I Will Choose a Path That’s Clear
Posted: January 18, 2013 Filed under: Culture, Musings, Politics | Tags: America, culture, philosophy, politics, society, tyranny Leave a commentRecently on Facebook I’ve been having a spirited (but civil!) debate with a friend of mine regarding gun control. Unsurprisingly at some point relatively early in the discussion my argument incorporated the issue of defense against tyranny, which is an argument that I stand by. He actually pivoted from there to a surprisingly apt and unusual comparison, one that I have not before seen, invoking the specter of 1984 before I could, but then he made the point that “Brave New World illustrates that humanity can be lulled into submission into serving the interest of a minority by luxuries and promoting self interest.”
It was a different tack, and one that at least took our discussion in a new direction, but it also got me thinking. One of my great loves is dystopian literature (although the sub-genre of cyberpunk is my favorite), and obviously I have given more than a little thought about what shape society takes both now and as we move into the future. So as we continue forward, which is the move likely totalitarian prospect: the iron hand or the velvet glove?
Historically I would say it’s both. Consider one of the most successful (if you can use the word without being offensive) totalitarian regimes in history, the Nazi regime. By combining a rule based on fear and oppression with strong economic growth that gave the “approved” majority of the populace not only the necessities they had been denied but the luxuries they craved, the Nazis turned Germany from a failed state into a powerhouse virtually overnight. I’d have to do a lot more research than I’m ready to right now to call this a thesis, but it does provide some (disturbing) food for thought, if anyone has a strong enough stomach for it.
The iron hand is easy to fear, and just as easy to dismiss. We always assume we’ll see it coming; after all, why would we allow someone or some government to drag people out of their homes in the middle of the night, lock them up for no reason, torture them, or execute them without good reason? We’re good people, we live in a good society, we’re better than that. But then, all it takes is one bad day; one evil act. Then the world changes.
On the other hand, the velvet glove seems far more likely. Stories of people giving in to addiction, vice, and other temptations are as old as… well, stories, and the idea of the guy who controls your hunger controlling you has a great deal of appeal. But consider the recent Occupy movement. Here is a case of rebellion against a system that tried to control the populace by controlling luxury, Big Business in cahoots with Big Government (and the system fought back). Keep in mind plenty of Occupy supporters were not the homeless, the starving, or folks who struggled their whole lives to make it day to day; they were college graduates, middle class and above, theoretically bought and paid for.
So what do they both have in common, and how is it that tyranny in any form finally does manage to take hold? If the neither the iron hand nor the velvet glove is sufficient unto itself, how do they succeed together? Is it simply that “one hand giveth, the other hand taketh away” is enough to confuse people? I wonder. Perhaps it’s more complex, or perhaps it is simpler than that.
According to the Declaration of Independence, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”. It’s an interesting philosophy, but what if it goes further than that? Can it be posited that nobody can truly be governed without their consent? After all, you can put a gun to my head but that won’t make my body move; you will simply be putting me under duress. If it is sufficient duress, I will take action, but it is still my action, not yours. Your action was coercing me in the fist place. Coerce enough people and you have a tyrannical government, but it is by the consent of the governed, even if that consent is given under duress.
Viewed in that way, we are always standing between Scylla and Charybdis, between totalitarian oppression and totalitarian luxury. The only thing that prevents it is our exercise of free will, a refusal to allow ourselves to be ruled by others. So long as we view certain things as right and others as wrong, and we hold to those principles in the face of opposition (even unto death), we can and will stand against tyranny. That is the cost of freedom. The cost of society, of civilization, is learning to live with each other, to find the reasonable compromises between my ideals and principles and yours, such that we can live together without my bowing to your tyranny or you bowing to mine.
As soon as I get that one figured out, I’ll let you know.
Free Spoiler Zone
Posted: January 9, 2013 Filed under: Culture, Internet | Tags: culture, etiquette, internet, pop culture, popular culture, society, spoilers 3 CommentsI am the internet’s worst nightmare.
The other night I was listening to Marketplace on NPR (I love Kai Ryssdal, I may have mentioned this before) and I heard a fantastic commentary on the issue of spoilers. Beth Teitell made an excellent case about how we’re all setting ourselves up for spoiler disappointment while at the same time becoming more sensitive to spoilers.
I am the worst of the lot.
Just the other week I finally watched Jekyll (2007) from the BBC on Netflix. Note the year on that one. If someone had told me any of the salient plot points before I watched it, I would have been beyond infuriated, but really, it’s been around for over five years. How could they know? More importantly, why should they care?
