to do. By discussing the book Invincible, we came up with a lot of ideas and interpretations. But what is correct? We'd have a never-ending debate. I talked to Talissa about that Mister Mystic scene, and she suggested that magic is an area that Dr. I hates and stuff, but I felt like there was something more about that scene and the importance of Mister Mystic. Then Mr. Grossman said that Mister Mystic was so lame in that scene because he already knew Dr. I was going to lose. That made so much more sense to me.
Rambling with no sense of direction and not being judged on is great =]
--tran
"He kept using the word literature, I can't stop using the word hilarious..."
I don't know any other way of putting this but having the opportunity
to meet and see the author - put his work in a completely different
context for me. I started this book thinking it was going to be a
story of some naive kid as he matured through life and watched his
goal of becoming "invincible" transcend the boundary between what he
thought he could expect out of life and what he actually got. Yeah,
that was what I thought this book was going to be about...To a point,
that "kid" ends up being Dr. Impossible, but the hoops Grossman puts
him through were, for lack of a better word, hilarious.
Seeing Grossman in person you can definitely see why this book is as
funny as it is. It's sort of akin to hearing the funniest joke in the
world and waiting for the punchline, but the telling of "it" is so
funny that the whole process makes the punchline irrelevant. It's
almost impossible to put it in terms of a compliment even though
that's what I'm trying to do because I can't even come close to
defining it. Some people are just f'ing hilarious standing around,
and they get even funnier if their sense of humor matches up with
yours, or vice versa. Mr. Grossman is a perfect example of that case.
He's a diabolical genius. He is a genius, and probably left to his
own devices (like any of us), very diabolical. I can't imagine anyone
having a hard time thinking that if he decided to take over the world
that it would be a bad idea. At the very least it would be a funnier
place to live. Sure, he'd ask for ransom money but we wouldn't pay
him because we'd all be waiting to see what would happen next...
But back to the academic critique...I think we can only hope that his
"personality" doesn't get lost between the book and the movie. I
watched Blade Runner and Minority Report, again, after reading Sheep
and Philip K. Dick's short about Building a Universe, and both films
take on a whole new meaning once you realize how many oars short of a
crew Dick really is. I think they all jumped ship and went over to
the S.S. Grossman, but that's a personal opinion.
Anyway, thank you Mr. Grossman! The content of what we were talking
about was interesting and I especially appreciated the reference to
Scott McCloud because that's all I could think about while reading
through Invincible. But the awkward pauses, the ticks, pretty much
everything, brought the book to life, the situations into focus, and
my appreciation for authors that can fill a "gutter" to a whole new
level.
PS - use the 10% to add in a politically correct metahuman named
Ambiguous. Non gender specified, non affiliated, and to a point,
completely ineffectual but always involved somehow. That way readers
can imprint/project whatever they want that character to be without it
being defined for them, and yes, I understand that not having things
spelled out was part of the problem but it's funny how seriously a
play on the genre is being critiqued which makes the process itself an
exercise in transcending/blurring the line between what defines
literature. Besides, my impression of who these characters were is
going to be different from someone else's impression of who these
characters were. For instance, aside from reading the general
descriptions of the characters I saw Dr. Impossible as a cross between
mini me and magneto, fatale was janine garofalo as the terminator,
blackwolf was a modern day beowulf, and Feral being gay, well, tigers
are dramatic but wolves are scary. Installment two can introduce a
Dog/Human that ends up being a total mysoginistic and chauvanist
dinosaur. Then installment three can include a meeting of the two
where allegiances to one or the other spell out the metaphor that
everyone seems to need to have stamped into the pages.
-- jason
I don't know any other way of putting this but having the opportunity
to meet and see the author - put his work in a completely different
context for me. I started this book thinking it was going to be a
story of some naive kid as he matured through life and watched his
goal of becoming "invincible" transcend the boundary between what he
thought he could expect out of life and what he actually got. Yeah,
that was what I thought this book was going to be about...To a point,
that "kid" ends up being Dr. Impossible, but the hoops Grossman puts
him through were, for lack of a better word, hilarious.
Seeing Grossman in person you can definitely see why this book is as
funny as it is. It's sort of akin to hearing the funniest joke in the
world and waiting for the punchline, but the telling of "it" is so
funny that the whole process makes the punchline irrelevant. It's
almost impossible to put it in terms of a compliment even though
that's what I'm trying to do because I can't even come close to
defining it. Some people are just f'ing hilarious standing around,
and they get even funnier if their sense of humor matches up with
yours, or vice versa. Mr. Grossman is a perfect example of that case.
