Happy Halloween

In honor of Halloween, I recommend you watch one of teh scariest movies of all time (according to Time).

Not even Eli Roth would dare show this one during his make-believe fright fest.

You can explain the nightmares to your therapist on Thursday!

Intolerance and Civilization

Theodore Dalrymple has a long, boring essay on why he doesn't like the new atheists (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, etc.) He tries to be very philosophical, C of E, and superior to the discussion, and in so doing permits himself to ignore the larger problems of Christianism, Creationism, Left-Behind-ism, and all of the emergent militant schools of religious thought.

Instead he'd rather take a stand for tradition in a harmless, isn't-life-nicer-when, sort of way:

The thinness of the new atheism is evident in its approach to our civilization, which until recently was religious to its core. To regret religion is, in fact, to regret our civilization and its monuments, its achievements, and its legacy. And in my own view, the absence of religious faith, provided that such faith is not murderously intolerant, can have a deleterious effect upon human character and personality. If you empty the world of purpose, make it one of brute fact alone, you empty it (for many people, at any rate) of reasons for gratitude, and a sense of gratitude is necessary for both happiness and decency. For what can soon, and all too easily, replace gratitude is a sense of entitlement. Without gratitude, it is hard to appreciate, or be satisfied with, what you have: and life will become an existential shopping spree that no product satisfies.

Notice that he firsts conflates civilization with religion to make his argument tidier, and then argues that faith always has a positive effect on people because it gives one purpose and makes one grateful for what one has.

Now the "thinness" of this argument resides in the fact that:

1. Civilization is comprised of a great many things (art, technology, sports, food, fashion, etc), and religion is one of those, but faith is by no means the core or the totality of what it means to live in a culture. You could just as easily argue that the family meal is the center of human society and get a lot further with an anthropological study of feast days.
   
2. There is nothing that says that faith and purpose are always positive: as Nietzsche pointed out, a religious fanatic will take the void for his purpose, rather than be void of purpose. He will kill and destroy and pray for apocalypse if it gets him closer to God and Heaven. As for, gratitude leading to happiness and decency, well that's just wishful thinking as anyone with high hopes for family get-togethers can tell you.
3. Nowhere does he deal with facts. He is simply asserting that "faith" in and of itself is beneficial for human beings even if there's no basis for it, even if it is just the placebo effect of a positive outlook and wishful thinking.
4. He sneaks in that caveat, hoping no one will notice: "provided that such faith is not murderously intolerant." In his view, atheists are stylistically intolerant compared to religious writers and that is a much bigger problem than a few "murderously intolerant" bad apples.
   

Eventually Dalrymple and his arguments retreat into obscure writings and meditations. Which is fine. My argument has always been that it is not faith that sustains us, but poetry, philosophy, and story-telling: the mind's attempt to explain itself to itself. As human beings we wish to understand and create meaning. This is why some go to church, but this is also why we go to the movies, read books, and watch TV. Religion is just a story that has forgotten that it is a story - created by and for ancient cultures to help create social order, provide a purpose to the daily hardships of work and toil, explain nature's mysteries, justify social inequities, and provide continuity from one generation to the next. It is civilization in its primitive form, and one which we have expanded upon and outgrown.

What survives and is good about religion is its art, its poetry, its music, its myths and legends. All those things that we carry on today in secular and creative new ways. The story of civilization since the Renaissance has been the story of how we've taken these tools and reinvented them for modern life: Shakespeare builds upon the language of the King James Bible to give us a new foundation for western literature; Science and Medicine replace Astrology, Alchemy, and superstition. If the New Atheists seem impatient or adolescent, it is because of the larger world's inability to recognize the achievements of this project. Ultimately, Dalrymple shrugs off complicated truths in the name of cozy, tea-time niceness, and personal preference.

Shorter Dalrymple: Cake or death? Cake, please.

Social Security Is A-OK?

For as long as I can remember, or at least since the early 90s, the conventional wisdom was that the baby boomer retirement (which has begun) would bankrupt social security and leave the rest of us up work-till-you-die creek.

Now all the progressives are coming out to say, "chill out, everything's cool." It's like living in a parallel universe.

Yesterday, Kevin Drum posted this:

SOCIAL SECURITY FOR DUMMIES....Robert Ball, the grand old man of Social Security, explains patiently to the Washington Post editorial board yet again that Social Security is (a) a rather modest program, (b) more necessary than ever in an era of shrinking private pensions, (c) shouldn't be cut, (d) has only minor long-term financial problems, and (e) can be fixed with a small number of fairly trivial revenue changes a decade or two down the road.

I know, I know, it's a boring subject. But the number of people who either don't understand (or pretend not to understand) just how insignificant Social Security's problems are and how easily they can be repaired is really staggering. A decade ago I used to be one of them, but all it took was a very modest amount of reading on the subject to convince me that I was off base. Considering how simple the math is, I really don't understand why so many otherwise bright people continue to be fooled by all this.

And today Paul Krugman posts this about Obama's supposed Social Security misstep:

As a policy matter, I don’t understand why Obama would choose to make a big deal of the small Social Security funding shortfall — which may not even exist.

As a political matter, I don’t understand why he would essentially try to undermine the first big victory progressives won against the Bush administration and the rightward tilt of the Beltway consensus.

This isn’t 1992. The DLC isn’t the Democratic party’s leading edge. The center isn’t somewhere between Joe Lieberman and Jon McCain. I can’t understand how Obama can be this out of touch.

This is all actually good news if it's true. But when did the Conventional Wisdom change? And can the entire scare really have been a Republican conspiracy to kill a program they see as linked to dirty, dirty commies?

The truth is that we will undoubtedly see Social Security expanded over the next 20 to 30 years to supplement failed pensions, and the failure of most folks to plan ahead. People who receive social security benefits are a much stronger voting block traditionally, and the boomers will undoubtedly reshape society to serve their retirement and long term health needs.

God Help You All

Morrissey ends his five night stand in New York, and all I got was giddy approbation:

Resplendent in studded denim, his shirt halfway unbuttoned, Mozza was bathed in heavenly lights. And his every utterance was received with adolescent-type fervor: “It is an indisputable fact that no American musician of any consequence has ever been on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine.” Giddy approbation.

In his stubborn refusal to just go away already, Morrissey has transformed himself into an icon of adolescence, even as he nears the improbable age of 50. His longevity is testimony to a certain sort of longing in life, and a certain sort of personality that can find no other outlet or expression except through the embarrassment of persistence.

Here's a clip from the glory days of The Smiths, and even then Johnny Marr seems sort of annoyed that they can't just play the song like a regular rock and roll band. Note how Marr keeps focusing on his Chuck Berry moves while steadfastly ignoring Morrissey's rolling around the floor.