This is typical for me. I watch movies months after they leave the theater (with rare exceptions), and I’m usually several weeks behind in my TV show watching. I’ve been known to run away from conversations I’m not even party to with my hands over my ears screaming “NO SPOILERS!” like a lunatic, and that’s just in real life. On the internet I’m far worse.
But the truth is we can’t avoid spoilers, nor can we reasonably expect to. Part of the fun of pop culture is that it’s popular (hence the “pop”), and we want to talk about it. Denying people that just so we can enjoy things on our own schedule is selfish. At the same time, expecting everyone to be able to invest their entire lives in keeping up with everything worthwhile all the time is just silly, too. It’s not like we’re still in the age of single-screen movie theaters, three TV channels, and nobody to talk to but the people in our small towns.
Therefore, I am declaring a Free Spoiler Zone.
It works like this: there is a statute of limitations on the right to declare “NO SPOILERS!” Once the statute of limitations has passed, it is incumbent on each individual to either be in the know or to guard themselves; prior to that proper decorum requires the asking of “Have you seen…” or a similar inquiry before discussing anything, as well as a reasonable warning to anyone joining the conversation. This should help alleviate the distress being caused by our over-saturated, media hyped world, and allow us all some peace.
The rules I suggest are as follows:
1. An absolute moratorium on any communications within 24 hours of an event. Don’t even talk about it; you don’t know who is in earshot. I don’t even want to hear “OMFG THAT WAS SO GOOD!” or “Meh, this week’s episode was okay.” Let me find out for myself, especially if I’m in a different time zone.
2. Barring sporting events, reality TV, or other “real time” entertainment, any electronic communication for the first week must be preceded by the phrase “SPOILER ALERT”. If it’s real time entertainment, after 24 hours you take your chances, but please, don’t be a jerk; if you know someone TiVo’d it, don’t ruin the big game.
3. For all other TV shows, every in-person conversation must include “Have you seen…” or some other socially acceptable form of spoiler alert for one month. After that, you need to either clear out your DVR or climb out from under the rock.
4. For movies you get one month of nobody says nothing. Then all bets are off.
5. Actual news events are exempt from these rules. News should be shared.
6. Feel free to share political shows, commentary, debates, et al to your heart’s content. You deserve what you get.
While I am willing to negotiate on the length of time involved in each rule, I truly believe that following these rules will improve our lives. Everyone will have a free and fair chance to enjoy their quality entertainment without fear of having it ruined, while at the same time encouraging and enhancing the sort of interpersonal relationships we’re losing for fear of not being able to share our love of the great and diverse culture we all enjoy.
However, I am declaring one category of entertainment completely off-limits to spoilers (by special request from My Not So Humble Wife): books. I actually have to agree with her on this one, for a lot of reasons. People read at different speeds, borrow books from each other, and most of all we want to encourage more literacy, not less. Besides, I haven’t finished the Illiad yet, and I can’t wait to find out how it ends.
Classical Liberal, New Media
Posted: January 7, 2013 Filed under: Culture, Internet | Tags: culture, digital media, internet, technology, twitter Leave a commentLast semester I had the good fortune to take a class on Digital Rhetoric and New Media. It was a fascinating class, and it offered me the opportunity to be exposed to a wide variety of new concepts, particularly among them the idea of media specific analysis. To some degree most of us have had some exposure to this, as we don’t analyze movies quite the same way we do books, but we went into it in much greater depth and detail in the class, as well as trying our hands at doing digital art projects.
Coming out of that class, one of the concepts I was introduced to was the idea of “twitter novels” or “twitter stories”. The idea is somewhat flexible (as social media seems to be), but one version of it is taking an existing work and adapting it for Twitter. I was inspired by the idea and decided to try my hand at it. I selected as my source the essay “I, Pencil” by Leonard E. Read, working off the 50th anniversary edition published by the Foundation for Economic Education.
The experience was interesting, to say the least. First I went through the entire essay, trying to break it down into individual tweet-size pieces. This wasn’t as simple as just writing it out 140 characters at a time, because I wanted to accomplish several things with each tweet: I wanted them to seem “real”, I wanted them to be interesting in themselves, and I wanted them to be re-tweetable. Part of making them seem “real” was adjusting the voice of the essay, which is very formal, and making it less so. While I didn’t succeed everywhere, I do think I managed to make it more casual overall. One of the things I discovered in this process is that I am not very comfortable with Twitter; it was only just before I moved into the launch phase that I realized I hadn’t really made use of hash tags, and I had to go back through and find places they naturally fit. I did manage to incorporate bits and pieces of the web here and there, so I feel pretty good about that.
