The Village Voice's Richard Goldstein neatly dissects the mainstream media's reaction to Michael Moore's documentary. As Goldstein says, none of Moore's facts are contested--it's the spin he puts on them that makes them so mad...But if they came right out and said that, they'd be exposed for the pandering idiots that they are. So instead they say, "Is Michael Moore telling the truth?"
Is the White House? Let's answer that one first--if GE and Disney will let you...
Barry Trotter (Book 1)
The Hogwash School for Wizards was the most famous school in the wizarding world, and Barry Trotter was its most famous student. His mere presence made sure that every year twenty candidates applied for every open spot, no matter how rapacious Hogwash's tuition became. As a result, Barry and the school had come to an unspoken agreement: regardless of his grades, Barry could remain at Hogwash for as long as he wished. He had just begun his eleventh year...Freshman
Sleepy with boredom and gassy from lunch, Hart Fox sat in the hard plastic chair outside his dean's office. A kid walked in the door, pink detention slip in hand, bobbing his head a little so that the purple spikes of his mohawk didn't get bent on the transom. He slumped down next to Hart. Hart nodded--he remembered tis joker from sophomore American History, constantly arguing in favor of anarcho-syndicalism. Was his name Henry?...Sophomore
Arcing lazily through the air, the Frisbee smacked against the window. “Ooo-oo!” a chiseled and shirtless boy teased as it wobbleplummeted to the ground. “Sarah's in troub-le!”The beauty-boy was righter than he knew: Of all the windows on campus to hit, this one was the worst. It belonged to Stutts’ Professor of Clandestine Affairs, Glenbard North, who had destroyed more students than there were blades of grass on the freshly resodded Old Quad below...Coming Soon!
All you really gotta know is, I'm writing new things constantly and the more I write, the better my books get. So if you've read my earlier work--and millions of you have--we should keep in touch. This fall, at least one and maybe two new books will be available: a Dickens parody AND a comic mystery loosely based on The Beatles. Drop me an email at mikesnewbooks[at]gmail[dot]com, and I'll be sure to let you know release dates, special deals, etc.Wednesday, June 30, 2004
Dennis Miller and what National Lampoon hath wrought...
This morning, friend Dennis Perrin forwarded me this link about Dennis Miller making fun of the torture victims at Abu Ghraib.
I asked Mr. Perrin--who is the author of an excellent biography of Michael O'Donoghue--if he thought that the work of O'Donoghue and others at the National Lampoon in the early 70s hadn't opened a Pandora's Box. Generally, Lampoon is considered a wholly good influence on American entertainment, giving comedy an injection of honesty, as well as plenty of new grist for its mill. But Dennis Miller making jokes about torture..."If nothing is sacred," I wrote DP, "then everything is equivalent--which Reality tells us isn't true. Do you think we'd be better off with this type of humor still underground, rather than mainstream? Surely there were a lot of water-cooler slurs about the torture photos, but when it's being disseminated by the mainstream media, doesn't it simply qualify as idiotic and coarsening? I'm often struck by how people always perceive the license of the early National Lampoon, but almost never the humanistic stance it usually took (before O'Rourke flattened it out)."
Here was Dennis' response, which he has very kindly allowed me to share:
"Well, this type of humor was in the air before the Lampoon appeared -- I'm thinking of Lenny Bruce primarily -- but it was the Lampoon that took it in newer and bolder directions. Of course, O'Donoghue's influence here cannot be understated -- he was the cutting edge of the mag and of his generation. He set the tone. And while there was more than a hint of sadism in O'Donoghue's work, it always seemed connected to a real sense of outrage, of despair. "The Vietnamese Baby Book" and "Kill The Children Federation" come to mind. Also, "Children's Letters To The Gestapo." On the surface, these pieces appear as a string of dead baby jokes (and I'm sure many giddy teens and young adults saw them just that way), but it's obvious that O'Donoghue was aiming for larger targets, namely the justifications for war and mass murder offered by states and those who support them. He reflected this in the eyes of the most vulnerable -- children. As we see in Iraq (and in those grisly shots from "Fahrenheit 9/11"), nothing has changed. In fact, in some ways, it's gotten worse.
Dennis Miller has never been on O'Donoghue's level. [That's an understatement!--MG] Those bits he's done about tortured Iraqis are pure sadism, nothing more. And it's based in ignorance and blind hatred. When Miller nodded at that gruesome photo, he said, "Screw him. Bad guy." Now how the fuck would he know? According to the Red Cross, some 70-90% of those held at Abu Ghraib were not charged with any serious crime, or any crime at all. Most were swept up in house invasions by US troops. Most were later released. So unless Miller has some inside info about that hooded prisoner, all he's saying is "Kill The Sand Nigger!" That's not satire. It's a rank expression of Miller's hatred.
Did the Lampoon set the stage for Miller's "bit"? I'd have to say yes. But as you pointed out to me, there's a difference between the O'Donoghue/Kenney Lampoon, and the P.J. O'Rourke Lampoon. The former may have left blood on the floor, but it was the blood of those with power who wished to kill or control us. The latter merely dabbled in what O'Rourke called at the time "Screw You, Humor." We're better than you and we'll destroy you. And who's "you"? Blacks, gays, women, Arabs (read some of O'Rourke's stuff around the time of the Iranian hostage crisis), poor whites -- in fact, pretty much anyone who O'Rourke thought beneath him and his pals, John Hughes and Denis Boyles (the "Pants Down Republicans"). As Sean Kelly put it, O'Rourke was hammering society's victims, not those at the top. And this, I'm afraid, is the version of the Lampoon that has exerted the most influence. Sure, there's The Onion and "The Daily Show," but these are exceptions. Screw You Humor is easier to do, more satisfying and self-congratulatory. And while O'Rourke is not solely to blame, he was the first to truly express this form of humor on a glossy, corporate stage. Miller's torture routines would be at home in O'Rourke's Lampoon."