NFL Rankings Week 8

Radiohead Edition

No Surprises Division
1. New England Patriots 8-0 (1)
2. Indianapolis Colts 7-0 (3)

I Might Be Wrong Division
3. Pittsburgh Steelers 5-2 (2)
4. Dallas Cowboys 6-1 (4)

You and Whose Army? Division
5. Green Bay Packers 6-1 (6)
6. San Diego Chargers 4-3 (11)
7. Seattle Seahawks 4-3 (7)
8. New York Giants 6-2 (8)

There There. (The Boney King of Nowhere.) Division
9. Tennessee Titans 5-2 (10)
10. Jacksonville Jaguars 5-2 (9)
11. Philadelphia Eagles 3-4 (12)
12. Tampa Bay Buccaneers 4-4 (13)

Optimistic Division
13. Baltimore Ravens 4-3 (15)
14. Minnesota Vikings 2-5 (16)
15. Cleveland Browns 4-3 (19)
16. Arizona Cardinals 3-4 (18)

High And Dry Division
17. Carolina Panthers 4-3 (14)
18. Washington Persons 4-3 (5)
19. Kansas City Persons 4-3 (20)
20. Oakland Raiders 2-5 (21)

Packt Like Sardines In A Crushd Tin Box Division
21. Detroit Lions 5-2 (24)
22. Houston Texans 3-5 (17)
23. Cincinnati Bengals 2-5 (22)
24. New Orleans Saints 3-4 (27)

Exit Music (For A Film) Division
25. Chicago Bears 3-4 (23)
26. Buffalo Bills 3-4 (29)
27. Miami Dolphins 0-8 (26)
28. New York Jets 1-7 (25)

How To Disappear Completely Division
29. Denver Broncos 3-4 (28)
30. Atlanta Falcons 1-6 (30)
31. San Francisco 49ers 2-5 (31)
32. St. Louis Rams 0-8 (32)

Rockies 3 Red Sox 4

What can you say? Boston was just better. Better hitting, better pitching, better defense. Better. Congrats to Red Sox Nation. Have your fun, but next year do us all a favor and shut up. You are no longer lovable losers. You are unlovable losers with a winning team.

Also, any team that signs Alex Rodriguez deserves whatever miserable finish they get.

Science and Racism

Andrew Sullivan links to an article that allows him to say something stupid without having to actually say it himself. Basically, that left-wing science goes soft and fundamentalist when faced with the issue of racial differences and always moves to attack anyone who brings up the issue. It's oh so un-scientific, says the right. Here's the relevant quote from Selwyn Duke:

Why, miracle of miracles, all these two-legged cosmic accidents, the product of a billions-of-years journey from the primordial soup to primacy among creatures, whose evolution was influenced by perhaps millions of factors, wound up being precisely the same. It's really the best argument for God I've ever heard, as such a statistical impossibility could only exist if it was ordained by the one with whom all things are possible.

No one in the scientific community would ever argue that every individual is the same as every other. We've all got our own unique genes and mutations that we're striving to pass on to the next generation. But the sorts of big group differences that most racists go for? No. The big differences between populations have never been shown to be meaningful and at a genetic level don't seem to actually exist.

We're not clones, but humanity is not made up of multiple species either.

A racist is someone who exploits superficial differences between groups as though they were real and meaningful for personal power and profit. A scientist is someone who identifies real differences between individuals in order to make predictions about likely outcomes (like susceptibility to certain diseases, etc.).

The problem with people like James Watson is that he's willing to write off an entire continent because he can't separate his scientific opinions from his racist views. Folks like Duke and Sullivan are in danger of doing the same if they can't see the difference.

The Right hates science when it challenges their preconceptions, but love it as a tool for re-enforcing the status quo. Biology is bad because it undermines Creation. But it might be good, if it can be used to prove racist stereotypes and support bell curve thinking. Physics is good when it gives you Nuclear Weapons, but its bad when it proves time to be "relativistic."

This sort of thinking is childish. Almost as childish as the bit about God and statistical impossibility in the quote. This sort of bargain basement ID creationism is an intellectual embarrassment, and just proves how soft in the head right wingers get anytime someone approvingly invokes God. Sullivan ought to know better, yet he rarely does.

College Football Week 9

Ohio State just keeps playing their game. The biggest surprise was that Penn State had game planned a nice opening drive which gave them a lead in the first quarter - the first time anyone's managed that against OSU all season.

Being a lifelong Big 10 fan, I'm not all that into SEC football, but the Georgia vs. Florida game was awesome spectacle. I loved the whole end zone celebration and Georgia's willingness to trade a nasty penalty for a big show of disrespect. Hilarious.

Of course, if Michigan tried that nonsense I would condemn it unreservedly.

USC lost and is probably done. I still don't see all of the excitement over Arizona State and Oregon.

Boston College should consider themselves luck to still be in the discussion. They owe a lot to Virginia Tech blowing a 10 point lead in the final 4 minutes.

Colorado State continued their season of ineptitude with a home loss to the Utes.

Rockies 5 Red Sox 10

Let's just add the Rockies to the long list of unworthy finalists this year: The Buckeyes in College Football, The Bears in the Super Bowl, The Buckeyes again in the Final Four, The Cavaliers in the NBA Finals, and The Senators in the Stanley Cup. Let's face it, the finals never really provide the neck-and-neck competition we crave.

Thank goodness there's only one more night of this garbage to go.

Poison Ivies

A worthwhile suggestion from Malcolm Gladwell: shut down the Ivy league.

It's easy to hate the Ivy League. Also, it's fun.

Yet rarely do hundreds of people cheer wildly as some crazy-haired guy calls for Harvard, Yale, and Princeton to be shut down. That's right: closed entirely. Their campuses turned into luxury condos. Their students distributed evenly throughout the colleges of the Big Ten. Their endowments donated to charity, or used to purchase Canada.

The Ivy league is run like the mob. It's run for and by the families who built it, with occasional social promotion for made men. But once you're in, you're in and they take care of their own.

It's the rest of the world, all those Big Ten schools, for example, that carry on naively believing in the meritocracy and education as an opportunity and a step up. Tear down the Ivies, and that might even be true some day.

Hateful Actions Speak Louder Than Hateful Words

Anyone who's ever complained that the web is for amateurish, sophomoric, thoughtless, self-serving, echo chamber opinionating can have a field day with this little micro controversy.

So first, James Watson makes some rather unfounded assertions about IQ and race, and gets himself in all sorts of hot water. Then, this other guy in The Guardian complains that racist speech like Watson's is a violation of human rights. To which this other other guy objects to on the grounds of free speech.

Then, Chris Bertram at Crooked Timber picks up the discussion by arguing that government can play a role in outlawing hate speech:

Far from liberty being endangered by hate-speech legislation it may—and whether it is depends very much on the specific social and historical circumstances—ensure that many people continue to enjoy effective liberty.

At which point Andrew Sullivan, seizing on both the phrases "hate speech" and "effective liberty," sees some hidden left-wing conspiracy:

But the motivation behind hate-crime laws - a loathing of liberty and group-think victimology - is still out there. To make my own position clear: The elimination of bigotry is not a legitimate role of government.

To which Bertram replies:

The right frame, in my view, is to think of the state as “we, the people” and to ask what conditions need to be in place for the people, and for each citizen, to play their role in effective self-government. Once you look at things like that then various speech restrictions naturally suggest themselves.

So in almost no time at all we go from discredited views on race and IQ, to human rights, to free speech, to hate speech and effective liberty, to group-think victimology, to "we, the people" passing speech restrictions upon ourselves. Brilliant. Well done, one and all.

My problem with the entire discussion is how easily it conflates words with actions and name-calling with law and policy. The original objection to Watson is not what he said, but that his opinions have the potential to affect policy. In his original statement he said that he was:

"inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really."

In other words he wasn't just saying racist things, he was advocating policy changes that would affect real people in the real world. That's the difference. You can't outlaw name-calling, or hateful words, but you must always be on guard against their implementation and practice.