Actually scheduling the project was more of a challenge. Considering the work totaled over 100 tweets, I obviously wasn’t going to be sending them all manually. I had originally planned to send them in half-hour increments (give or take), and after talking with a coworker who is more versed in the use of social media than I am I decided to use Tweetdeck. Now, unless I am missing something, Tweetdeck could be a lot more user-friendly. My original schedule would have stretched out for at least a week (I only intend to have tweets go out between 10 am and 4 pm so I can monitor them for issues), and I had to adjust the schedule. Even being able to keep track of what I had already scheduled was a hassle, as Tweetdeck kept shuffling my pre-scheduled tweets out of chronological order, which does not fill me with confidence. When I tried to reschedule some, it looked like the program has just duplicated rather than rescheduling the tweets. Finally I tried to clear them all out, and upon refreshing things looked fine. Then I deleted that whole column, set it up again, and a whole set of tweets showed up again!
Once I finally got past those difficulties, I started over. I put all my tweets in a spreadsheet and set up a schedule there. I then copied them over and scheduled them rigorously according to the timetable I had established. At the time of writing this they sit queued up, waiting to launch. Over the next few days I’ll see how well the process turned out.
For those who are interested in trying a project like this, here is my advice:
1. Write your tweets in advance. This will give you time to think about what you want to say, make adjustments as needed, and have a cohesive story to present. Don’t think of Twitter (or any other social media platform) as your creative medium; it is your presentation medium. George Lucas doesn’t write the script as he’s filming, neither should you.
2. Think about the medium you are using. What makes it distinctive and unique? Why are you using this medium to tell your story instead of another? In particular familiarize yourself with the conventions of the medium. That’s not to say you can’t break convention (many artists have done so quite successfully), but do it deliberately.
3. Plan, plan, plan. It’s not just the writing, it’s all the tools you will use. If I was more familiar with the ins and outs of Tweetdeck, Bit.ly, and Twitter in general, I would have had an easier time, but just knowing Word and Excel and having a good vision for the shape of the project (I spent weeks working it out in my head) saved me when I hit roadblocks.
4. Have fun with it! In the end this is still an experimental medium, which means there are few if any rules, and this is the chance to do something truly new and innovative.
If you’d like to see my experiment in Twitter writing, it runs this week starting Jan. 7, 10 AM EST at @IPencil2013. If you have your own digital works, please share them in the comments below!
Do You Hear the People Sing?
Posted: January 4, 2013 Filed under: Culture | Tags: culture, entertainment, Les Mis, Les Miserables, movies, reviews 8 CommentsI’m going to say this up front: when I saw Les Miserables, I cried like a baby through the whole thing. I’m man enough to admit it. You’d pretty much have to have a heart of stone not to. I’ve been in love with the music of Les Mis for about twenty years, but I’ve never had a chance to see it in person (and the half staged, half not production they run perennially on PBS every time they need to shake loose a few more nickels doesn’t count either). I’m trying to convey the extremely high expectations and hopes I had going into this film before you read any further.
That having been said, if you haven’t seen this movie yet, I suggest you stop reading, buy a ticket to the next showing, and go out to see it. It’s really that good. The first word to come to mind after it was over was “epic”. If there was a chance in hell of a musical being nominated for a Best Picture Oscar, this would be the one. Certainly there are more than a few deserved nominations to go around.
First, the cinematography is stunning. Rather than simply transporting the stage show to film, cinematographer Danny Cohen uses the film medium to create a complete and compelling world full of vivid and rich imagery and (here’s that word again) epic scale. The staging of every scene is perfect, vast and overwhelming in the prison yard, majestic and beautiful when looking out over the rooftops of Paris, and time and confining when having a sword-fight in a hospital.
One of the great strengths of film over stage is the ability to do close-ups, to bring intimacy with the performers that simply isn’t available even in a black box performance (and who ever heard of Les Mis being done in a black box, anyway?), and director Tom Hooper does an excellent job of utilizing the various levels of intimacy available to draw more out of the characters than would otherwise be possible. The sets are also much more flexible, and the use of space is often fun and agile without feeling “dancy” or overblown. Most of all was the unique decision to film with live singing rather than a playback, which gives even more of a sense of intimacy and believability to the moments in the film; there is none of the traditional sense of “let’s all suddenly break into song!” associated with movie musicals, but rather a natural transition in and out of music that lends itself to a perfect suspension of disbelief.