Eloquently put, DP. And I would also add that even The Daily Show--like the rest of the mainstream media--shies away from picking good guys and bad guys in the name of "objectivity." Being an equal-opportunity satirist is considered to be the worthiest goal. But there ARE good guys and bad guys in the world, and I would argue that the whole point of satire is to identify who's who.
Another thing that Dennis only touched on is this: standup is one thing, but when access to your audience is controlled by corporations, you're going to have more status quo-enforcing "Screw You Humor" (which I think might've been coined by Garry Trudeau). Change is bad for the stock market. So while O'Rourke was just the first creep that combined supposed "outrageousness" with a desire to stick his nose up the ass of the country club set, he's been far from the only one. You could make an argument that he, and NOT O'Donoghue or Kenney, blazed the trail American humor has followed. More's the pity. (Recently, I've been told that PJO is a very nice man, so I feel obliged to add: nothing personal, P.J., but I do wish you'd stopped with Modern Manners. Afflicting the already uncomfortable may be good career-wise, but it's beneath a writer of your ability.)
I asked Mr. Perrin--who is the author of an excellent biography of Michael O'Donoghue--if he thought that the work of O'Donoghue and others at the National Lampoon in the early 70s hadn't opened a Pandora's Box. Generally, Lampoon is considered a wholly good influence on American entertainment, giving comedy an injection of honesty, as well as plenty of new grist for its mill. But Dennis Miller making jokes about torture..."If nothing is sacred," I wrote DP, "then everything is equivalent--which Reality tells us isn't true. Do you think we'd be better off with this type of humor still underground, rather than mainstream? Surely there were a lot of water-cooler slurs about the torture photos, but when it's being disseminated by the mainstream media, doesn't it simply qualify as idiotic and coarsening? I'm often struck by how people always perceive the license of the early National Lampoon, but almost never the humanistic stance it usually took (before O'Rourke flattened it out)."
Here was Dennis' response, which he has very kindly allowed me to share:
"Well, this type of humor was in the air before the Lampoon appeared -- I'm thinking of Lenny Bruce primarily -- but it was the Lampoon that took it in newer and bolder directions. Of course, O'Donoghue's influence here cannot be understated -- he was the cutting edge of the mag and of his generation. He set the tone. And while there was more than a hint of sadism in O'Donoghue's work, it always seemed connected to a real sense of outrage, of despair. "The Vietnamese Baby Book" and "Kill The Children Federation" come to mind. Also, "Children's Letters To The Gestapo." On the surface, these pieces appear as a string of dead baby jokes (and I'm sure many giddy teens and young adults saw them just that way), but it's obvious that O'Donoghue was aiming for larger targets, namely the justifications for war and mass murder offered by states and those who support them. He reflected this in the eyes of the most vulnerable -- children. As we see in Iraq (and in those grisly shots from "Fahrenheit 9/11"), nothing has changed. In fact, in some ways, it's gotten worse.
Dennis Miller has never been on O'Donoghue's level. [That's an understatement!--MG] Those bits he's done about tortured Iraqis are pure sadism, nothing more. And it's based in ignorance and blind hatred. When Miller nodded at that gruesome photo, he said, "Screw him. Bad guy." Now how the fuck would he know? According to the Red Cross, some 70-90% of those held at Abu Ghraib were not charged with any serious crime, or any crime at all. Most were swept up in house invasions by US troops. Most were later released. So unless Miller has some inside info about that hooded prisoner, all he's saying is "Kill The Sand Nigger!" That's not satire. It's a rank expression of Miller's hatred.
Did the Lampoon set the stage for Miller's "bit"? I'd have to say yes. But as you pointed out to me, there's a difference between the O'Donoghue/Kenney Lampoon, and the P.J. O'Rourke Lampoon. The former may have left blood on the floor, but it was the blood of those with power who wished to kill or control us. The latter merely dabbled in what O'Rourke called at the time "Screw You, Humor." We're better than you and we'll destroy you. And who's "you"? Blacks, gays, women, Arabs (read some of O'Rourke's stuff around the time of the Iranian hostage crisis), poor whites -- in fact, pretty much anyone who O'Rourke thought beneath him and his pals, John Hughes and Denis Boyles (the "Pants Down Republicans"). As Sean Kelly put it, O'Rourke was hammering society's victims, not those at the top. And this, I'm afraid, is the version of the Lampoon that has exerted the most influence. Sure, there's The Onion and "The Daily Show," but these are exceptions. Screw You Humor is easier to do, more satisfying and self-congratulatory. And while O'Rourke is not solely to blame, he was the first to truly express this form of humor on a glossy, corporate stage. Miller's torture routines would be at home in O'Rourke's Lampoon."
Eloquently put, DP. And I would also add that even The Daily Show--like the rest of the mainstream media--shies away from picking good guys and bad guys in the name of "objectivity." Being an equal-opportunity satirist is considered to be the worthiest goal. But there ARE good guys and bad guys in the world, and I would argue that the whole point of satire is to identify who's who.