And that's the real problem, because in reality our politicians are smart enough, most of the time, to avoid hateful speech, while silently carrying on with passing legislation that is harmful toward minorities, women, children, and gays. It's the deeds and not their words you have to watch out for.

The other problem with all of this is that any coward can hide behind hate speech laws. If you criticize a Nazi, you're violating his rights. If you object to female circumcision or honor killings, you're violating someone else's religious freedom. It's all bad, once you tie identity to rights and protections.

The social goal should always be to protect the marginalized and disadvantaged from the predatory indifference of the powerful. The social reality is that those groups are always in flux, and those who are out of power today are always pushing toward the center.

On the other hand, you'll always recognize those who are in a position to abuse their power: they're the ones who have no need of freedom or speech. They take without asking, and attack without words.

China Mieville Rocks the Libertarian Boat

An excellent essay from Mieville on the limits of libertarianism. A taste:

Libertarianism ... is a theory of those who find it hard to avoid their taxes, who are too small, incompetent or insufficiently connected to win Iraq-reconstruction contracts, or otherwise chow at the state trough. In its maundering about a mythical ideal-type capitalism, libertarianism betrays its fear of actually existing capitalism, at which it cannot quite succeed. It is a philosophy of capitalist inadequacy.

I've always had a suspicion that libertarianism was for the beta-males of the pack: resentful, isolationist, exiled, jealous, cunning. But Mieville correctly shows it for the joke it really is.

He also rightly points out that "the state" is the ultimate straw man in all right wing political arguments. The state does not limit power, it is the necessary circumstances that make real power possible by guaranteeing the property rights of the wealthy through law and through force. True anarcho-capitalist Libertarianism would require a huge investment in private security and mercenary armies-for -hire just to maintain minimal viability. It is a foolish fantasy for those who dream of being tycoons and gangsters.

[Via Crooked Timber]

Rockies 1 Red Sox 2

What does it tell you when the only guy who's hitting the ball gets picked off little league style with the go-ahead run at the plate? The Rockies have lost their mojo.

I don't want to say that it's over, but it's over. The Rocks needed to steal one in Fenway to swing the series their way and put doubt in the minds of Sox. It didn't happen. Game 2 will go down as a huge missed opportunity as the Red Sox let their bats rest for once and the Colorado bullpen did its job. I doubt that will happen again. For the Rockies to win now, they'll have to go out and win every game 10-8, 12-9, 7-5, or whatever. I have my doubts.

Where the Writers Rule

Salon has a pretty blah article today about the history of screenwriters in Hollywood and their abuse at the hands of management, producers, and directors. The article itself doesn't tell you much that you wouldn't already have gathered through osmosis, but I thought this was a pretty excellent comment from Calliope30 in the letters section:

Aside from Charlie Kaufman, no one can name a famous feature writer. But throw out David E. Kelly, Aaron Sorkin or Joss Whedon's names at a dinner party and you'll get smiles and nods of appreciation. Those men are writers who've said to hell with features and turned to television.

And it's not hard to understand why. In TV land, the writers are producers and showrunners and the directors come and go and do what we say. Many people would agree that some of the best screenwriting today is turning up on TV. Look at The West Wing, Deadwood and The Sopranos - people love these shows because the writing is brilliant.

I will never understand why my friends and collegues continue to bash their heads against the wall, working in film.

TV is well paid, increasingly well respected, and the only place to be if you want to have any power at all.

With HBO and serialized TV shows stealing movieland's thunder, and with the new conventional wisdom being that we are witnessing the revival of the grand Dickensian or Tolstoyian novel in televised form, I think Calliope30's point is essential: TV is run by writers, Movies by directors, and that's why you recommend The Wire to your friends and not We Own The Night.

The audience wants good writing, story and character, and not blockbuster imagery, wacky camera angles, shakey cam, or scattershot cutting. If they can't get something they care about at the cinema, the TV is just a remote control away.

I hope when the Writer's Guild does strike, they bring the whole junky system to its knees.

Rockies 1 Red Sox 13

The Red Sox got everything they wanted: a continuation of the momentum they built up in their win over the Indians, and a lethargic uninspired Rockies team that was not ready to play.

Francis was awful in the early innings and probably shouldn't have been allowed to go as long as he did (not that the bullpen was any help). And the lineup did nothing to slow down Becket has he k'd one after the next.

The only hope of making this an interesting series is if Helton and the team see this as their wake-up call. Otherwise, this is just the first record-breaking loss in a short Boston dominated series.

Go Rockies!

The Rockies being off for a week is starting to give me the same feeling that I had when I realized that 50-something days was too long between football games for my Buckeyes. But the Rocks should have been done back in September and yet here we are, waiting for Game 1 of the World Series.

Why they will win:

• The Offense. The Rockies have an amazing lineup that will only be enhanced by the AL mandated DH. They also know how to beat pitchers by working the count and patiently fouling off balls until they get something they can hit.
• The Bullpen. Clint Hurdle has been working the bullpen in do or die situations all year. He won't be afraid to send out the entire roster if necessary to win a game. The Red Sox on the other hand need their starters to pitch brilliantly for 6 or 7 innings.
• Defense. The Rockies are the best in baseball history and they know how to deal with Coors Field. They won't be intimidated by Fenway Park either.
• Familiarity. The Rocks won 2 of 3 back in June in Boston and beat both of the Red Sox's aces.
• Coors Field. It's big, the wind blows, the altitude is funky, it might snow. More importantly, it will affect the Red Sox pitchers who lack experience pitching in these sorts of conditions.
  

Rockies in 5.

NFL Week 7 Rankings

This week's rankings:

1. New England Patriots 7-0 (2)
No one is invincible. And the Patriots give up points.

2. Pittsburgh Steelers 4-2 (1)
My AFC sleeper team. Unfortunately they can't play western road games (losses at Denver and Arizona). Lucky for them, their only other trip west of the Mississippi is at St. Louis.

3. Indianapolis Colts 6-0 (3)
Keep playing beneath the radar. Nothing matters until you play the Pats. Nothing.

4. Dallas Cowboys 6-1 (6)
The Vikings almost had 'em. Next three games are in conference. Could get interesting.

5. Washington Persons 4-2 (5)
My NFC sleeper. I may need a new one after they travel to New England.

6. Green Bay Packers 5-1 (7)
7. Seattle Seahawks 4-3 (16)
8. New York Giants 5-2 (12)
9. Jacksonville Jaguars 4-2 (4)
10. Tennessee Titans 4-2 (8)
11. San Diego Chargers 3-3 (11)
12. Philadelphia Eagles 2-4 (10)
13. Tampa Bay Buccaneers 4-3 (9)
14. Carolina Panthers 4-2 (14)
15. Baltimore Ravens 4-3 (15)
16. Minnesota Vikings 2-4 (13)
17. Houston Texans 3-4 (17)
18. Arizona Cardinals 3-4 (18)
19. Cleveland Browns 3-3 (19)

20. Kansas City Persons 4-3 (21)
How on earth does KC have a winning record? Oh yeah, their last two wins were against the Raiders and Bengals (see below).