He's a diabolical genius. He is a genius, and probably left to his
own devices (like any of us), very diabolical. I can't imagine anyone
having a hard time thinking that if he decided to take over the world
that it would be a bad idea. At the very least it would be a funnier
place to live. Sure, he'd ask for ransom money but we wouldn't pay
him because we'd all be waiting to see what would happen next...
But back to the academic critique...I think we can only hope that his
"personality" doesn't get lost between the book and the movie. I
watched Blade Runner and Minority Report, again, after reading Sheep
and Philip K. Dick's short about Building a Universe, and both films
take on a whole new meaning once you realize how many oars short of a
crew Dick really is. I think they all jumped ship and went over to
the S.S. Grossman, but that's a personal opinion.
Anyway, thank you Mr. Grossman! The content of what we were talking
about was interesting and I especially appreciated the reference to
Scott McCloud because that's all I could think about while reading
through Invincible. But the awkward pauses, the ticks, pretty much
everything, brought the book to life, the situations into focus, and
my appreciation for authors that can fill a "gutter" to a whole new
level.
PS - use the 10% to add in a politically correct metahuman named
Ambiguous. Non gender specified, non affiliated, and to a point,
completely ineffectual but always involved somehow. That way readers
can imprint/project whatever they want that character to be without it
being defined for them, and yes, I understand that not having things
spelled out was part of the problem but it's funny how seriously a
play on the genre is being critiqued which makes the process itself an
exercise in transcending/blurring the line between what defines
literature. Besides, my impression of who these characters were is
going to be different from someone else's impression of who these
characters were. For instance, aside from reading the general
descriptions of the characters I saw Dr. Impossible as a cross between
mini me and magneto, fatale was janine garofalo as the terminator,
blackwolf was a modern day beowulf, and Feral being gay, well, tigers
are dramatic but wolves are scary. Installment two can introduce a
Dog/Human that ends up being a total mysoginistic and chauvanist
dinosaur. Then installment three can include a meeting of the two
where allegiances to one or the other spell out the metaphor that
everyone seems to need to have stamped into the pages.
-- jason
The roles have reversed. Humans, with their flaws, are the ones who dream up of diabolical plans to conquer the earth, their home planet. The non-humans are the ones who end up saving the rest of the humans from their own species. But since we’re going along with the idea that Dr. Impossible is the hero and the Champions are the villains, then Dr. Impossible is, in a sense, trying to save the world from the non-humans who have gained a vast amount of power, brainwashing people’s perception of what is good and what is evil. So the point is… the so-called “villains” are the underdogs... so... I'm just repeating Tony's original point. haha
Going off of Heather's argument, We never hear of villains who’re minorities. Is it because they don’t have the resources, but if they’re smart, then they should be able to come up with the things they need, like Dr. Impossible did. Or does stereotypes come into play about genders and races, and that society place so much belief into those stereotypes that it's unbelievable for an Asian guy with glasses to be a cool hero? Or does the stereotype of the Asian guy being nerdy make it unbelievable so that stories won't sell, so it's all just an economic thing? gah? o_O
--tran
Friday, October 19, 2007
Forgive me. I know this entry is very late and I don't have an excuse (except that I just forgot to do it), but I'd still like to post my thoughts about Grossman's book. At first sight, I was very surprised at how accurate the author's photograph in the book was. I have this belief that authors put up pictures of themselves when they eight years younger. Besides listening to him, I admit I was also studying his gestures, movements, and facial expressions (yeah, I know it sounds creepy but I do it to everyone). He seems like the kind of guy who would exist in the pages of a book or someone you'd like to write a book about, someone with a lot of character.
I think it's exciting that his book will be made into a movie. To transfer the plot of a book to the screen of a movie brings the book to an entirely different dimension. A book is constructed solely of words while film contains words, visuals, movement, and sound. Because film has the freedom of all of these mediums, a movie is more physically real to our human senses because there are simply more things that mimic our reality (I don't even want to define reality. So... reality = toothpaste). However I think that whether a book or movie is real in the sense of its connection and impact on the viewer or reader depends on the craft of the art form. Just because a movie has visual and sound elements that a book lacks does not automatically make it more real or true. I think that the current technology of film is a chance for all art (including literature, visual art, dance performance.. etc.) to leap to new heights.