Another thing that Dennis only touched on is this: standup is one thing, but when access to your audience is controlled by corporations, you're going to have more status quo-enforcing "Screw You Humor" (which I think might've been coined by Garry Trudeau). Change is bad for the stock market. So while O'Rourke was just the first creep that combined supposed "outrageousness" with a desire to stick his nose up the ass of the country club set, he's been far from the only one. You could make an argument that he, and NOT O'Donoghue or Kenney, blazed the trail American humor has followed. More's the pity. (Recently, I've been told that PJO is a very nice man, so I feel obliged to add: nothing personal, P.J., but I do wish you'd stopped with Modern Manners. Afflicting the already uncomfortable may be good career-wise, but it's beneath a writer of your ability.)
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
GO SEE FAHRENHEIT 9/11!
Go see it. Now. Call in sick, blow off the chores, do whatever you have to do. I saw it yesterday, and It's the best, most emotionally involving documentary I've ever seen. I really laughed; I really wept.
Two things I noticed: for a Monday 4:45 pm screening, the theater was packed. And it was packed with a bunch of different kinds of people, not just well-meaning palefaced liberals like myself. The two guys next to me looked like they'd just rolled off the playground on West 4th Street. I was glad to see that these guys--one black guy, the other Latino, both about 18--were watching it. Like I said yesterday, Americans need to start recognizing and acting in their self-interest. If there's a draft, those guys will be in the crosshairs, not me.
Seeing the movie makes me want to stamp on David Denby's toes even more. Has Moore created something that reflects his opinion? Of course--that's what filmmakers do, documentarians included. The myth of absolute objectivity should be dead by the end of Freshman History, and judging Fahrenheit 9/11 on those grounds is infanile and insulting. The pertinent question is, which vision of reality feels closer to the truth? Moore's makes sense, the White House's doesn't. It's been this way for years. Attacking Iraq in response to 9/11? Cutting taxes in a time of war? Pretending that the world was behind us? Ignoring the PDB? I could go on--we all could. The Bush Administration is either crooked or incompetent, and both mean the same thing: kick the bums out.
As much as I enjoyed the spectacle of hundreds of people laughing at the President for several hours, my primary reaction to F9/11 didn't feel partisan, or even political in the "Coke vs. Pepsi" way it's usually presented. My deepest, most consistent feeling was patriotism--the kind that admires compassion and justice wherever it's found, because I believe (rather sentimentally, I admit) that compassion and justice are American values. And I felt a lot of anger, too, at how our country has been systematically divorced from these values, for the paltriest of reasons: money.
Whether or not you believe every fact in Fahrenheit 9/11 is immaterial; the issue it raises is American responsibility. Denby mentioned Moore's juxtaposition of killed and maimed Iraqis with Donald Rumsfeld's burbling about the surgical precision of our attack. Denby's right: that is the real heart of the film, not Bush's deer-in-the-headlights routine or the harrowing vision of smoke and swirling paper from 9/11. Denby felt guilty, and balked. But it's essential that we all acknowledge the reality of what our country does. It's uncomfortable--awful, in fact. We'd all rather eat the sugar that Bush is selling than the shit that Moore is, but the facts are undeniable. I felt ashamed that my tax dollars went towards killing and maiming those people, and I refuse to become so frightened of Islamic terrorism that I approve of American terrorism. War is never surgical, and anybody who believes that lie is fooling himself, Mr. Denby, Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Bush.
Our current status as the only superpower should make us tremble, not rejoice. Will we inch the world towards a better future, or a worse one? I defy anyone--Democrat, Republican or Independent--to see Fahrenheit 9/11 and conclude that we are moving in the right direction. Whether the Bush Administration is corrupt or inept; whether the problem is the individuals, or an out-of-whack system, the conclusion is clear: the United States has to start acting right. And the first step--but far from the only one--is booting Bush, Cheney, and all the rest.
Two things I noticed: for a Monday 4:45 pm screening, the theater was packed. And it was packed with a bunch of different kinds of people, not just well-meaning palefaced liberals like myself. The two guys next to me looked like they'd just rolled off the playground on West 4th Street. I was glad to see that these guys--one black guy, the other Latino, both about 18--were watching it. Like I said yesterday, Americans need to start recognizing and acting in their self-interest. If there's a draft, those guys will be in the crosshairs, not me.
Seeing the movie makes me want to stamp on David Denby's toes even more. Has Moore created something that reflects his opinion? Of course--that's what filmmakers do, documentarians included. The myth of absolute objectivity should be dead by the end of Freshman History, and judging Fahrenheit 9/11 on those grounds is infanile and insulting. The pertinent question is, which vision of reality feels closer to the truth? Moore's makes sense, the White House's doesn't. It's been this way for years. Attacking Iraq in response to 9/11? Cutting taxes in a time of war? Pretending that the world was behind us? Ignoring the PDB? I could go on--we all could. The Bush Administration is either crooked or incompetent, and both mean the same thing: kick the bums out.
As much as I enjoyed the spectacle of hundreds of people laughing at the President for several hours, my primary reaction to F9/11 didn't feel partisan, or even political in the "Coke vs. Pepsi" way it's usually presented. My deepest, most consistent feeling was patriotism--the kind that admires compassion and justice wherever it's found, because I believe (rather sentimentally, I admit) that compassion and justice are American values. And I felt a lot of anger, too, at how our country has been systematically divorced from these values, for the paltriest of reasons: money.