21. Oakland Raiders 2-4 (20)
22. Cincinnati Bengals 2-4 (22)

23. Chicago Bears 3-4 (23)
Griese!

24. Detroit Lions 4-2 (24)
25. New York Jets 1-6 (26)

26. Miami Dolphins 0-7 (25)
The Dolphins' ability to score will eventually turn into wins (59 pts in last two losses).

27. New Orleans Saints 2-4 (29)
Advertisers still love them. Me, not so much.

28. Denver Broncos 3-3 (30)
They defended home turf, but still required a field goal to win. Jason Elam for MVP.

29. Buffalo Bills 2-4 (31)
30. Atlanta Falcons 1-6 (28)
31. San Francisco 49ers 2-4 (27)
32. St. Louis Rams 0-7 (32)

Reading Genre and How Not to Write a Review

I realize that blogs are for dashing off quick thoughts and first impressions, but too often this leads to really weak arguments, unexplained assumptions, and random leaps (I'm sure I'm guilty of all three most of the time).

For example, this blog post features a book review of the horror novel The Ruins by Scott Smith, a book that I haven't read but which has a high enough profile to have been reviewed in the Times. So one would assume that this is on the quality end of the genre spectrum. People should love it, right?

No such luck, as the blog review fails to engage in the actual story or themes of the book and instead complains about the missed opportunity to do something really cool with man-eating plants and Mayans. He concludes:

The only acknowlegdement of the strangeness of this fact comes when one of the characters suggests that maybe it isn't a plant at all. But what else could it be? An alien? A weird Mayan god? No one speculates. Furthermore, no one considers bum-rushing the Mayans who are keeping them on this hill, even when it becomes gruesomely obvious that they will quickly die there unless they get off. No one considers suicide until it's way too late. And the end is such a stunning horror movie cliche that I'm surprised Smith found the fortitude to write it at all. Was he truly that unfamiliar with genre tropes (unlikely, I think), or was he so focused on the movie deal with his buddy Ben Stiller that he thought he'd save the screenwriters some time and just tack on Generic Ending A right at the outset?

The book starts out with promise, but devolves into a cartoonish morass of illogic and cliche a little less than halfway through.

There are two problems with this.

One is the fanboy obsession with teh cool, the need to be able to imagine all situations as though they were action figures in a playset, avatars in a video game, in which the goal of any situation is to battle to the end and advance to the next level. Why not bum rush the Mayans? That's what we'd do if this was Halo. The purpose of a story, on the other hand, is to lock people in a situation and see how they fail to behave in the ways we would expect them to, or they would expect themselves to.

The second problem is the fanboy anxiety with regard to cliche; the fear that it has all been done and said before, because it has been done and said before (except for bloggers who are all tremendously original and gifted). The idea of a "genre cliche" is in itself redundant because all genres are cliched. You can't fix it by calling it a trope either. A trope is just a cliche dressed up for prom.

So to say that the ending is a "stunning horror movie cliche" is essentially meaningless. There is no information contained in that statement. We never learn what the cliche is, why it is unoriginal, why its worse than other similar cliches, or how the ending should have been different. The whole attack is designed to highlight the blogger's superiority to everyone reading the post as well as the poor published novelist.

Moreover, if it is the novelist's purpose to write a horror story, then he or she must make use of horror tropes and cliches, it is required that they do so, otherwise (by definition) it is not a horror story. In other words, at a very basic level, the purpose of a horror story is to be a horror story; genre is an end in itself. To say that someone ought to be more familiar with a vaguely defined list of genre tropes and then assiduously avoid them (except for the man-eating plants!) is just confusing.

There seems to be some unspoken assumption that each writer must re-invent the wheel, rework the cliches from the ground up, invert them, reverse them, make them familiar but not too familiar. But how would one do that without disappointing the audience? And who decides which cliches are cool and which aren't. Is there a Gawker for horror writers so we can keep track of what's Hot this week? Is there a Pitchfork for horror snobs?

I'm guessing that if the book is as bad as asserted it has nothing to do with the reasons mentioned in the review. Most stories fail for the same reasons: poorly drawn characters, lack of an empathetic main character, absence of an impact or obstacle character, no relationship story, incomplete plotting, etc.

But here's the Times reviewer:

One of the creepy pleasures of “The Ruins” is the way it combines genre clichés with the verisimilitude that is Smith’s great gift. Transylvanian law apparently requires every horror tale to have a “You vant to go to the castle of COUNT DRACULA?!” scene, complete with terrified driver, howling wolves and rearing horses. Smith’s version is characteristically convincing: the local truck driver who takes the six explorers to the end of the road warns Amy not to go, but grows disgusted when she insists and suddenly says: “Go, then. I tell you no good, but still you go. . . . Go, go, go.” He drives off, leaving her confused; the rest of the party doesn’t even know the conversation took place. Things then fall apart with appalling suddenness, but the characters’ brains keep on ticking like cheap clocks. It’s the contrast between the familiar and the unspeakable that makes this book so harrowing.

In this reading the cliche is not only identified (Dracula) but contextualized and dramatized to show how it enriches the project, reveals character, and advances the psychological aspects of the story. The cliche connects the story to the tradition of the horror story while placing it in an unfamiliar and wholly new situation. It's not just good writing, but good reading. And reading well, making meaning out of the visual and textual fragments that make a story, is the most difficult art to master.

New Republics New Website

The New Republic has redesigned its website and broken all of its old links in the process. As a design, the site is a disaster. No structure, no flow. The gray backgrounds simultaneously cause you to ignore the blog content and to feel as though the white background content is pinched and crowded. When I look at the page my eye moves down and leaps to the right (skipping the blog posts AND the icon-ed navigation) following the white background, but there's nothing to see, because the lower section is actually just more navigation and old headlines. I can't even figure out what it is they want the reader to focus on.

Breaking old links is just poor form and poor design. It shouldn't be up to the reader to fix old links, and a 404 message is just really weak. Websites should always be backward compatible, or advise users how to locate old content.

As websites go, this redesign is a perfect example of what not to do.

The Victory That Nearly Was

This is probably old news to a lot of folks, but I was fascinated by Peter Bergen's account of the rise and fall and rise of Al Qaeda in last week's New Republic. The whole thing is worth reading but here's the part that really got to me (Bergen is describing the battle of Tora Bora as the daisy cutters smash down on Al Qaeda's heads):

Bin Laden was clearly in trouble, and he knew it. At some point during the battle, he would sustain a serious wound to his left shoulder. And, on December 14, around the time he finally fled Tora Bora, he wrote a final testament that included this bleak message to his offspring: "As to my children, forgive me because I have given you only a little of my time since I answered the jihad call. I have chosen a road fraught with dangers and for this sake suffered from hardships, embitterment, betrayal, and treachery. I advise you not to work with Al Qaeda."

Yet, even as bin Laden contemplated his own death and Al Qaeda seemed on the verge of defeat, Gary Berntsen, then commander of CIA operations in eastern Afghanistan, was worried. A gung-ho officer who speaks Dari, the local Afghan language, Berntsen realized that Afghan soldiers were likely not up to the task of taking on Al Qaeda's hard core at Tora Bora. In the first days of December, he had requested a battalion of Rangers--that is, between 600 and 800 soldiers--to assault the complex of caves where bin Laden and his lieutenants were believed to be hiding and to block their escape routes. That request was denied by the Pentagon, for reasons that have never been fully clarified. In the end, there were probably more journalists at Tora Bora than the 50 or so Delta and Green Beret soldiers who participated in the fight.

