SOPA.
Today there will be no posting. For a bit this morning I was thinking: there are an awful lot of people posting on and about Blackout day, but aren’t they missing the point? There isn’t supposed to be any content. Isn’t not posting protesting the bill? Depends on who you ask, I guess. Doesn’t matter. I’m posting because I support the protest and we need to do all we can to preserve this place, which in my view may be the last place that enjoys true freedom of speech. Thanks for reading and please call your representative as soon as possible.
Here’s how the gossip goes: Is she an industry creation, her puppet’s strings pulled by some famous male producer, manager, or Svengali? Has she had plastic surgery? Is her father so rich that he is financing her entire career? Is she, dammit, sincere? Lana Del Ray is the lie we like to tell ourselves—that America has always been, and will always be, this gorgeous woman who can make all our dreams come true. So it doesn’t matter if she loves you or hates you because she is going to take all of your money and you are going to let her get away with it. That’s the reality of who she is. We are narcissistic and self-obsessed and so is Lana Del Ray. We are a country in decadent, navel-gazing decline—fading, intoxicated, and longing for the past, but still so beautiful, staring straight into the lens and smiling as we shoot an American tragedy.
from “The Problem With Lana Del Ray[sic]” by Amy Rebecca Klein from the band Titus Andronicus.
Man, this essay, wow. I’m not much interested in getting into a pissing contest, because it’s just a waste but, hell, I wouldn’t be much of a friend if I didn’t call out this blatant attempt at character assassination from someone who is very ignorant.
Number One: Lana’s father is a real estate agent from a town of roughly 3,000 people. So no Daddy Warbucks financing her career. 2) She’s never had plastic surgery as I see her at least once a year and I’ve known her since she was six. I’m 31 now. I think I would know if she changed anything, and I sure as shit would know better than someone who comes from a band named after Shakespeare’s poorly-regarded play that is based around revenge and violence which was once called by Harold Bloom: “A poetic atrocity” and “an explosion of rancid irony”. Pardon me a second while I get in my Psychology Easy-Boy, but you seem to encapsulate those ideas pretty readily with your violent antagonism towards a person who worked hard to get where she is.
Your display is unbelievable. If you had any idea how long she’s been working towards this you wouldn’t have this blind hatred towards her, but you are so blinded by your slanderous message you can’t even spell her stage name right.
So before you take to the Internet just like every other nameless, faceless, angry Internet person think for a second before you attack someone who you do not know. Liz [or Lana] has been working only on her music since graduating college and even during that time. Only recently did she go out to London where things began to work out. She is one of the kindest, warmest, and most beautiful people I’ve ever been privileged to know—she sang in church for years and she would never stoop to your level.
The bigger question is what does this tirade actually prove? Calling someone a lie, that they are going to take your money because they are narcissistic, self-obsessed, and all of that is because that is who she is. Jesus Christ. I mean: Why? Why be this angry? What purpose does it actually serve? I’m going to say this as kindly as possible: please remove yourself from the Internet. If you decide to actively subtract a person into a bed of lies please count to ten and think about what you are about to write, and consider the very base of human conscience: would you want to read these comments about yourself? I don’t even think that flashed before your eyes. Again: please count to ten before you start writing and then think about that other person. And seriously: what kind of thinking, creative person actually believes that the problems with America can be symbolized in one person? C’mon. Please, go fuck yourself. KTHXBYE.
[We now return to our regularly scheduled nerdery].
Source: amyrebeccaklein
But just like how Spider-Man would lose his driving tragedy (or at least have it severely lessened) if Uncle Ben showed up alive and well, Barry Allen’s return makes all of that a moot point. The standard set by a man who did the right thing even at the cost of his own life means a lot less if it turns out he didn’t actually lose something, and a legacy means nothing if it ends up being handed back to the guy who was meant to hand it down in the first place. So what do we gain when he comes back? Wally West’s development is rendered irrelevant by the fact that he more or less ceases to exist in favor of having a book about guy whose defining moment loses all of its impact. Two characters lose the things that make them great, and get nothing in return, and a book that should always be about moving forward takes a big step backwards.