Whether or not you believe every fact in Fahrenheit 9/11 is immaterial; the issue it raises is American responsibility. Denby mentioned Moore's juxtaposition of killed and maimed Iraqis with Donald Rumsfeld's burbling about the surgical precision of our attack. Denby's right: that is the real heart of the film, not Bush's deer-in-the-headlights routine or the harrowing vision of smoke and swirling paper from 9/11. Denby felt guilty, and balked. But it's essential that we all acknowledge the reality of what our country does. It's uncomfortable--awful, in fact. We'd all rather eat the sugar that Bush is selling than the shit that Moore is, but the facts are undeniable. I felt ashamed that my tax dollars went towards killing and maiming those people, and I refuse to become so frightened of Islamic terrorism that I approve of American terrorism. War is never surgical, and anybody who believes that lie is fooling himself, Mr. Denby, Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Bush.
Our current status as the only superpower should make us tremble, not rejoice. Will we inch the world towards a better future, or a worse one? I defy anyone--Democrat, Republican or Independent--to see Fahrenheit 9/11 and conclude that we are moving in the right direction. Whether the Bush Administration is corrupt or inept; whether the problem is the individuals, or an out-of-whack system, the conclusion is clear: the United States has to start acting right. And the first step--but far from the only one--is booting Bush, Cheney, and all the rest.
Monday, June 28, 2004
Earthquake!
Did the Earth move for you? We apparently got a 4.5 this morning--but I didn't feel a thing. I have been awake during an earthquake, out in Seattle in 1994. I was sitting on my couch and a bowl full of goldfish almost fell on my head.
I suspect that the earthquake was the result of God's reading this article about indebted Americans starting to freak out about rising interest rates. Rising interest rates will, of course, up your monthly credit card payment, car payments, and adjustable mortgages. Here's what God was pissed about: late in the article, Mrs. Diffenderfer--who is currently struggling with $600/mo. credit card payments--admits that she and her husband (who have a combined annual income of $70,000) donate $125 a week to their local church! That's Bush's America, folks: Simple, sentimental, and unwilling to recognize and act in their own self-interest. Save us from these people.
I suspect that the earthquake was the result of God's reading this article about indebted Americans starting to freak out about rising interest rates. Rising interest rates will, of course, up your monthly credit card payment, car payments, and adjustable mortgages. Here's what God was pissed about: late in the article, Mrs. Diffenderfer--who is currently struggling with $600/mo. credit card payments--admits that she and her husband (who have a combined annual income of $70,000) donate $125 a week to their local church! That's Bush's America, folks: Simple, sentimental, and unwilling to recognize and act in their own self-interest. Save us from these people.
Thursday, June 24, 2004
Back from vacation...
...and ready to see Fahrenheit 9/11! But first, I had to read David Denby's irritating review in The New Yorker.
The New Yorker has been called a self-satisfied bastion of middle-class smugness. And in the American middle class, thou-shalt-not admit the existence of economic classes; it's unkind towards those below, and impolite towards those above. So the entire premise of Michael Moore's humor--that the rich ARE different from you and I, they're greedy assholes--offends David Denby. Who is, as we all know from his self-aggrandizing gawp of a mea culpa American Sucker, himself quite wealthy--by any standard save the Upper West Side/Bonfire of the Vanities one he aspires to. If you're making the kind of money Denby is, and have the kind of friends he does, of course Michael Moore is a paranoid asshole. "We live in the best of all possible worlds, right? Mustn't we, since I'm doing so well?"
Denby reacts to Moore's provocation by making molehills out of mountains. "'Fahrenheit 9/11' has a kind of necessary shock value," Denby writes, "it reveals the underside of the war, the bloody messes not shown on news broadcasts." There's a big question and a little question implied here.
First, the little question: can we trust Moore, who is an admitted agitator with an agenda? That's reasonable to ask, and easy to answer: we trust him at our own risk. But everybody's got a bias, whether it's FOX or CNN or David Denby. Michael Moore's right up front about his, allowing each of us to filter him as we see fit, but for this honesty Denby believes him LESS. I think that people and organizations that cloak their biases under fraudulent claims of objectivity are more to be feared than straight-out polemicists like Moore. But Moore's truthfulness clearly isn't the point. Clearly the offensiveness of what Moore says is more important to Denby than whether it's true or not.
Now the big question: why the hell AREN'T the news broadcasts showing this? Why the hell do we have to rely on Michael Moore to show us 'the underside of the war'? In Vietnam, if you didn't trust an underground newspaper--if you thought it was biased--you could turn on the evening news. Not anymore--and this apparently doesn't worry Denby. Because we're living in the best etc., etc.
"The ideological framework of “Fahrenheit 9/11” goes roughly like this," Denby writes. "America is not a democracy; America is an oligarchy in which the wealthy pull the strings behind a façade of manufactured democratic consent." History suggests that Moore's "ideological framework" is probably a lot closer to the truth than striving functionaries like Denby wish to believe. See: the 2000 election. American Sucker, indeed.
Later, Denby writes, "On the Bush connections with the Saudis, for instance, Moore takes a line similar to that of Craig Ungar in his recent book, “House of Bush, House of Saud”..." Perversely, rather than making Moore's movie MORE intellectually palatable, this makes it LESS. "Ungar cites his sources in footnotes, and you can check up on him if you want to," Denby writes. So, in David Denby's world, unless you're willing to read a thick book filled with checkable footnotes, better to remain ignorant. Wouldn't want to be a firebrand and overstate things--then Kiki Kippington won't let you into the co-op, don't you know.
The problem seems to be that, unlike every other movie he'll review this year, Fahrenheit 9/11 doesn't reflect Denby's extremely mobile, cosmopolitan, priviledged reality. Denby lives on another planet. "[I]sn’t the Army mostly a boon for the working class?" he cringes petulantly at one point, freighting that "mostly" with the obvious comeback, "Yes, except when they get killed for being in it." In a country as rich as ours why do working class people have to risk their lives to get a Bachelor's Degree? Michael Moore seems strident because people like Denby won't ask hard questions like that.