Why is it that we aren't hearing more about this in the debates? On the news? Where's the movie? This is amazing. Even Bin Laden thought the jig was up and then we just magicked him a new life, a do-over, a divine wind, via reverse deus ex machina. We handed the endgame over to the Afghans who unsurprisingly did pretty much nothing. More importantly, by the time the Bush administration realized something was wrong, they'd already moved on to Iraq.

The article also goes into interesting detail on our mutually fake friendship with Pakistan, the stupidity of Guantanamo, and documented proof that torture is neither useful nor necessary (hint: captured Al Qaeda, faced with an actual judicial process, will turn state's evidence as quick as a Michael Vick or an O.J. Simpson accomplice).

College Football Week 8

Michigan State found the one way to score against Ohio State: force turnovers. That short span of third quarter ineptitude will follow the Buckeyes around all week and only add to the nay-saying of the nay-sayers. Oh well, let 'em. A win is still a win and once again the defense was nearly perfect, giving up just 3 of MSU's 17 points.

Oh! And the CSU Rams ended their year long losing streak by defeating UNLV. Huzzah. Considering how well they played in those early losses to Colorado and Cal, it would be nice to see them play spoiler the rest of the year.

Star Wars Will Always Be Awesome, Except for the Movies

The Vulture is exactly right about the new Star Wars TV shows:

Everything tangentially related to Star Wars is awesome — the toys, YouTubed trumpet performances of the theme song, etc. In fact, the only thing about Star Wars we don't like are the movies themselves, all of which suffer from the directing and/or writing of George Lucas (he was also responsible for the crappy Star Wars Holiday Special). As long as Lucas can avoid having anything to do with the series' actual production, it could even be as good as the LEGO Star Wars video games!

Star Wars has always been more fun in the hands of the fans than in the hands of Mr. Lucas. It's the Boba Fett factor: take a cool concept and a thin character sketch and let your imagination run with it. What you thought would be on the screen was always cooler than what you eventually ended up with. Even with the prequels, it was more fun to debate the spy reports and rumors than to actually watch the finished product.

In a way, it's never been Lucas and his endless licensing that's been the downfall of the movies. The toys and games and comics have been the saving grace of the whole enterprise. Merchandise makes Star Wars worthwhile.

So, whatever we get in the future will just be more fodder for the nerd imagination regardless of whether or not they are worth watching.

Week 6 NFL Rankings

Ski Trail Edition

Double Black Diamond Division
1. Pittsburgh Steelers (1)
2. New England Patriots (2)
3. Indianapolis Colts (3)
4. Jacksonville Jaguars (6)

Black Diamond Division
5. Washington Redskins (5)
6. Dallas Cowboys (4)
7. Green Bay Packers (8)
8. Tennessee Titans (7)

Blue Square Division
9. Tampa Bay Buccaneers (9)
10. Philadelphia Eagles (12)
11. San Diego Chargers (15)
12. New York Giants (17)
13. Minnesota Vikings (13)
14. Carolina Panthers (18)
15. Baltimore Ravens (19)
16. Seattle Seahawks (10)

Green Circle Division
17. Houston Texans (11)
18. Arizona Cardinals (14)
19. Cleveland Browns (20)
20. Oakland Raiders (21)

4 O'Clock Division
21. Kansas City Chiefs (22)
22. Cincinnati Bengals (21)
23. Chicago Bears (23)
24. Detroit Lions (27)

Bunny Slope Division
25. Miami Dolphins (27)
26. New York Jets (25)
27. San Francisico 49ers (28)
28. Atlanta Falcons (26)

Stuck In the Eisenhower Tunnel Division
29. New Orleans Saints (32)
30. Denver Broncos (29)
31. Buffalo Bills (30)
32. St. Louis Rams (31)

Rockies Sweep! Sweep! Sweep!

What more can be said about Rockies that won't be said in the build-up toward the World Series? I've lived in Colorado long enough to have seen two Stanley Cups and two Super Bowls. I've also seen the Denver Nuggets come up from perennial laughingstock to the makings of a yearly playoff team. But the one thing I thought I would never see was the Rockies in the World Series. Truly unbelievable.

Especially when you consider the ongoing debate between small market and big market teams, the effect of the altitude and dry air, and the fact that every year there was some other Cinderella doing what the Rockies could not (i.e., win games after the month of July). Turns out the Rockies were patient enough to use their farm system (Colorado Springs and Tulsa are well represented here), and clever enough to put the baseballs in a humidor. And this year it was the Rockies turn to be the Marlins or the Astros or the Tigers or the Twins.

Now I have to figure out what to do if Cleveland beats Boston. I may have to place wagers with my family back in OH-IO.

College Football Week 7

My Ohio State Buckeyes take the week off, so to speak, by playing Kent State, and through no fault of their own end up ranked #1 in the AP, Coaches, AND the BCS. Outrageous. This is just the kind of year it's been for college football. Especially when you look at who is ranked behind them South Florida? Boston College? Clearly there is something wrong with the picture.

Most of the football world (the jealous and the haters from the SEC, the Big East, and the Pac 10), hate the fact that OSU has risen to these lofty heights a) During a rebuilding year b) After losing the title game last year 41-14 and c) Without playing an SEC schedule and d) While the Big 10 is "down."

In terms of objection a, I am as surprised as anyone, but at OSU it's all about defense, and this team is playing bend but don't break a lot like that 2002 team.

With objection b, all I can say is that last year's title game was a black swan. A freak statistically. You've just got to throw it out. It revealed a lack of preparation and game readiness that is nowhere in evidence today, was nowhere in evidence last year during their undefeated regular season. Even if you look at 2005, their last two regular season losses were against eventual national champions Texas, and the infamous white out game at Penn State (a notoriously tough place for the Buckeyes to play.

In terms of objection c, I'm just going to throw out all of my good will here and say that I hate the SEC, its Nascar-ification of College football, and its self-important status as best conference ever. It's all nonsense. And now they're whining because the conference is too tough and no one can get through undefeated. When other conferences, like the Big 10, are competitive we are told that the conference is "down." Maybe LSU and Florida should try winning their games instead of complaining.

Which leads me to objection d. When people say the Big 10 is down, what they mean is that Michigan is down. That's it. And frankly the Wolverines seem to be recovering. What you're seeing week to week is Wisconsin, Penn State, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Minnesota, Northwestern, Michigan State and Iowa all knocking the crap out of each other. It's not that the league is down, if anything all of the teams are much more competitive than they were last year, and there are no "easy" games.

What's revealing about Ohio State is that they've completely shutdown the Big 10 competition each time they've faced them. Purdue is averaging 36.4 points per game, Minnesota 31, and Northwestern 28.1. Against the Buckeye defense: 7 points each. Barely. In garbage time.

This is a trend, and the mark of a potential champion.

Somewhere Over or In Rainbows

For the record, the new Radiohead album is pretty great. After telling myself I would ignore the hype, I ended up downloading it yesterday morning on a whim. It cost me just _.__ ? and was completely worth it.

The beautiful thing about the new album is how fresh it sounds on the one hand, and how easily it fits within the whole of the catalog on the other. Whereas Hail to the Thief and Amnesiac were often the sonic equivalent of walking through oatmeal, the new material has an energy and a briskness to it. It even rocks in places. Additionally, it gives long time fans an opportunity to rethink the catalog and see how it compares.