There were also some key decisions made in terms of what material to include and what to cut, but they were done with a careful eye toward shaping a coherent narrative, and unless one of your favorite songs is missing I doubt you will even notice (unless like me you absolutely despise one of the songs that got trimmed back, in which case you might even cheer a bit.)
The bulk of my praise however (and this might just be my own personal tastes coming out) is going to go to the actors.
First and foremost I can’t say enough about Anne Hathaway as Fantine. I’ve never been all that fond of Fantine as a character (again, I’ve only ever really known the music), as I found her to be at best a plot device and not especially sympathetic. Well voiced? Certainly. Someone to care about? Not really. Hathaway changed that completely. She brought a tragic dignity to the role it always lacked for me before, and my heart ached for her every moment. Her decent from factory worker to her final moments is brought to painful life by a performance that by itself deserves an Oscar. Add onto that her amazing performance of “I Dreamed a Dream”, and if she doesn’t at least get nominated for a Best Supporting Actress Oscar, there will be a riot in Hollywood. In this performance she showed that it is possible to both sing beautifully and emote, while most actors struggle to do either one.
Standing in contrast to Hathaway’s performance, but still just as moving and powerful in its own way, is Hugh Jackman as Jean Valjean. Whether because he is playing to a camera rather than an entire theater or simply as a matter of character choice, Jackman dials down Valjean from the more grandiose figure he is traditionally presented as. This fits the narrative of the story better, as well as allowing his co-stars to bring their own performances down to a more empathetic level. While I myself have always loved (and sympathized with) Valjean, it takes a great deal of skill to show that level of restraint with the character, especially when he brings forth his characteristic passion in occasional moments of brilliance.
The rest of the cast vary from good to great, but I want to give some special words of praise to a few who either made me care about their characters more than I expected to, or who managed to rise above my expectations of their abilities.
Sacha Baron Cohen as Thenardier and Helena Bonham Carter as Madame Thenardier – I love these characters and I most assuredly do not love these performers, so I was shocked when I saw their names in the credits. While I wasn’t thrilled with all the choices made around their roles, I loved everything they did with their roles. Don’t know that it’s worth an Oscar, but certainly worth a Golden Globe nomination.
Samantha Barks as Eponine – Until I saw this movie Eponine was at best a throw away plot device, at worst an annoying roadblock of a plot device. Ms. Barks changed all of that. She made Eponine charming, warm, relatable, and in the end another wonderfully tragic figure. Again, I don’t know that she rose to the level of Oscar nomination, but she definitely deserves a Golden Globe.
Daniel Huttlestone as Gavroche – I have always vacillated back and forth between being irritated by Gavroche because I don’t know what to do with him and simply despising him for being a waste of time and space. Young Master Huttlestone has completely changed my mind, bringing courage, dignity and charm to an otherwise forgettable character. I wouldn’t be surprised to see him getting a Golden Globe nomination for Best Supporting Actor, and even a dark horse candidate for an Oscar nomination.
Now, if you still haven’t seen the movie, what are you waiting for? Will you join in our crusade? Who will be strong and stand with me? Beyond the barricade there’s a movie you’ve just got to see.
Clean Sweep
Posted: January 2, 2013 Filed under: Culture, Dating | Tags: advice, culture, dating, life, men, women 9 CommentsI’d like to take this opportunity to explain to the ladies why it is that “men don’t clean”.
You see, this is a lie. A calumny. A slander of the highest proportion. We clean. We just don’t clean the way you clean. There is a difference.
You’re probably thinking right about now that I am simply making things up in an attempt to defend my gender, but the truth is I’m not. In fact, I’m going to paint a situation, walk you through it, and show you how every time you have been making false assumptions about men not cleaning.
Picture this: you ask your boyfriend/husband/son to clean a room. You leave for a half-hour, come back, and it looks no different to you, or at best only slightly tidied up. You say something to the effect of “I thought I asked you to clean in here,” and he maddeningly responds with “I did.” You can either exhort him to actually clean it or just give up in frustration now and do it yourself, because you know you’re going to have to do it anyway.
Sound familiar?
Now, let me explain what has happened.