Michael Moore may be paranoid, but that doesn't mean he isn't on to something, and his massive, worldwide popularity suggests that more people agree with him than Denby is comfortable to admit. A "campus and conspiracy-nut following" won't sell you millions and millions of books worldwide. Roger and Me could be denied as a bit of harmless muckraking; Bowling for Columbine less so. Watching Fahrenheit 9/11, Denby saw Moore's enemy and realized it was him.
The New Yorker has been called a self-satisfied bastion of middle-class smugness. And in the American middle class, thou-shalt-not admit the existence of economic classes; it's unkind towards those below, and impolite towards those above. So the entire premise of Michael Moore's humor--that the rich ARE different from you and I, they're greedy assholes--offends David Denby. Who is, as we all know from his self-aggrandizing gawp of a mea culpa American Sucker, himself quite wealthy--by any standard save the Upper West Side/Bonfire of the Vanities one he aspires to. If you're making the kind of money Denby is, and have the kind of friends he does, of course Michael Moore is a paranoid asshole. "We live in the best of all possible worlds, right? Mustn't we, since I'm doing so well?"
Denby reacts to Moore's provocation by making molehills out of mountains. "'Fahrenheit 9/11' has a kind of necessary shock value," Denby writes, "it reveals the underside of the war, the bloody messes not shown on news broadcasts." There's a big question and a little question implied here.
First, the little question: can we trust Moore, who is an admitted agitator with an agenda? That's reasonable to ask, and easy to answer: we trust him at our own risk. But everybody's got a bias, whether it's FOX or CNN or David Denby. Michael Moore's right up front about his, allowing each of us to filter him as we see fit, but for this honesty Denby believes him LESS. I think that people and organizations that cloak their biases under fraudulent claims of objectivity are more to be feared than straight-out polemicists like Moore. But Moore's truthfulness clearly isn't the point. Clearly the offensiveness of what Moore says is more important to Denby than whether it's true or not.
Now the big question: why the hell AREN'T the news broadcasts showing this? Why the hell do we have to rely on Michael Moore to show us 'the underside of the war'? In Vietnam, if you didn't trust an underground newspaper--if you thought it was biased--you could turn on the evening news. Not anymore--and this apparently doesn't worry Denby. Because we're living in the best etc., etc.
"The ideological framework of “Fahrenheit 9/11” goes roughly like this," Denby writes. "America is not a democracy; America is an oligarchy in which the wealthy pull the strings behind a façade of manufactured democratic consent." History suggests that Moore's "ideological framework" is probably a lot closer to the truth than striving functionaries like Denby wish to believe. See: the 2000 election. American Sucker, indeed.
Later, Denby writes, "On the Bush connections with the Saudis, for instance, Moore takes a line similar to that of Craig Ungar in his recent book, “House of Bush, House of Saud”..." Perversely, rather than making Moore's movie MORE intellectually palatable, this makes it LESS. "Ungar cites his sources in footnotes, and you can check up on him if you want to," Denby writes. So, in David Denby's world, unless you're willing to read a thick book filled with checkable footnotes, better to remain ignorant. Wouldn't want to be a firebrand and overstate things--then Kiki Kippington won't let you into the co-op, don't you know.
The problem seems to be that, unlike every other movie he'll review this year, Fahrenheit 9/11 doesn't reflect Denby's extremely mobile, cosmopolitan, priviledged reality. Denby lives on another planet. "[I]sn’t the Army mostly a boon for the working class?" he cringes petulantly at one point, freighting that "mostly" with the obvious comeback, "Yes, except when they get killed for being in it." In a country as rich as ours why do working class people have to risk their lives to get a Bachelor's Degree? Michael Moore seems strident because people like Denby won't ask hard questions like that.
Michael Moore may be paranoid, but that doesn't mean he isn't on to something, and his massive, worldwide popularity suggests that more people agree with him than Denby is comfortable to admit. A "campus and conspiracy-nut following" won't sell you millions and millions of books worldwide. Roger and Me could be denied as a bit of harmless muckraking; Bowling for Columbine less so. Watching Fahrenheit 9/11, Denby saw Moore's enemy and realized it was him.
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
In New Haven? Go to the...
...Pizza Festival. Go for the pizza, which I bet will be pretty good (Sally's or Pepe's, anyone?), and go for all those, like myself, who cannot eat pizza any longer. Lactose intolerance is a terrible thing.
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
McKinney review on "Fresh Air"
Okay, so I'm going through one of my "periods" where everything is about The Beatles. Everybody should probably just sit tight until it passes. Here's a great commentary about Devin McKinney's book Magic Circles on Fresh Air.
I don't much like celebrating birthdays--I think it's dangerous to pack too much fun into one 24-hour period, making the rest of life seem like a dull, uninviting wasteland--but Kate did her best, getting me some of the cologne I wear and a great pedometer, which I can't wait to take for a spin! As my birthday present to myself, I went crazy at Quimby's Queer Store, a great great great book and magazine store here in Chicago. I am getting to the age where its just silly that I don't have the books that I want; I bought a collection of American Splendor, and about five volumes of The Complete Crumb (by cartoonist R. Crumb). Really, really wonderful!