If OK Computer is still the peak, you'll find yourself asking how it fits when compared to Kid A and The Bends. For me, finally hearing Nude provides the missing link, the bridge, between Paranoid Android and How To Disappear Completely. Everything fits.

Nobel Oblige

Regarding the new Nobel Laureate for literature:

Doris Lessing pulled up in a black cab where a media horde was waiting Thursday in front of her leafy north London home. Reporters opened the door and told her she had won the Nobel Prize for literature, to which she responded: "Oh Christ! ... I couldn't care less."

Must admit that I haven't read Lessing's work, but I think I like her already. She's like the Kathy Griffin of world lit.

Failure = Success? Let's Hope So

This is the kind of week I'm having. I'm reading self-help advice on overcoming failure. This is from MSN's Esquire page:

That's why you have to drop to one knee and propose to the girl you're pretty sure you love. That's why you have to send out your résumé, even though your job is just fine. That's why you have to climb that 14,000-foot mountain. It won't always work out. You may get divorced. Or fired. Or frostbitten. But the alternative is a life of vague disappointment.

When that nagging little voice pops up, wondering what's going to happen if you fail, just ignore it. Yes, it's hard. As humans, we're programmed for loss aversion. But money is just money. Your job is just your job. Your life - the adventure of your life - is all you really have that's yours.

When things go wrong, when you're sliding toward an unavoidable crash, don't panic. In those long seconds before the impact, look around and figure out how you entered into this mess. Think about how you'll frame the story a year from now, over a few beers. Can you come up with an honest version that ends, "So in a funny way, it was the best thing that ever happened to me"?

True all true. Nothing ventured nothing gained and all that. But failure still means you failed. You can't whitewash it. Or at least I can't.

----------------
Listening to: NPR - Animal Collective Live, 10-01-2007
via FoxyTunes

NFL Rankings Week 5

Topical edition

Radiohead Honors System Division
1. Pittsburgh Steelers (2)
2. New England Patriots (1)

Halo 3 Division
3. Indianapolis Colts (5)
4. Dallas Cowboys (3)
5. Washington Redskins (13)
6. Jacksonville Jaguars (9)

Baseball Playoffs Division
7. Tennessee Titans (8)
8. Green Bay Packers (7)
9. Tampa Bay Buccaneers (4)

Judd Apatow Division
10. Seattle Seahawks (6)
11. Houston Texans (10)
12. Philadelphia Eagles (11)
13. Minnesota Vikings (12)
14. Arizona Cardinals (14)
15. San Diego Chargers (26)
16. Oakland Raiders (15)

Heroes Season 2 Division
17. New York Giants (19)
18. Carolina Panthers (16)
19. Baltimore Ravens (20)
20. Cleveland Browns (18)
21. Cincinnati Bengals (22)

Ben Stiller Movie Division
22. Kansas City Chiefs (21)
23. Chicago Bears (28)
24. Detroit Lions (17)
25. New York Jets (25)
26. Atlanta Falcons (24)
27. Miami Dolphins (27)

Presidential Candidates Division
28. San Francisco 49ers (29)
29. Denver Broncos (23)
30. Buffalo Bills (30)
31. St. Louis Rams (31)

Real Life Division
32. New Orleans Saints (32)

College Football Week 6

So the Buckeyes used their top ranked defense to completely shutdown the Big Ten's #1 offense. Anyone else have a sense of how the rest of the season is going to go. OSU fans will be concerned about the lack of second half offense and the three interceptions, but the truth is once they have a lead the other side has very little chance of getting back in the game. My sense is that Boeckman was just trying to get the ball down field, to y'know, see if he could make something happen. An interception on the 2 is better than a punt anyway. The day someone can score 20+ against OSU will be the day this particular train runs out of steam (just like last year's BCS bowl).

Meanwhile:

• It's nice that Illinois is winning, but I'm not a believer. The good news for them is that they have a favorable schedule with the exception of a trip to Columbus late in the year.
• LSU's win over Florida pretty much settles one of the two BCS spots.
• USC loses to Stanford. Stanford! We've been waiting for USC to do something stupid for years! It won't last. I don't expect them to lose the rest of the year, and they WILL beat Cal.
• Notre Dame beat UCLA. That's probably just as big an upset; too bad no one cares.
• CSU loses again (and again).
  

Rockies 2 Phillies 1

You never expect to see a low scoring pitcher's duel in Coors field, but it just shows how far the Rockies' pitching has come. There was a time when they'd all but given up on the idea that you could have quality pitching in the high altitude and so they chose to slug their way through every game. No more.

So, the Rockies win again and move on to the National League championship series. A mighty achievement. They'll be facing the one team that will not be surprised to see them: Arizona. They are also the team that Colorado beat 2 out 3 last weekend just to get to the Wildcard tie-breaker. Since we've seen nothing but sweeps so far, it wouldn't surprise me to see this series go 7. On the other hand the Rockies haven't had a losing streak (of any kind) in almost a month, so it's getting harder to imagine them falling behind in the series.

Either way, I expect it will be more competitive than the division series were.

Rockies 10 Phillies 5

Things got a little dicey there in the 8th when Philadelphia loaded the bases, but in the end it was all about the Rockies' relievers and the Rockies' bats.

Colorado is in the driver's seat now as the series moves to Denver for the weekend.

----------------
Listening to: R.E.M. - Burning Hell
via FoxyTunes

How to get Lost

The Literacity blog smartly links story immersion, our ability to engage with a story and lose ourselves in the narrative, with the story's ability to have us empathize with its characters:

The question I'd like to raise is, as always, how can the author apply this to his work? Somewhere along the line, the audience/reader reaches a point where reality and fiction blur; in some sense or another, he or she becomes a part of the story. I would argue that this takes place through character-identification, which is really just a longer word for empathy. In that respect, at least, Carroll is on the mark: the reader must feel more than sympathy for the characters--he or she must feel empathy.

In Dramatica, this is built into the DNA of the storyform. The idea is that the main character is always the person we most identify with and it is through his or her eyes that we view the action. Dramatica also makes certain assumptions about gender and for better or worse they work like this:

Men tend to empathize with logical thinkers (i.e. masculine characters) and sympathize with holistic thinkers (feminine characters).

Women on the other hand tend to base their judgements on the story limit: empathizing with characters in situations where they explore all available options (optionlock) and sympathizing with characters in situations where they are up against a ticking clock (timelock).

Either way, the point is we engage with stories where we are able to empathize with the main character and his or her problem.

The Story Fanatic (and Dramatica expert) takes the argument a step forward:

It’s not enough, therefore, to simply have a “willful protagonist,” an antagonist, and a collection of escalating plot points. At best you’re only providing an audience with half an argument. You still need to give them that external singular perspective (often presented by the Impact Character) and that collective personal perspective (the relationship between the Main and Impact Character) that only two people can share.

If you don’t, the audience member of today will check out.