You walked in to what, to a man’s eyes, appeared to be a clean-ish room. There might be a few things out of place, but overall it’s in decent shape. When you walked in and said “Could you please clean this room up?” the panic set in. He knows you think the room is filthy, but he has no idea why. He tries his best to guess what it is you want done, but he knows he is destined to fail. The only question is how much time does he intend to waste on this doomed effort. Some younger or over-eager fools will even spend more time and effort, thinking this will somehow earn them mercy. When you return and crush his spirit with an offhanded “I thought I asked you to clean in here”, her replies with the only defense he has, feeble though it may be: the truth. “I did.” He then watches you bustle around the room in a bad mood, engaged in arcane rituals that, when you are done, have made no discernible difference whatsoever.
Now, I know that sounds crazy, and that’s because it is. Men and women do not perceive the world in the same way. This is insane, but it is something that we simply have to accept. Ladies, what you need to understand is that, when you start going on about “cleaning”, we don’t share your vision. I don’t mean that in the sense of “I just don’t share your artistic vision”, I mean that in the sense of “I’m pretty sure you’re an insane cultist worshipping dark beings from beyond this reality and trying to summon them forth to devour our world”. But we love you anyway.
Because we love you, we want to make you happy. This is why we get scared and frustrated every time you say things like “please clean this room”. It’s like you’ve been watching the Saw franchise again, and you’ve decided that a combination of test and torture is just the thing to brighten an otherwise boring day. We both know there’s no way we’re going to win this one, but you ask anyway. Unless your purpose is to look for an excuse to get frustrated with us, perhaps the following advice will be useful to you.
First, keep in mind that we have different standards of “clean”. Remember the old saying about “if you want something done right”? Well, it applies doubly here. I’m not saying we’re going out of our way to shirk, but when you ask someone else to do something, you really can’t expect them to do it the way you would do it unless you’ve spent a few decades mercilessly drilling them on perfect technique.
Second, consider spending a few decades mercilessly drilling us on perfect technique. If you don’t have that much time to spare, some straightforward directions on what you’d like to see would be better upfront than a disappointed sigh on the back end. Keep in mind that if you do this you don’t get to say “well that was just for starters!” after the fact. Make the list comprehensive or don’t bother.
Third, are you familiar with the concept of “comparative advantage”? If you want the room cleaned just so, perhaps while you’re doing that he can be mowing the lawn. If you also want the lawn mowed just so, perhaps he can pay the bills. If you want that done just so, perhaps you would be more comfortable living alone.
Which brings me to my final piece of advice. Nobody is perfect, and we all find ways to annoy the crap out of each other on a daily basis. Learning to accept these foibles and follies is a big part of what makes relationships work, maybe the only part. After all, the rest is fun, not work. Focus more on the good times getting the rooms dirty than the confusion about trying to get them clean again.
For the rebuttal from My Not So Humble Wife, be sure to read “Dirty, Dirty Men“.How Verizon Is Killing Their Own Business
Posted: December 31, 2012 Filed under: Culture | Tags: culture, entertainment, pop culture, popular culture, television 1 CommentSo I finally saw the finale of “The Voice” the other day, and I’d like to start by saying congratulations to Cassadee Pope. I picked her as an early favorite to win, although she wasn’t necessarily my favorite. I liked Terry McDermott, although he had an off night in the finale, and Nicholas David was also very good. Amanda Brown also caught my attention with “Dream On” and “Here I Go Again“, and I personally thought she went home too soon.
So why did it take me almost two weeks to get around to watching the finally? Well, that would be because I watch it On Demand. Specifically because I watch it with Verizon On Demand. I wanted to be very clear about this, because I don’t know for sure that all the vitriol I am about to unleash is applicable to every cable and satellite provider, although past experience with other systems would lead me to believe it is. Still, I want to be as fair as possible.
Once upon a time, I loved On Demand. It was just like watching TV, only without the commercials. I could also pause, rewind, fast forward, anything I wanted. Sure, I was paying a small fortune for access to these features, but I was willing to pay it, because what I was getting made it worthwhile. It was like having a DVR that I didn’t have to set up (although we have one of those too, I just don’t use it).
Then something went wrong. First it was little things. The pause button started timing out on programs. Annoying, but hey, it happens with DVDs sometimes. But then we couldn’t just restart where we left off, we would have to restart from the beginning. And then suddenly we can’t use features like fast forward. Uh-oh, this is ominous. Before you can say “screw the customer”, we’re getting commercials in our On Demand programming.