Chris Sims on why Wally West is better than Barry Allen. Pretty much everything about this is exactly why I don’t read The Flash anymore, and since before the Reboot I was down to Snyder’s Detective Comics and Morrison’s Batman Inc.
Throughout this piece, I’m like: “Exactly, exactly, exactly.” Like Chris, I grew up on Wally West. I have the first issue of his appearance as The Flash, it was my very first comic book and for me—Wally has always been The Flash. Just as I believe Bart Allen taking over is an inevitable thing but unfortunately the series has been back-peddling ever since. This article is EXACTLY why I really have no interest in Hal Jordan or Barry Allen and haven’t for a while. I think this Wally v. Barry situation and the Hal thing is exactly why DC as a company is not just consistently second in sales but also second in philosophy. The company as a whole is living in the past.
I was just emailing Dan Hacker about this book and normally I wouldn’t chime in, because I’m really not into the comic punditry thing anymore—I feel like that doesn’t add anything to the conversation and doesn’t matter what site you write for, it’s all mostly noise (that’s not everyone, mind, there are a few people who actually do add something but we’re talking about maybe three or four people in the crowd)—but I’m actually pretty interested in this new OMAC book.
Anyway, the background to this story is I checked out DiDio’s Metal Men story in Wednesday Comics having never read anything he’s ever written, only later realizing that he co-wrote the end of the ’90s Superboy series with Jimmy Palmiotti. And I really liked Metal Men (which I’ll be honest, I liked everything about that Wednesday Comics thing. How could you not?) So, I went into his Outsiders thinking why the hell not. And what did I just write to Dan? oh:
“When Giffen showed up and was doing this crazy Kirby impersonation but you know not ripping off Kirby but actually kinda channeling his ghost and I’m like, You know, this book is very odd but fun in a completely I can’t believe I’m reading this way. Like ’90s comic book fun but good ’90s fun, not shitty Spawn or any of that business but the Kesel/Grummett “Superboy” and the Priest/Howard Porter “The Ray” series. So you might be surprised with this, but color me someone you may not have thought would be interested in a DiDio book.”
And Outsiders just kind of became this fun book that I may miss from time to time but when I went back to it, it became this completely different thing every other month. Like one moment Metamorpho, Owl Man, and this new character Freight Train is fighting Goop, and the next thing is Geo-Force is up against a horde of Roman warriors and fighting off the Olympian. And then Doomsday shows up. I mean, what the hell is happening here? I don’t know, but I like it and I’m going to check out OMAC because that character is the shit.
Anyway, that’s my story and I’m sticking to it, but what I really wanted to say is that I’m not afraid to say I like something that others may laugh at me about, because I feel like that’s what people should be doing here. All this week, everywhere you go, people are talking about what they don’t like about the relaunch and how it’s a betrayal to their longtime faithfulness and the whole outcry is just fucking sad. Why are we even here? Why are we even writing about comics on the Internet if not because we love the medium? Then why is there so little love going around, but a whole lot of dissenting. Like, I’m generalizing here so don’t think I’m quoting verbatim: “Oh those Teen Titans redesigns are terrible—” “Really with Rob Liefeld—” “Oh new DC, same as the old DC.” With the exception of two really wonderful pieces on Batgirl, most of the commentary has been “This sucks, and I’m never reading DC again.” Fraction wrote something with this in mind and it should be revisited. Shit, he’s better at articulating it than me so just read that and move on. I don’t really feel like pointing fingers because I’m not interested in an Internet Slapping Match, I have better things to do, but I’ll wrap up this annoying rant: I think we need to reassess our priorities, Internet. I don’t think this relaunch is a bad thing as many of you do, I think it’s an attempt at getting more people to read comics and taking any kind of risk to do that is worth it, including rebooting stuff, and that’s a beautiful risk to take because it’s an act of faith in us as readers, writers, artists, etc. It’s an act that is trying something different to get more people into what we already think is awesome.
I’ll say one last thing, and then I think I’ll be tapped out of the whole comics commentary thing for the rest of my life (thank God, right?): find what you do like and write about it, don’t write about why you don’t like something, if you don’t like something engage in positive reinforcement—try creating something that allows for you to show your talents. So the next time a relaunch, reboot, whatever happens you can put yourself in the position that helps bring in that change you want to see as a fan of this medium. It’s easy to go on the Internet and bitch and moan about why you don’t like something, in fact it’s so easy it’s seen as lazy. Find something to enjoy and don’t be a part of the crowd hating on the reboot, reboot yourself.