I don't much like celebrating birthdays--I think it's dangerous to pack too much fun into one 24-hour period, making the rest of life seem like a dull, uninviting wasteland--but Kate did her best, getting me some of the cologne I wear and a great pedometer, which I can't wait to take for a spin! As my birthday present to myself, I went crazy at Quimby's Queer Store, a great great great book and magazine store here in Chicago. I am getting to the age where its just silly that I don't have the books that I want; I bought a collection of American Splendor, and about five volumes of The Complete Crumb (by cartoonist R. Crumb). Really, really wonderful!
Monday, June 14, 2004
Well, I'm 35 today...
...which means I can now run for President. But I will not, because I don't want to splinter the vote. My wife, mom and dad are all staunch liberals, and I wouldn't want to have four more years of Bush on my conscience. (Unlike certain consumer advocates we might name.)
Last night, Kate and I went to see a Beatles cover band at the Wells St. Art Festival, and I was struck by how I might be personally considered a Harry Potter cover band. But after seeing how much people enjoyed "American English," I decided that is a wonderful fate to have.
More fallout from The Sun article. My Uncle David writes, "The following was an actual conversation in my office:
'Look, my nephew is a famous author! This newspaper headline proves it!'
'Yeah, yeah. We're sick of hearing about your brilliant millionaire nephew.'
'No, he's not a millionaire, he just sold a million dollars worth of books.'
'Right. So he's a goddam millionaire, and we hate the sonofabitch.'
'No, you don't understand. When one of his books gets sold, he just gets a tiny percentage of the proceeds. The rest goes to his publisher, his agent, his fan club, his sex "therapist" and his first two wives. He's doing okay, mind you, but he'll have to hope that J.K. Rowling keeps churning out spoofable Harry Potter books well into the next five decades if he wants to get rich.'
'And what if she passes away next week?'
'Poverty, madness, death.'"
Funny man, David. He's an artist and the editor of St. Louis' edition of Where Magazine. He was a great encourager of mine when I was younger--I had a lot of them--which makes me an encourager, too.
By the way, Bob Herbert has a nice column today about one of my favorites, Ray Charles.
Last night, Kate and I went to see a Beatles cover band at the Wells St. Art Festival, and I was struck by how I might be personally considered a Harry Potter cover band. But after seeing how much people enjoyed "American English," I decided that is a wonderful fate to have.
More fallout from The Sun article. My Uncle David writes, "The following was an actual conversation in my office:
'Look, my nephew is a famous author! This newspaper headline proves it!'
'Yeah, yeah. We're sick of hearing about your brilliant millionaire nephew.'
'No, he's not a millionaire, he just sold a million dollars worth of books.'
'Right. So he's a goddam millionaire, and we hate the sonofabitch.'
'No, you don't understand. When one of his books gets sold, he just gets a tiny percentage of the proceeds. The rest goes to his publisher, his agent, his fan club, his sex "therapist" and his first two wives. He's doing okay, mind you, but he'll have to hope that J.K. Rowling keeps churning out spoofable Harry Potter books well into the next five decades if he wants to get rich.'
'And what if she passes away next week?'
'Poverty, madness, death.'"
Funny man, David. He's an artist and the editor of St. Louis' edition of Where Magazine. He was a great encourager of mine when I was younger--I had a lot of them--which makes me an encourager, too.
By the way, Bob Herbert has a nice column today about one of my favorites, Ray Charles.
Sunday, June 13, 2004
Book roundup
Here's what's on my night-table now, in case you care:
Magic Circles: The Beatles in Dream and History, by Devin McKinney
This book is very hard to describe; it's one part Beatle history, one part psychological appraisal of the group and its fandom, with plenty of song-by-song appreciation and Sixties history in there, too. The prose can be thick and dark, but if you've already read Philip Norman's Shout!, Hunter Davies, and absorbed the whole Anthology project, it's worth a look. I must admit to a pro-McKinney bias, as it appears that he and I came to The Beatles in the same way, as second-generation fans (I'm 35 tomorrow; I think McKinney's about the same age) nurtured by the dim, caterwauling vinyl bootlegs of the 80s and CD-perfect explosion of outtakes of the 90s. (Which, by the way, had the effect of forcing the Anthology project into being. Too much stuff was finding its way to the public; things like The John Barrett Tapes and Acetates were too authoritative, and too popular, for Apple to ignore.)
Here's McKinney's illuminating take on the dreadful "Let It Be...Naked" from The American Prospect. Those sessions--from January '69--were the source for most of the 1990 bootlegs. They tested one's fandom, let me tell you, all those beeps and bickering on a $35 piece of vinyl. ($35 was a lot, when you were making $6.00/hour at a drug store!) I have a boot, Vigotone's As Nature Intended, which I enjoy much more than either the original Let It Be, or "...Naked." Getting back to McKinney, I particularly liked this line: "The Beatles are simple enough for children, but as those children grow, the band becomes less and less simple." That's really true--for over twenty years, I've never found a more reliable source of pleasure than The Beatles.
Eccentrics, A Study of Sanity and Strangeness, by Dr. David Weeks and Jamie James.
Dr. Weeks undertook a psychological study of eccentrics, and came to some really interesting (and really encouraging, to eccentrics like me) conclusions. Here's what he says are the characteristics of eccentrics, in descending order of commonality:
1) noncomforming;
2) creative;
3) strongly motivated by curiosity;
4) idealistic: he wants to make the world a better place and the people in it happier;
5) happily obsessed with one or more hobbyhorses (usually five or six);
6) aware from early childhood that he is different;
7) intelligent;
8) opinionated and outspoken, convinced that he is right and that the rest of the world is out of step;
9) noncompetitive, not in need of reassurance or reinforcement from society;
10) unusual in his eating habits and living arrangements;
11) not particularly interested in the opinions or company of other people, except in order to persuade them to his—the correct—point of view;
12) possessed of a mischievous sense of humor;
13) single;
14) usually the eldest or an only child; and
15) a bad speller.