I think it's exciting that his book will be made into a movie. To transfer the plot of a book to the screen of a movie brings the book to an entirely different dimension. A book is constructed solely of words while film contains words, visuals, movement, and sound. Because film has the freedom of all of these mediums, a movie is more physically real to our human senses because there are simply more things that mimic our reality (I don't even want to define reality. So... reality = toothpaste). However I think that whether a book or movie is real in the sense of its connection and impact on the viewer or reader depends on the craft of the art form. Just because a movie has visual and sound elements that a book lacks does not automatically make it more real or true. I think that the current technology of film is a chance for all art (including literature, visual art, dance performance.. etc.) to leap to new heights.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
I really enjoyed Austin Grossman's Lecture. I thought that he had a lot of intersting views about comics being literature. I personally thinkthat comics are literature. I dont think that literature is based on the scholars opinion, or the popularity or a certain piece. Just becuase there are a series of pictures that describe the actions, there is still dialoge. Shakesphere plays are almost all dialect. So if comics arent literature then neither is Shakesphere.
:-[
I apologize for completely forgetting to post last night—it slipped my mind as I prepared for the two back-to-back tests I had today. Whoops. Anyway, I hope you'll agree that blog posts are better late than never, so here's mine:
It was a strange feeling for me yesterday to have direct access to the author of a book I've read. That's never happened before. Maybe because of this lack of precedent, I didn't really know what to do with it. I really wanted to know what the Hammer of Ra is, but I realized that having someone—even the author—tell me kind of ruins the magic because it exposes the book's world as a fantasy. When the real world intrudes on a fictional one, the fictional world falls apart. Of course there's no such thing as a magic hammer, we realize (with massive disappointment). But it's hard to articulate just how this sort of feeling works. After all, it should be pretty obvious that the world described in a sci-fi/fantasy (the superhero genre pulls from both) book is just a bunch of words on paper. No matter how evocative or exciting that world is, or how much we might wish it were real, we know that it isn't—it's just something dreamed up by a particularly creative person from our superhero-less world. So meeting the mind behind the world—its unseen god—should be exciting for the reader. It should be an unparalleled opportunity to get closer to the text. But somehow it didn't work out that way for me. I was actually relieved that he spent so little time talking about his book. If he had decided to dissect and explain his characters, it would've robbed them of the believability that made the book such a compelling read in the first place. In other words, when I like a book I want to believe it to be real. Maybe not in the objective sense, but I think a book should be its own kingdom, its own logic, and I resent when a book's sovereignty is threatened. As likable as I found Mr. Grossman, yesterday was the first time that I really felt like I understood the importance of the death of the author. It seemed he wasn't much more able to shed light on the book's world than any one of us (notwithstanding his revelation of Feral and Elphin's sexuality), and that was hugely empowering. The book's world has taken on a life of its own (especially once the movie comes out), and I think it's pretty well out of his hands at this point. Still, it must be nice that the frustration of waning authorial control is counterweighted by ever bigger paychecks—I don't think anyone can accuse a grad student of selling out. Big ups to him.
It was a strange feeling for me yesterday to have direct access to the author of a book I've read. That's never happened before. Maybe because of this lack of precedent, I didn't really know what to do with it. I really wanted to know what the Hammer of Ra is, but I realized that having someone—even the author—tell me kind of ruins the magic because it exposes the book's world as a fantasy. When the real world intrudes on a fictional one, the fictional world falls apart. Of course there's no such thing as a magic hammer, we realize (with massive disappointment). But it's hard to articulate just how this sort of feeling works. After all, it should be pretty obvious that the world described in a sci-fi/fantasy (the superhero genre pulls from both) book is just a bunch of words on paper. No matter how evocative or exciting that world is, or how much we might wish it were real, we know that it isn't—it's just something dreamed up by a particularly creative person from our superhero-less world. So meeting the mind behind the world—its unseen god—should be exciting for the reader. It should be an unparalleled opportunity to get closer to the text. But somehow it didn't work out that way for me. I was actually relieved that he spent so little time talking about his book. If he had decided to dissect and explain his characters, it would've robbed them of the believability that made the book such a compelling read in the first place. In other words, when I like a book I want to believe it to be real. Maybe not in the objective sense, but I think a book should be its own kingdom, its own logic, and I resent when a book's sovereignty is threatened. As likable as I found Mr. Grossman, yesterday was the first time that I really felt like I understood the importance of the death of the author. It seemed he wasn't much more able to shed light on the book's world than any one of us (notwithstanding his revelation of Feral and Elphin's sexuality), and that was hugely empowering. The book's world has taken on a life of its own (especially once the movie comes out), and I think it's pretty well out of his hands at this point. Still, it must be nice that the frustration of waning authorial control is counterweighted by ever bigger paychecks—I don't think anyone can accuse a grad student of selling out. Big ups to him.