Oh, and the price of our cable bill keeps going up. But that’s kind of like death and taxes.
So this extra service that we’re paying for (a little more every month, it seems) is getting less valuable every month. Now, some of you might say, “why not just use the DVR? You said you have one, right?” Well, here’s how they screw us on that one, too. You need a separate box for every room, and we’re already paying extra just to have a basic cable box in our bedroom, which is where my wife and I watch TV. So we have to pay extra to watch TV when we want, and we have to pay extra to watch it where we want, AND we have to pay extra to watch without commercials, which we thought we were doing in the first place.
Now don’t get me wrong, I understand that TV isn’t free. All entertainment comes at a price, and that entertainment needs to be paid for. Broadcast TV (which traditionally came free to people’s home via, well, broadcast) was paid for by advertising. But cable (and it’s bastard stepchild, satellite) is not paid for exclusively through advertising. In fact, I’d like to know exactly what percentage of it is paid for each year in advertising revenue, because I know I’m paying a hefty sum just to get access to the most basic channels. (I’ll gladly pay the extra for HBO and Showtime, thanks.)
I’d like to say that they get away with this because they have a monopoly, and there is some truth to that. But there’s a deeper truth to it: they get away with it because I put up with it. I keep coming back for the “higher” internet speeds (read “please don’t choke my downloads”), I keep coming back for the “On Demand television” (none of the convenience, all of the commercials), I keep coming back for the crappy service and the “customer service line” whose responses are less “how can I help you” and more “sounds like your problem”.
I used to buy entire seasons of shows on DVD and watch them that way. Sure, it put me way behind everyone else in the office, running from water coolers with my ears covered screaming “NO SPOILERS! NO SPOILERS!” for months at a time, but it’s getting to that point again anyway. At least back then I didn’t have to watch commercials in the meantime. I’d consider switching to watching TV on the internet, but they’re usually a season behind AND have commercials, plus I still have Verizon internet. So if anyone has a better idea I’m all ears.
Until then, don’t tell me who won Season 4 of “The Voice” until at least a month after it’s over.
Crowdsourcing My Angst
Posted: December 28, 2012 Filed under: Culture, Internet | Tags: crowdsourcing, culture, internet, Kickstarter 1 CommentI have a problem with crowdsourcing sites like Kickstarter.
Crowdsourcing has not only turned funding for artistic endeavors on its head, it’s removed one very important part of the equation: the people taking a big part of the risk don’t get to share in the rewards. Oh, I understand that the reward is that they get to see a product or piece of art they otherwise might not have (and please don’t say they definitely wouldn’t have; at least half the stuff on Kickstarter these days is things that existed before that site did in one form or another), but they also paid for it. In many cases they overpaid for it, especially compared to the old model.
Consider: I’ve personally kicked in on a couple games and considered kicking in on a few books. The rewards are pretty standard for these things. Below a certain threshold you get a thank-you somewhere, usually on the front page (maybe the welcome screen), although maybe it’s on the back page. Once you get up to the effective retail value of the product, you get a “free” copy. Imagine that. Sometimes around the $15 mark they throw in a t-shirt, which gets rolled in as you hit the next mark that exceeds “current prize retail value + $15”. After a certain point the costs get exceptionally high and the rewards get extremely intangible, such as “lunch with the creators”, but I’m actually okay with those; you can’t really put a price on something like that beyond “whatever the market will bear”, so let ’em get what they can. But here’s one thing they don’t offer: a piece of the action.
Here’s the thing that writers, artists, and lots of other creative types don’t seem to understand. It’s not just that publishers are putting forward the printing presses, the marketing machine, and all the other work they do on your behalf to get your work sold that you think you don’t need them for anymore, and hey, maybe you don’t. The other reason they get a cut of the profits is because of the advance – they loaned you the money you already spent so you could keep body and soul together, and it wasn’t the kind of loan you get from a friend and “I’ll pay you back whenever”. This was a business loan, and it accumulates interest. The interest gets paid in profits, and if there are no profits, you lucked out because they are willing to eat the loss – this time (although they probably won’t take your calls next time).
I understand that at least for Kickstarter there are rules against allowing people to buy into the company, and if I understand the situation correctly this has to do largely with government regulations (no, I am not just trying to sneak in my favorite hobby horse, you can look this up). It has something to do with FTC regulations, unless I miss my guess entirely. But even if there were no government restrictions, I’m not sure the folks who run the site would even allow that sort of thing, because from what I have read (not that I’ve read a lot about them, but there was one article in Time) it would violate their philosophy; the site is there to promote art, not business. Which is fine as a philosophy, but impossible to maintain in reality once you introduce filthy lucre into the equation.