Just fascinating, don't you think? Other books I'm reading (mostly as research for this college novel I'm working on) are Stephen Fry's autobiography, "Moab Is My Washpot": David Skal's "Hollywood Gothic"; and "Secret Societies," by Anton Daraul. I'll spare you the Amazon links, but check 'em out. Skal's book The Monster Show is fantastic.
Magic Circles: The Beatles in Dream and History, by Devin McKinney
This book is very hard to describe; it's one part Beatle history, one part psychological appraisal of the group and its fandom, with plenty of song-by-song appreciation and Sixties history in there, too. The prose can be thick and dark, but if you've already read Philip Norman's Shout!, Hunter Davies, and absorbed the whole Anthology project, it's worth a look. I must admit to a pro-McKinney bias, as it appears that he and I came to The Beatles in the same way, as second-generation fans (I'm 35 tomorrow; I think McKinney's about the same age) nurtured by the dim, caterwauling vinyl bootlegs of the 80s and CD-perfect explosion of outtakes of the 90s. (Which, by the way, had the effect of forcing the Anthology project into being. Too much stuff was finding its way to the public; things like The John Barrett Tapes and Acetates were too authoritative, and too popular, for Apple to ignore.)
Here's McKinney's illuminating take on the dreadful "Let It Be...Naked" from The American Prospect. Those sessions--from January '69--were the source for most of the 1990 bootlegs. They tested one's fandom, let me tell you, all those beeps and bickering on a $35 piece of vinyl. ($35 was a lot, when you were making $6.00/hour at a drug store!) I have a boot, Vigotone's As Nature Intended, which I enjoy much more than either the original Let It Be, or "...Naked." Getting back to McKinney, I particularly liked this line: "The Beatles are simple enough for children, but as those children grow, the band becomes less and less simple." That's really true--for over twenty years, I've never found a more reliable source of pleasure than The Beatles.
Eccentrics, A Study of Sanity and Strangeness, by Dr. David Weeks and Jamie James.
Dr. Weeks undertook a psychological study of eccentrics, and came to some really interesting (and really encouraging, to eccentrics like me) conclusions. Here's what he says are the characteristics of eccentrics, in descending order of commonality:
1) noncomforming;
2) creative;
3) strongly motivated by curiosity;
4) idealistic: he wants to make the world a better place and the people in it happier;
5) happily obsessed with one or more hobbyhorses (usually five or six);
6) aware from early childhood that he is different;
7) intelligent;
8) opinionated and outspoken, convinced that he is right and that the rest of the world is out of step;
9) noncompetitive, not in need of reassurance or reinforcement from society;
10) unusual in his eating habits and living arrangements;
11) not particularly interested in the opinions or company of other people, except in order to persuade them to his—the correct—point of view;
12) possessed of a mischievous sense of humor;
13) single;
14) usually the eldest or an only child; and
15) a bad speller.
Just fascinating, don't you think? Other books I'm reading (mostly as research for this college novel I'm working on) are Stephen Fry's autobiography, "Moab Is My Washpot": David Skal's "Hollywood Gothic"; and "Secret Societies," by Anton Daraul. I'll spare you the Amazon links, but check 'em out. Skal's book The Monster Show is fantastic.
Saturday, June 12, 2004
Barry Trotter in The Sun!
Yesterday my tiny world was rocked by a great article about Barry Trotter in The Sun. Our friend Elaine told Kate that it was next to a page full of breasts, which is only appropriate.
My friend Dave Etkin wrote this in response:
"Dear Mike,
I am compelled to inform you that I am writing a parody of your fantastically successful series of Barry Trotter books. Whereas your books are blithe pastiches, intended to draw laughter rather than serious emotion from the reader, mine will be crafted as insightful, industrious novels exploring the trials and tribulations of childhood set against the backdrop of a magical realm of fantasy and thaumaturgy which will appeal to readers
of all ages and creeds.
Whereas your hero (I will not pander to your obvious aspirations by referring to him as an 'anti-hero') is named 'Barry Trotter', my parody of your series (which I envision as comprising seven volumes) will be constructed around a protagonist whom I have christened 'Harry Potter.'
See, as in all good parodies, my characters will bear a resemblence to yours while displaying several obvious differences. This is what makes it a parody. I think that the world is ready for a serious exploration of this subject which you have pursued in a rather facile, superficial manner. I predict that my 'Harry Potter' series will meet with a success which, while not on a par with your own, will be sufficient to get me knighted by the Queen."
Dave, who exploded into my life like one of those red-dye anti-theft devices, is an honored colleague from The Yale Record. Remember that name; Dave will be famous one day. And that's when I'll spring the trap.
Another Record pal, Jon Schwarz, sent me this link, under the heading "Buffy fans are everywhere." Apparently the "Jossverse" now extends to Iraq, where it's comforting our troops...Great blog, by the way--check it out.
In closing, I would like to inform all the Cub fans in my life that the St. Louis Cardinals are in FIRST PLACE.
My friend Dave Etkin wrote this in response:
"Dear Mike,
I am compelled to inform you that I am writing a parody of your fantastically successful series of Barry Trotter books. Whereas your books are blithe pastiches, intended to draw laughter rather than serious emotion from the reader, mine will be crafted as insightful, industrious novels exploring the trials and tribulations of childhood set against the backdrop of a magical realm of fantasy and thaumaturgy which will appeal to readers
of all ages and creeds.