Zeta Energy
How does Dr. Impossible find this zeta energy? Seemingly, it could cure most all of the world’s energy woes. At first glance, we think it is just some crackpot effect made up for the purpose of the book. But is it? There are three basic types of scientific discovery:
1) Change, a discovery that solves a problem that is quite obvious, ie. Cure heart disease, but the way in which to solve the problem is not clear. 2)Challenge, is a response to know facts that don’t mesh with scientific theory of the time to create a better holistic understanding. And 3) Chance a serendipitous discovery such as penicillin or Plunkett’s Teflon. Dr. Impossible’s discovery clearly lies in the change category. He did not create this effect, he simply was able to see it when no one else could. It is in this way that Dr. Impossible is more like the greatest thinkers of or time rather than some superhero. Dr. Impossible is some sort of super-(evil/misunderstood?)-academic. Yet, due to some unfortunate circumstances, his discoveries aren’t accepted by the world. Does this lessen his great accomplishments? Perhaps. His discovery, akin to Oppenhiemer’s atomic energy and Newton’s gravity, could have great implications for mankind. Yet it is played off as nothing more than a crackpot theory and perpetuates Dr. Impossible’s loathsome and evil state.
Shaunt
Sorry for the truancy, the internet at my house crapped out last night.
1) Change, a discovery that solves a problem that is quite obvious, ie. Cure heart disease, but the way in which to solve the problem is not clear. 2)Challenge, is a response to know facts that don’t mesh with scientific theory of the time to create a better holistic understanding. And 3) Chance a serendipitous discovery such as penicillin or Plunkett’s Teflon. Dr. Impossible’s discovery clearly lies in the change category. He did not create this effect, he simply was able to see it when no one else could. It is in this way that Dr. Impossible is more like the greatest thinkers of or time rather than some superhero. Dr. Impossible is some sort of super-(evil/misunderstood?)-academic. Yet, due to some unfortunate circumstances, his discoveries aren’t accepted by the world. Does this lessen his great accomplishments? Perhaps. His discovery, akin to Oppenhiemer’s atomic energy and Newton’s gravity, could have great implications for mankind. Yet it is played off as nothing more than a crackpot theory and perpetuates Dr. Impossible’s loathsome and evil state.
Shaunt
Sorry for the truancy, the internet at my house crapped out last night.
The Space Between
During the talk with Austin Grossman there were some ideas that he brought up that really interested me, one of which where he talks about the space between each strip, the "gutter," was especially thought-provoking. The idea that it's what you don't see that is what makes it great is very smart. Through my movie watching career I've seen that the best/most scary movies are the ones that leave things to your imagination. And it seems to me that with your imagination there is something that you can connect with and enjoy. Another interesting point he brought up was changing the characters to make them more racially and sexually correct. Personally, I don't think that a person's character should depend on what race they are or which way they are oriented sexually. A few of the previous blogs mention that if they knew that Feral and Elphin were gay it would change their picture of who they are, which is why I am against giving the characters races or sexual preferences. I think it's better for the reader to decide for themselves in which way the characters are different so that we aren't swayed to think differently about characters just because they are black or homosexual. That is unless race or orientation plays a large part in their characters personality, which in the case of the book it doesn't.
Ok, I know I'm going to end up missing this by a few minutes, but oh well.
I thought Grossman's talk was quite interesting, especially that part about how all of the story and all of the action takes place in the invisible space. It's genius, albeit he didn't actually come up with it himself, but still an awesome philosophical insight. Also, when he mentioned that Feral and Elphin were gay, I wasn't sure if he was kidding or not. Elphin, maybe I could see that happening, but Feral? Isn't he like a stereotypical embodiment of everything masculine ever? I mean, he's explosive, purely strength-based, etc etc... well, maybe except for the cat part. Guys never seem to be cat-people.
I also thought it was interesting how he wrote the book completely out of order, and yet it still came together. Especially since nearly every passage ends with a witty sentence or incredible statement. Maybe we should start writing papers like that? Eh eh?