I’d also be more okay with it if their definition of what was an acceptable creative project weren’t so expansive as to be effectively meaningless. Everything from 24-hour dance projects to video game controllers to a bike tire pressure system are projects on the site, in addition to comic books and novels and music and just about anything else. Some of this might never be able to achieve funding if it had to prove being profitable, but some if it easily could, and either way I almost feel like some of it should have to. We already have enough junk products (does the world really need another Slap Chop?), and I can’t help but believe much of the manufactured pieces coming through here will end up being the same. Is it so much to ask that the people who throw in their hard earned dollars get more than a virtual thank you card while the people who make the product get to use someone else’s money to see their dream through?
Maybe it doesn’t seem like much – $1 here, $5 there – but it adds up. And if I could get ten thousand random people across the internet to kick in just $5, I could take off the next year and finally write that novel I’ve been dreaming about, My Not So Humble America. I’d even offer an autographed picture of myself at the $20 level. And just like that, even if I never sell a single copy, I just made enough money to live on for a year in one of the most expensive cities in the world. If the book takes off, I’m even richer, and all it cost me was a few autographed photos.
You know what? Forget everything I said about Kickstarter. It’s the best site ever. And be sure to keep an eye out for my new Kickstarter campaign, coming your way soon.
The Sounds of the Season
Posted: December 24, 2012 Filed under: Culture | Tags: Christmas, culture, music, pop culture 2 CommentsAh, Christmas. There’s no other holiday quite like it. Even if you aren’t Christian, you can still get into the secular spirit by drinking heavily, decorating your house with enough lights to divert traffic from the nearest airport, and maxing out your credit cards on things that people will enjoy for as long as it takes them to unwrap the next present. I do so love this holiday. And nothing says “Christmas spirit” like the music of Christmas.
We all have our favorite Christmas ditties. For me, there are a handful of songs that just say, “Let the merriment commence.” I thought I’d take a little time to share them with you, along with some of the reasons that make them so special to me.
First up is the one song that I have to hear before I can officially declare it to be Christmas. That song, of course, is the immortal “Christmas in Hollis” by Run-D.M.C. Now I can hear some of you thinking “are you out of your damn mind?” Others of you may not even be that polite. Allow me to explain. For those of you old enough, cast your minds back to 1987. The very first A Very Special Christmas album had been released, and my dad bought it the first chance he got. He was a huge fan of Christmas music, dad was, and he loved so many of the performers. He couldn’t wait to put it on. He so loved every single one of the tracks, Whitney Houston, Bruce Springsteen, John Cougar Mellencamp, even Sting… until…
Let’s just say Dad wasn’t a fan of rap music.
My sister and I, of course, knew what was coming. We were even waiting for it. The look on his face when the song started was priceless. We made him sit through the whole thing, and every year after that it just wasn’t Christmas until we broke out his ever-growing collection of Christmas CDs, dug out A Very Special Christmas, and made sure Dad got his chance to enjoy “Christmas in Hollis” (the fact that Mom grew up in Queens just made it that much funnier). This will be our first Christmas without Dad, but every time I hear that song, I remember him fondly, and I dance just a little in his honor.
The next song that I love at Christmas time is “I Won’t Be Home For Christmas” by Blink-182. Okay, I’ll admit it, this one puts me squarely in the Grinch category, but I swear it’s for a lot of good reasons. First, I’m a Grinch, so there. Second, as far as anti-carols go, this one takes the cake. It is a perfect summary of every negative feeling I have ever had in the Christmas season, bundled together into a zippy pop-punk bundle. The chorus alone is a treasure, with such gems as “it’s time to be nice to the people you can’t stand all year.” Who can deny feeling some shred of that cynicism at least at some point? The fact that my sister knew me well enough to include this song on the Christmas album she put together for me one year makes it all the sweeter, since it turned it from sheer nihilistic anti-commercialistic rebellion into heartwarming, family affirming, nihilistic anti-commercialistic rebellion.