Whereas your hero (I will not pander to your obvious aspirations by referring to him as an 'anti-hero') is named 'Barry Trotter', my parody of your series (which I envision as comprising seven volumes) will be constructed around a protagonist whom I have christened 'Harry Potter.'
See, as in all good parodies, my characters will bear a resemblence to yours while displaying several obvious differences. This is what makes it a parody. I think that the world is ready for a serious exploration of this subject which you have pursued in a rather facile, superficial manner. I predict that my 'Harry Potter' series will meet with a success which, while not on a par with your own, will be sufficient to get me knighted by the Queen."
Dave, who exploded into my life like one of those red-dye anti-theft devices, is an honored colleague from The Yale Record. Remember that name; Dave will be famous one day. And that's when I'll spring the trap.
Another Record pal, Jon Schwarz, sent me this link, under the heading "Buffy fans are everywhere." Apparently the "Jossverse" now extends to Iraq, where it's comforting our troops...Great blog, by the way--check it out.
In closing, I would like to inform all the Cub fans in my life that the St. Louis Cardinals are in FIRST PLACE.
Thursday, June 10, 2004
In-store book printing!
Friend Jules Lipoff sent me this article on in-store, one-at-a-time book printing. This is a fabulous development.
Get ready for publishing nabobs to start talking about all the supposed value they add to the process--that is, all the editing they do. "Sure, you can buy an insta-book, but will it come up to the high standard of a PROFESSIONALLY published book?" That argument would be reasonable--powerful, even--were it not for the wholesale gutting of editorial staffs that took place in the 80s and 90s. There's just not that many people inside a big house that have time to line-edit or copyedit a manuscript. Those spots, if they were filled, were filled by salespeople.
So: bring on the instabooks!
Get ready for publishing nabobs to start talking about all the supposed value they add to the process--that is, all the editing they do. "Sure, you can buy an insta-book, but will it come up to the high standard of a PROFESSIONALLY published book?" That argument would be reasonable--powerful, even--were it not for the wholesale gutting of editorial staffs that took place in the 80s and 90s. There's just not that many people inside a big house that have time to line-edit or copyedit a manuscript. Those spots, if they were filled, were filled by salespeople.
So: bring on the instabooks!
Wednesday, June 9, 2004
Tuesday, June 8, 2004
Finally! Some sense about Reagan
Not only did I LIVE through Reagan's awful Presidency (deficits, paranoia, jingoism masquerading as "pride"), now I have to listen to his wrong-headed deification. Paul Krugman talks some sense about Reagan--he wasn't popular, and his economic boom pales next to that of (gasp) Bill Clinton's. We're suffering through Reagan's idiot children now, and for that alone anybody who says, "I don't know, Reagan seemed like a nice guy, like a grandpa" deserves a solid punch in the generative organ.
Monday, June 7, 2004
Question for ex- and current New Yorkers...
Does anybody remember a diner with a really great neon sign, on Lexington or 3rd, around 75th Street? I think it is/was called the Skylight. I'm working on something for my book, and I'm SURE I didn't dream this--I remember it from my gambols in the City. Let me know I'm not crazy, via the Comments feature.
Saturday, June 5, 2004
Call me morbid...
...but one of my favorite spots in my old college town, New Haven, Connecticut, is the Grove Street Cemetery. When I was at Yale I used to like to walk around it on sunny Saturday afternoons. I'd like to say that it helped me put on my nonsense worries aside, but I wasn't wise enough for that. Cool website, huh?
Roger Straus
The Observer has a nice appreciation of recently deceased publisher Roger Straus. Sort of the anti-Plimpton, I thought.
Friday, June 4, 2004
Barack Obama is the BOMB
I say that without a shred of irony. I heard him speak last Tuesday, and my wife and I were really inspired--he's one hell of a candidate. Obama wants to become Senator from Illinois. Bob Herbert was right on in today's Times.
Thursday, June 3, 2004
A whole bunch of links!
Here's the NYTimes' mostly enthusiastic review of the Harry Potter movie. I'll be seeing it this weekend, thanks.
The Village Voice has delivered the latest installment of its enlightening, depressing "Generation Debt" series. This one is about widespread student apathy. (There's also a good one about the horrible hustle that is grad school.) Here's my take on student apathy: students are ambitious, and idealistic, and believe that they--not macroeconomic forces, legislative decisions, or anything else--will determine their future prosperity. The alternative is simply too depressing. Students are even more likely, I think, than the rest of us to identify with the bosses, and not the bossed. Also, there's a powerful myth in our country that college is the last, best time of irresponsibility (until you get elected to public office). Marching against tuition cuts is a buzz-kill, without the glamor and radical chic of marching against, say, female circumcision. But all this having been said, the article's right--students really ought to start organizing. They are getting screwed.
The Village Voice has delivered the latest installment of its enlightening, depressing "Generation Debt" series. This one is about widespread student apathy. (There's also a good one about the horrible hustle that is grad school.) Here's my take on student apathy: students are ambitious, and idealistic, and believe that they--not macroeconomic forces, legislative decisions, or anything else--will determine their future prosperity. The alternative is simply too depressing. Students are even more likely, I think, than the rest of us to identify with the bosses, and not the bossed. Also, there's a powerful myth in our country that college is the last, best time of irresponsibility (until you get elected to public office). Marching against tuition cuts is a buzz-kill, without the glamor and radical chic of marching against, say, female circumcision. But all this having been said, the article's right--students really ought to start organizing. They are getting screwed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