I thought Grossman's talk was quite interesting, especially that part about how all of the story and all of the action takes place in the invisible space. It's genius, albeit he didn't actually come up with it himself, but still an awesome philosophical insight. Also, when he mentioned that Feral and Elphin were gay, I wasn't sure if he was kidding or not. Elphin, maybe I could see that happening, but Feral? Isn't he like a stereotypical embodiment of everything masculine ever? I mean, he's explosive, purely strength-based, etc etc... well, maybe except for the cat part. Guys never seem to be cat-people.
I also thought it was interesting how he wrote the book completely out of order, and yet it still came together. Especially since nearly every passage ends with a witty sentence or incredible statement. Maybe we should start writing papers like that? Eh eh?
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
I truly enjoyed Grossman’s lecture/discussion. He brought up points I’ve yet to previously consider, such as the classification of literature being relevant in terms of institutionalization and the history of the form. Prior to that, I’d considered defining literature as a pointless objective given how subjective the classification is. However, I now see that by classifying a work as literature, it now has a considerably older history of form to contend with. Though I initially answered without a doubt that comics should be classified as literature, his argument has made me rethink that a bit. I have read through a handful of comics that I find to be really great. In Maki Kusumoto’s tribute to Andy Warhol, Die Todliche Dolis, she takes up not only a color scheme but also an overall book layout resembling Warhol’s work. She then proceeds to argue Warhol’s concept of the multi-faceted individual, with one never truly knowing another, and redesigns it into the comic form. In terms of comics, this I found to be particularly well written and designed. I’ve also come across other manga that delves into the subject of religion or utilizes religious imagery as well as allusions to literary works such as Kafka’s Metamorphosis in forming its own arguments. However, if I were to compare these works to all of literature, then the significance of finding such an in-depth argument in the work becomes somewhat trivial given that most prose given the categorization of literature are just as thought provoking if not more so. Therefore, I found his lecture and overall argument to be not only thought provoking, but enlightening as well. I had actually anticipated more of a discussion revolving around his work and potential intentions. Yet even so, I found this discussion to be even more intriguing in the long run.
-KathyAnimals and Humans
So last week we had an exciting discussion about animals, PETA, hunting, and etc.
Some ideas that came up was, is it "wrong" to hunt out of pure enjoyment? Is it "wrong" to hunt for sustenance?
Eventually, out of these question came the idea that there's a difference between eating domesticated farmed animals versus wild natural animals.
For the sake of argument, let's say that, morally, there IS a difference between eating domestic and wild animals. In terms of the animal, i think that the only difference would be in the upbringing of the animals since whether a chicken lives between a fence or in a field, it is still a chicken. The only factor that distinguishes the two is that one was meant to live its natural life and one was meant to be sold and consumed.
So then let's say that there were humans bred solely to kill and fight. like a super soldier. All they knew was to kill and they are programmed to not be morally afflicted by it. Would the weight of their death be diminished since their purpose is to kill and be killed?
Now taking the flip side of this idea where the same object can be different based on their circumstances, can 2 different objects become the same if taken through the same consequences?
Tying in to "Androids," what about androids vs. real humans? Would you consider those androids such as Rachel Rosen who thought that she was a human and was raised as a human to be more human? She clearly thought of herself as a human and lived like a human but did that make her human?
Some ideas that came up was, is it "wrong" to hunt out of pure enjoyment? Is it "wrong" to hunt for sustenance?
Eventually, out of these question came the idea that there's a difference between eating domesticated farmed animals versus wild natural animals.
For the sake of argument, let's say that, morally, there IS a difference between eating domestic and wild animals. In terms of the animal, i think that the only difference would be in the upbringing of the animals since whether a chicken lives between a fence or in a field, it is still a chicken. The only factor that distinguishes the two is that one was meant to live its natural life and one was meant to be sold and consumed.
So then let's say that there were humans bred solely to kill and fight. like a super soldier. All they knew was to kill and they are programmed to not be morally afflicted by it. Would the weight of their death be diminished since their purpose is to kill and be killed?
Now taking the flip side of this idea where the same object can be different based on their circumstances, can 2 different objects become the same if taken through the same consequences?
Tying in to "Androids," what about androids vs. real humans? Would you consider those androids such as Rachel Rosen who thought that she was a human and was raised as a human to be more human? She clearly thought of herself as a human and lived like a human but did that make her human?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)