And speaking of My Not So Humble Sister, I’m going to have to loop back around to A Very Special Christmas (that album played very prominently in my childhood Christmas memory) and mention “Christmas, Baby Please Come Home” by U2. Every year, as soon as this one came on, my sister and I would sing this one together, dancing around with abandon, acting like fools, having a grand time. For just a few moments we would forget to be antagonistic teenagers and actually enjoy each others’ company, if only for the length of one song. Anyone who knew my sister and I at that age (or pretty much anytime before the age of 25) realizes the astonishing power that represents, and why I treasure those memories now.
The next song on my parade of Christmas delights is “Jingle Bell Rock” by Bobby Helms.
What, I’m not allowed to love a classic?
Okay, so here’s the story, even if it is a little embarrassing. As my family will gladly (or ruefully) attest, when I was a little kid I first discovered this song. I thought it was pretty neat until I found out the singer was named Bobby, and then I become obsessed with it. I listened to it practically non-stop for something close to a year. No, not that year. A year, as in 365 calendar days. Did I mention I was obsessed? Anyway, I finally got over it (I think my sister finally hid the record from me), but I still love that song.
To be sure, there are a lot of other songs that I love to hear this time of year, but those are my “must hear” list. Whenever I hear them it’s as if they’re speaking to me directly, and what they’re saying is “Merry Christmas, Bob.” And that’s what I’d like to say to you now.
Merry Christmas, and Happy New Year.
The Joys of Uncomplicated
Posted: December 21, 2012 Filed under: Culture | Tags: culture, entertainment, movies, pop culture, reviews 1 CommentA peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Kraft Mac and Cheese (in the blue box!). Mashed potatoes and gravy. There’s a reason these are some of my favorite foods, and it’s not just because they have enough carbs between them to make Robert Atkins come back from the grave and die all over again. No, it’s because they are uncomplicated. There isn’t anything complex or subtle about them; you know exactly what you are going to get, and that is as wonderful as it is comforting.
The movie equivalent of this would be The Expendables 2. In many ways it is a tour-de-force. On the surface it may seem like nothing but pure action movie schlock, and there’s a reason for that: it’s nothing but pure action movie schlock. But stop for a moment and think about what that really means. When was the last time you saw a pure action movie?
Action movies aren’t supposed to be complicated. They should have a clear good guy (or good guys), maybe a little rough around the edges but very easy to connect with. The bad guy should be so rotten he practically oozes filth. If there is any angst it should last just long enough to give motivation to go out and get the bad guy. And there should be lots of fights: fistfights, knife fights, gunfights, explosions fights, the works. The dialogue should be breezy enough to keep the action moving without getting you bogged down, and juts interesting enough to keep you amused.
And that’s exactly what The Expendables was. The brilliance of the original was that David Callaham and Sylvester Stallone managed to deconstruct the action film and determine exactly what its minimal components should be. They then built the perfect film with a great ensemble cast, putting together some of (if not most) of the greatest action stars of all time. It was fantastic, and of course they were going to do a sequel. So what does a deconstructed sequel to an action film look like?
Basically, it looks like The Expendables 2. You use the same formula as the first, add 20% more explosions, “this time it’s personal”, a couple of fun cameos to round out the whole thing, and bam! You got a sequel. If it feels like the entire movie is one running cliché, it’s mostly because that’s what happens when you break down the formula for (arguably) the most formulaic film genre ever made and strip out all the useless detritus that has been accumulating over the years as people try to disguise the fact that they are making an action film.
But here’s the thing: none of that matters, for two reasons. First, formula or not, the film works. It’s a great action flick, mostly because it doesn’t try to be anything else. If they had tried to add even a dollop of something else (even a hint of romance, or meaning, or whatever) it would have fallen flat on its face. It succeeds because it is pure and uncomplicated, delivering exactly what it promises.
The second reason is that the cast is a lot better than most people give them credit for. Some of them (Sly Stallone, Bruce Willis) are actually astoundingly good actors, and others (I’m not cruel enough to call them out by name) excel within their milieu, which is still pretty damn hard to do. Selling the scene is always difficult; doing it when it could be sitting in a bar one day and the middle of a jungle firefight the next is monumentally tougher. And staying in character while explosions are going off just a few yards away? Not as easy as you think. If you don’t believe me, try it some time. The cast sells this movie, even more than the movie sells itself.
If you’re looking for a great movie that will make you think, will bring tears to your eyes, and in the end will make you believe that people can triumph over any adversity, I highly recommend that you watch The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King. Great film. But if you just want to have a good time, get a few laughs, and not have to work too hard for it, I highly recommend The Expendables 2.
. And be sure to leave a review with your not so humble opinion!
My Not So Humble Opinion 