This where the theory gets tricky, but it is ultimately a very elegant explanation. In any story you have the main character who provides the audience with the subjective point of view and the objective story that contains all of the escalating plot points. But there are also two other perspectives to keep in mind: the impact character who represents the impersonal counter-point to the main character and the subjective storyline that provides the personal perspective on the events of the story. Story Fanatic has it like this:

There are four different points-of-view one can assume when examining a problem:

• The Third-Person Impersonal or “They” perspective
• The First-Person Personal or “I” perspective
• The First-Person Impersonal or “You” perspective
• The Third-Person Personal or “We” perspective

These match up nicely with the four major throughlines every great story should have:

• “They” perspective = The Overall Story Throughline
• “I” perspective = The Main Character Throughline
• “You” perspective = The Impact Character Throughline
• “We” perspective = The Subjective Story or Relationship Throughline

It's that "we" perspective that often goes missing in stories and it is the final piece of the puzzle. When a story has a fully developed subjective story, an engaging relationship, we (pun intended) are able to bridge the gap between the personal and the impersonal, the subjective and the objective, and become fully engaged in the story.

Immersion comes when the objective elements of the story are filtered through the personal view and give us something that allows us to make a genuine emotional connection with the material.

The Story Fanatic blog has lots of good examples of how this works.

----------------
Listening to: Stereolab - Rainbo Conversation
via FoxyTunes

Atheists, what's your sign?

Sam Harris takes rationality to teh next level:

My concern with the use of the term "atheism" is both philosophical and strategic. I'm speaking from a somewhat unusual and perhaps paradoxical position because, while I am now one of the public voices of atheism, I never thought of myself as an atheist before being inducted to speak as one. I didn't even use the term in The End of Faith, which remains my most substantial criticism of religion. And, as I argued briefly in Letter to a Christian Nation, I think that "atheist" is a term that we do not need, in the same way that we don't need a word for someone who rejects astrology. We simply do not call people "non-astrologers." All we need are words like "reason" and "evidence" and "common sense" and "bullshit" to put astrologers in their place, and so it could be with religion.

I basically agree. The problem comes when the Astrologers are in charge, writing laws, attacking non-astrology based education, jailing Capricorns, and fighting wars against the Ophiucian apostates. Then you need to stand up for Astronomy as a "non-astrologist."

[Via Andrew Sullivan]
----------------
Listening to: Dimitri From Paris - Love Love Mode
via FoxyTunes

Rockies 4 Phillies 2

Colorado wins a crucial game 1 on the road and continues to baffle the experts. Heh.

Werewolves of Edinburgh

Family lore:

Nisbet, A System of Heraldry, vol 1, p. 335, Nisbet discusses werewolves:

"I shall, therefore, end here with four-footed beasts, only mentioning one of a monstrous form, carried with us; its body is like a wolf, having four feet with long toes, and a tail ; it is headed like a man, called in our books a warwolf, carried by Dickison of Winkleston, azure, a warwolf passant, and three stars in chief argent : so blazoned by Mr. Thomas Crawfurd, and illuminated in several books ; which are also to be seen cut upon a stone above an old entry of a house in the Cowgate in Edinburgh, above the foot of Libberton's wynd, which belonged formerly to the name of Dickison, which name seems to be from the Dicksons by the stars which they carry."

Punishing the Innocent

An interesting article on redirected aggression, the need to punish others for our own suffering, and old-fashioned scapegoating. The essay opens well, too, as we "Attend the tale of Sweeney Todd. He served a dark and an angry god":

Set in Dickensian London, Sweeney Todd is the tale of a man whose lovely wife had the misfortune to catch the eye of a lecherous judge. To facilitate his evil designs, the judge has Sweeney transported to Australia, where he spends the next 15 years at hard labor. But the wronged fellow eventually escapes and returns to London, bereft of his wife, his daughter, and his reason for living. Not surprisingly, Todd vows revenge, and is about to get it just as Act I concludes. Facing lethal retribution from the enraged barber, the judge narrowly escapes, whereupon Todd slits someone else's throat instead, and then quite a few others. Sweeney Todd "takes it out" on the innocent citizens of London, butchering his clients (who then are baked into meat pies and sold to unsuspecting folk).

But this "god" is universal, and Todd is hardly alone in behaving this way. For as long as there have been human beings on earth — stretching back to our animal inheritance — we have been bedeviled by a peculiar need, as insistent as it has been tragic: Making others suffer for the pain we feel, often choosing as our victim someone who wasn't even the original perpetrator. Biologists call it "displaced" or "redirected" aggression. It operates through the transfer of pain, sometimes physical, sometimes psychological. And it has been going on for a very long time.

This is where drama and tragedy meet biology, history and human psychology. It can be argued that every human conflict finds its origin in vengeful behavior disguised as justice and acted against not the original wrong-doer, but the nearest, softest target.


----------------
Listening to: The Clientele - Isn't Life Strange?
via FoxyTunes

NFL Rankings Week 4

Music Technology Edition

iPod Division
1. New England Patriots (2)
2. Pittsburgh Steelers (1)
3. Dallas Cowboys (3)
4. Tampa Bay Buccaneers (5)

Compact Disc Division
5. Indianapolis Colts (4)
6. Seattle Seahawks (12)
7. Green Bay Packers (6)
8. Tennessee Titans (10)

Vinyl Hi-Fi Division
9. Jacksonville Jaguars (11)
10. Houston Texans (7)
11. Philadelphia Eagles (8)
12. Minnesota Vikings (9)

Satellite Radio Division
13. Washington Redskins (14)
14. Arizona Cardinals (17)
15. Oakland Raiders (20)
16. Carolina Panthers (13)

Cassette Division
17. Detroit Lions (19)
18. Cleveland Browns (21)
19. New York Giants (23)
20. Baltimore Ravens (15)

Transistor Radio Division
21. Kansas City Chiefs (28)
22. Cincinnati Bengals (16)
23. Denver Broncos (18)
24. Atlanta Falcons (30)

Eight Track Division
25. New York Jets (26)
26. San Diego Chargers (25)
27. Miami Dolphins (24)
28. Chicago Bears (27)

Victrola Division
29. San Francisco 49ers (22)
30. Buffalo Bills (32)
31. St. Louis Rams (29)
32. New Orleans Saints (31)



----------------
Listening to: Morrissey - Angel, Angel, Down We Go Together
via FoxyTunes

Rockies 9 Padres 8

What a long, weird, fantastic ball game. You couldn't ask for more than Monday night's epic of hitting, pitching, fielding, misplays, and controversial calls. Sure Holliday missed home plate in the end, but he sacrificed his face in the process. Baseball is not a game of precision, it is a game of justice, right and wrong. There is moral latitude in the way umpires call games, and as soon as the ump saw the catcher drop the ball he declared the play over.

I have to admit I almost went to bed in the middle of the 13th when the Padres went up 8-6. The Rockies seemed to have run out of steam and run out of pitchers. But I sat there, figuring I might as well go down with the ship. The announcers had hyped Hoffmann's appearance throughout extra innings to such a degree that once he was on the mound there seemed to be nothing to do but wait for the inevitable. And then, boom! The top of the line-up that the Padre's middle relief had completely shutdown came back to life.

Great finish to a great season. The Rockies are this year's Tigers, and might just take it all the way.

My Idea of Horror

Horror as a genre no longer possesses the philosophic or psychological power it once did in the age of Poe or of Lovecraft. Bereft of meaning, it can no longer scare us or bring out cosmic terrors from the hidden corners of our psyche. Now, there is only shock and revulsion packaged as entertainments.