(That last bit was pretty cringe-worthy wasn’t it? What can I say? I’m kind of a corny guy).
Tony Kushner denied CUNY Honorary Degree.
(Clears throat, gets on soapbox).
We were talking about this Wednesday at lunch when it came to our attention that Mr. Kushner (writer of the brilliant Angels in America and one of the more harrowing Spielberg films ever, Munich) was denied an honorary degree because of slanderous remarks made by a CUNY Board Trustee to deny John Jay’s application. Apparently this board member attributed anti-Israel remarks to Kushner, when in reality they were made by someone else.
According to a podcast of the Monday meeting and accounts from two CUNY officials who attended it, one of the 12 trustees present, Jeffrey S. Wiesenfeld, objected to John Jay College’s submission of Mr. Kushner for an honorary degree. Mr. Wiesenfeld described viewpoints and comments, which he ascribed to Mr. Kushner, that he had found on the Web site of Norman Finkelstein, a political scientist and critic of Israel.
Because of these anti-Israel sentiments, the board voted to remove John Jay’s ballot to give Kushner an honorary degree. The problem with this is Weisenfeld is making some completely untrue remarks:
At the May 2 public meeting of the CUNY Board of Trustees, which was broadcast on CUNY television and radio, Trustee Jeffrey S. Weisenfeld delivered a grotesque caricature of my political beliefs regarding the state of Israel, concocted out of three carefully cropped, contextless quotes taken from interviews I’ve given, the mention of my name on the blog of someone with whom I have no connection whatsoever, and the fact that I serve on the advisory board of a political organization with which Mr. Weisenfeld strongly disagrees. As far as I’m able to conclude from the podcast of this meeting, Mr. Weisenfeld spoke for about four minutes, the first half of which was a devoted to a recounting of the politics of former President of Ireland and UN Human Rights High Commissioner Mary Robinson that was as false as his description of mine.
Clearly Weisenfeld hasn’t seen Munich, the Oscar nominated screenplay by Tony Kushner, and perhaps Steven Spielberg’s only serious work in the 21st century. The movie is a harrowing account of Israeli commandoes going after the Black September terrorists who slayed Israel’s athletes in the 1972 Olympic Games. If that work isn’t Pro-Israel, I don’t know what is.
What bothers me here is not so much the blatant slandering and defamation of character, but the question of whether we can judge an institution’s validity if its own Board won’t question statements made by someone else. Just take that person on their word, and not even do a fucking Google and see the kind of work Kushner has done. The appearance of Munich should be somewhere near the top of the search hit list and there is where Weisenfeld’s argument gets knocked on its ass. The bigger issue for me personally is as representatives of the college I’m attending is the blatant lack of any kind of discourse on a matter as serious as this. I mean what kind of serious institution am I attending if there isn’t any kind of argument at its highest level on such a serious issue? You’re not even going to challenge someone’s argument with regards to something anti-Israel? There must be someone Jewish on that Board. I mean c’mon, seriously.
a post about 3D film. move along, nothing to see.
Yeah this is going to be another one of those little bitchy rants about the racket that is 3D film. So, if you’re not interested in that just move right along. Over the weekend I saw “Despicable Me” which was cute and adorable but not terribly good. This was the first movie I’ve actually seen in 3D in the movie theater. My previous experience was with “Coraline” at home and I had a migraine five minutes into the movie so I stopped watching. Before “Despicable” even started the on-screen announcer robot person told us to put on our 3D glasses for the previews. So I did that and when the previews came on there was nothing special; no cars flipping out of the screen at us or anything like that, so I took the glasses off thinking I didn’t really need to wear them if I didn’t want to.
There’s the thing: with the glasses off, the image comes across as that cheap 3D effect where there are two images of one thing, put the glasses on and it goes into perfect 2D form. In other words, exactly how you normally see a non-3D film on a movie screen. I found this to be the case throughout the movie so not only is 3D not conducive to film in virtually every way BUT it’s become such a racket that you have to wear the glasses just so you can view the movie in a normal sense. That, for me, is FUBAR. This outcome doesn’t do anything for me and I’m still going to avoid seeing a 3D movie at all costs. I shouldn’t have to pay an extra five dollars so I can view a movie incorrectly or wear knock-off Ray Bans so I can see it properly.