It's easy to complain, but what are we complaining about? Of all the major genres, horror is the least popular and the least successful, so you can't really say that corners are being cut in the name of quick profit. If people are making money on this stuff it's not on a Disney scale. No, this is a genre created by fans for fans, dominated by zines and small presses, b-movies and foreign DVDs, and the worst aspects of the genre represent the most potent desires of the intended audience. Torture and gore is what they want, yet I can find no one who can clearly articulate this fact and explain it. Condemn it, yes, but explain it, no.

So instead I've turned to postmodern literary criticism, that great explainer and problematizer, to help me. Here's the late Elizabeth Young writing on Dennis Cooper's repellent novel Frisk:

It might be asked in what way do Cooper's most gruesome passages differ from the so-called "Splatterpunk" writers in the horror genre, authors like Wayne Allen Sallee or J.S. Russell? The answer is probably very little in the case of the best writers and as, [Susan] Sontag points out, there are always a few first-rate books in any sub-genre. Much of this type of horror is concerned with transgressing that ultimate taboo, the interior of the body.

In truth, the events described in Frisk (and similar works like American Psycho) are far worse than Splatterpunk because they are so firmly grounded in the realist literary tradition and offer none of the psychological distance that even the most sensitive reader can level against pulpy genre fiction. She continues,

Films of this type, "Splatter" films - one of Alex's interests in "Closer" - are sometimes repulsively referred to as "moist" films, and indeed Baudrillard talks of the "excessive wetness" of the obscene, the "spectral lubricity" of the obscene simulation which is always too visceral, too sticky, too wet. Cooper's work however has many other intentions beyond this transgression of basic bodily taboos. He wishes to chart the postmodern sensibility as it engages with extreme taboo and thus conjoin the mediatized personality and erotic literary history (Shopping In Space, pg. 259)

In postmodern terms, the problem in transgressive literature is not its awful subject matter, or even the presence of extreme gore and violence in general, but its representation. The violent acts presented on the page and on the screen are not actual events, but simulations of events (even within the framework of the story). They attempt to bring to life that which cannot and should not be expressed. These are things that however horrific are presented, for better and for worse as fantasy. At one level, such nightmares serve as commodities to be consumed and integrated into our mediated sense of self identity. With transgressive literature these fictions ca also operate as ruptures in the fabric of consumer desire, and provide ways of breaking and resisting the control of simulated experience. Mediated desires give way to fragmented flashes of attraction and repulsion as a source of political inspiration. Postmodern transgression exists to alert us to and destabilize power relationships.

The genre version on the other hand is far less powerful, and can only panic when confronted with the fragments of modern life. Indeed, the gore and violence of modern horror are meaningless and obscene precisely for their lack of imagination. They (image and author) are at a very deep psychotic level unable to imagine not being able to see everything. The body is violated, invaded, and dismembered not by action but by the mind (and the eye) and the viewer is compelled to objectify the flesh of the body with the mad insistence that at least we are not that. It is a sort of reverse narcissism expressed as alienation and entitlement; a means of protecting our subjective selves, floating disembodied somewhere behind our eyes, from the truth of our soulless, dying bodies.

----------------
Listening to: Modest Mouse - Blame It On The Tetons
via FoxyTunes

Don't Be a Blockhead

Writer's advice of the day, from Sarah Monette:

One of the hardest steps in going from a dilettante writer to a serious writer, and then to a professional writer is learning to generate inspiration. The lightning bolt from the blue is all very well, but it isn't reliable, and if you want to make a career out of writing, you cannot sit around waiting for the lightning to find you. You have to get behind the mule in the morning, as the Tom Waits song says, and you have to do it whether you're inspired or not. When you're blocked, that means you have to go look at what's blocking you, see if you can crawl under it, or climb over it, or squeeze around it on the left, or hack a chunk out of it on the right. And if it throws you off, you have to jump right back in. You have to make the block explain itself to you, and then you have to take it apart and keep walking.

Writer's block can stop you from writing, but you cannot let it stop you from working. And that's the most important thing not to do with writer's block.

----------------
Listening to: Smog - Running The Loping
via FoxyTunes

Hail to the Thief

I'm barely half way through Monday and the news of the upcoming Radiohead album already has the stale taste of a Cloverfield rumor or a Lost spoiler.

Radiohead wants to turn the record industry on its ear, but Apple managed to do that in their absence and without the need for fake websites. In the end it's just marketing, and Radiohead's moment of consumer protest seems to have passed them by.

The real question is not how to sell the new album, but whether In Rainbows will actually be any good.

Rocky Mountain Baseball In October

I managed to jinx them for Friday night, but the Rocks recovered beautifully to win the final two games against the Western Division champion Diamondbacks, and force a playoff against the fading Padres. This is probably the biggest sports event to hit Colorado since the days of Stanley Cups and Super Bowl championships. The game was so huge that it was hard to switch over to see the Broncos get thumped by the Colts (and hardly anyone noticed anyway).

If the Rockies can get past the Padres tonight, there's no reason to think they can't compete against the other National League teams. This is a much better team than the 1995 team that stumbled into the playoffs in the era of Atlanta dominance.

Let's hope they can get it done, and move on to Philadelphia!
----------------
Listening to: Grandaddy - El Caminos In The West
via FoxyTunes

College Football Week 5

Another great weekend of football with lots of upsets and near-upsets to keep it lively. West Virginia was the first elite team to fall (as I predicted) but then it turned into a trend with Florida, Oklahoma, and Texas also suffering ugly losses.

(I can't say I got much pleasure out of the Florida loss. As the Gators know well, it's not how you lose but when. Better to lose in September and win in January.)

In the Pac 10 USC had all it could handle with a very talented Washington team and Cal had to battle it out with Oregon to remain undefeated.

The Big 10 continues to struggle as a dominant conference with Michigan nearly falling to Northwestern and Wisconsin barely getting past Michigan State. Penn State fell to the upstart Illini and Indiana was surprisingly good in its defeat of Iowa. Meanwhile Purdue quietly moves into the national picture with its easy win over Notre Dame (worst team ever), setting up a big showdown next Saturday night at home against Ohio State.

My Buckeyes played well though struggled to roll up the score as they had last week against Northwestern (and last year when they beat the Gophers 44-0). Minnesota played its brains out and still only managed 7 points while surrendering 30 to OSU's methodical attack. The pass to Robiskie at the end of the first half was without a doubt the highlight and showed how explosive the offense is becoming. Wells's ankle continues to be a concern, and Hartline seemed to struggle, and both will be needed as we get deeper into the conference schedule. Kudos to Trapasso and to Tressel for the fake punt; a gutsy and timely call that really changed the course of the game.

In order to beat the Boilermakers at Purdue, OSU will need to play as well as they did when they traveled to Washington earlier in the year. Purdue has an explosive offense and they will be motivated to make a statement against the Buckeyes whom they haven't seen for a few years. But it is hard to see the defense allowing them more than the season high 14 points they gave up to the Huskies. It will really come down to turnovers, field position, and whether or not the offense can do its job against a Purdue defense that hasn't been tested much this year.

OSU has moved up to #4 in the polls which certainly exceeds my expectations for what seemed like a rebuilding year.

Meanwhile, my little CSU Rams lost again (this time to TCU) and seem pretty hopeless. They haven't won since October of last year and now seem unlikely to do much with this season. Is Coach Lubick contemplating retirement?

----------------
Listening to: Modest Mouse - Steam Engenius
via FoxyTunes