ESPN : LeBron James Has Decided To Join Miami Heat
(via soupsoup)
(Clears throat). I just have to take a second to say that this entire fanfare with regards to LeBron James is exactly why I couldn’t give a shit about the NBA at all. The hour long special that he’s doing may be one of the most self-aggrandizing testaments to a lack of character in the history of sports. An hour to let the country know where he’s going to play next season? Who does he think he is? The President? Oh, wait: King. I get it now.
I fear for the owners who get this guy, and I would advise them to cut their deal off with him immediately because of his actions with regards to this decision. Here is a guy who thinks he is so important that he has to spend an hour addressing the country to something as trivial as where he’s going to play next season. If I was an owner, I wouldn’t blink in cutting all ties to him. Here is someone with a severe lack of humility, because clearly in his eyes he must do this for us. He’s doing it for his subjects. Clearly, Mr. James has no concept of anyone other than himself and frankly that’s just something I wouldn’t want anywhere near my team.
Source: soupsoup
Just received my Lit Research Assignment list.
And naturally it is rife with pretension. I wonder what it is, how English professors and students can’t stop themselves from coming off as entitled, self-important people in the things they write. Why can’t these people just be clear, engaging, and without their Wicked-Witch-of-the-West-like nose stuck up in the air writing such things as:
List each book and article in proper MLA format. After each item, write a one paragraph, single spaced description. Do not summarize, but describe the kind of critical issue(s), questions, foci that guide each book or article. Do not feel you must label the items as New Critical, post-structuralist, feminist, psychoanalytic, etc.; it is more important that you describe the critical approach than label it. You may wish to use Abrams for guidelines about the varieties of critical approaches. It may be helpful to consult some of the literary guides mentioned by Harner for general guidelines about critical opinion at any given time. (In your reading of books and articles for the annotated bibliography, be attentive to the format of scholarly writing—forms of evidence, use of quotations, citation, etc.). The annotated bibliography will play a major role in the next assignment, the thesis prospectus.
I can only imagine what this guy is going to think of my topic. Related.
Shocker: English Literature Masters students love to hear themselves talk.
I fully realized something recently, something I’ve always known about myself ever since high school, stuff as an English student that I never cared for, and probably why I focused more on journalism and the craft of writing rather than the study of the work. This reason is the grotesque vaguery and overall bullshitty mentality of English teachers and their students.
The graduate level classes at Brooklyn College are set up discussion style with the teacher engaging in a discussion with the students on the impressions of a work. Allowing for the students to engage in a dialogue that is both snobby, know-it-all and self-indulging dismissive without actually saying anything of substance. I find myself constantly clashing with the vague bullshit that is slung around at master’s level english literature courses.
I find it especially evident in my classes that this is not my style, though I continue to excel at my written work, I dislike the vagueness. I like getting to the point rather than beating around the bush. There are a number of people I don’t care for when it comes down to the classes. The kind of people who like to wax their poetic carrot by circling around a point gaining, “yeah, yeah, right, right,” hit points from the teacher who then engage them in similar vague dialogue agreeing with the self-indulgent bullshitter student. Giving me this sense of: “yeah, I agree with you, and see your point, because I’m just like you.” And since I only see these bullshit artists as being largely full of shit who say nothing of any kind of merit, causing me to feel like the program doesn’t mesh with my personality.
These students and teachers engaging in this circular dialogue makes me sick with annoyance. I’m not about talking end from end on how bright I am, and it seems its inherent in English majors that they love to talk in generalities that seem to never have a point. Its because of this nature of class, that I see my old Journalism prof, Denny, screaming in my brain and I utter these words at my graduate school colleagues: “I’m sorry that’s vague. Can you be more specific?”
All I get in response is dirty looks and more generalities which causes my internal Denny to scream: “What the fuck are you talking about?!”
Maybe I’m just not smart enough, or not Advanced enough as Klosterman defines it, or maybe I’m not full of shit.
