My antiquated blogging days are far behind me now. I've moved on to bigger and better things, namely a Tumblr account. This will be the last update I (most likely) ever make here, so if you wish to keep tabs on me copy and paste this web address:
http://anotherwestcoastmorning.tumblr.com/
It's been real
Friday, August 21, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
We'll Meet Again
The Time has come for my annual summer hiatus. I’ll return in some form or another in Late August/Early September, so check back then.
Until We Meet Again*
* This sign off seems gayer than usual in light of this post
Until We Meet Again*
* This sign off seems gayer than usual in light of this post
Thursday, May 14, 2009
On iPhone Apps, Elitism and Counter-points
I’ve always wondered how the music elitists in my life can muster so much content when conversing about the latest music releases. “The complexity of the rhythm section provided by Phil Selway really compliments the precise layering of Johnny’s Greenwood’s stripped down guitar work and Thom Yorke’s* haunting vocal tracks on Radiohead’s imported Japanese tour EP makes me think that they are striving towards a sound that is all together even more atmospheric than their Amnesiac era.” “Umm, Radiohead? Yeah, I like them.” Rather than solving this dilemma in my life, I have chosen to contribute to it. I figure, if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.
I’m wanting to create a completely unofficial Pitchfork.com iPhone** application. For any of you who are unfamiliar, allow me to briefly explain Pitchfork. They have pegged themselves as “The Essential Guide to Indie Music,” and have made a name for themselves by writing up dramatic, condescending, and generally punishing reviews of independent music albums. Pitchfork thrives from the constant clicks from indie music elitist across the nation, primarily by packaging these album reviews into memorable snippets that can later be shared with friends, seemingly as original insights.
The core idea for this application starts in that it will automatically download each and every album that Pitchfork reviews, immediately building the credibility of your personal music catalog. This feature in itself will not sell more than a handful of applications. Most, if not all, of these hipsters have the brain capacity to look up the new reviews on Pitchfork and purchase illegally download accordingly. The real selling point for this application is its ability to generate key lines to use when your friends ask for your opinion of a new CD/you tell them anyway. Examples might include “I was really into ____________ until they got so big. They totally sold themselves out as soon as they starting talking to __________ about doing a record deal.” Or more specifically, “This Fleet Foxes album is fantastic, but anyone who doesn’t own their EP is missing out on the greatest track they have ever recorded” or “You better start listening to Phoenix right now, they are going to be the breakout indie sensation of the summer.” ***
The music elitists in our lives make it look easy to be pompous and condescending about their advanced musical pedigree, but I am personally willing to bet that they would be willing to shell out an extra $5-10 when no one was looking in order to further secure their position as the go to music guru of their social circles. I know I would be.
What are my thoughts on the newest Conor Oberst effort? Hold on, I need to check something on my phone…
Signing off.
Marko Wilson, Guest Blogger
*I admittedly jokingly pronounce the silent “h” in Thom’s name when I speak of him, referencing the fact that I know he has an oddly spelled name, and therefore making me, to some degree, the music elitist that I am currently mocking.
**Although an application for the SideKick would perhaps be a more direct route to my clientele, the iTunes app store is just so much more accessible.
***The last two quotes are directly from our common music elitist friend Calvin Paradise.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I’d be remiss if I didn’t somehow respond to these attack/allegations/truthful quotations leveled against me by Mr. Wilson. I’ll start by saying his iPhone app is one hell of an idea. I would even go a step further and invent an app that’s more or less a hipster handbook*. It could create literary catchphrases for you like “Joyce was a f**king champion” Or spout out film critique/commentary such as “I think my ideal film would be co-written by Charlie Kaufman and David Gordon Green, directed by Spike Jonez, with David Fincher in charge of cinematography” I mean what hipster wouldn’t want said app? And as far as I can tell, hipsters and trophy wives make up 95% of the iPhone’s clientele, so really this app seems like a no brainer. Apple, have your people call mine and let’s get this done.
Anyhow, I most now move on and address the quotes attributed to me by the guest blogger. Both these quotes are true, mostly. While they may not be word-for-word accurate, the sentiment of both remains intact. Before I get to dissecting these quotes, allow me refute the claim, inferred or otherwise, that I’m an elitist. Here’s the dictionaries definition of an elitist:
1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
2.
a. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
b. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
Now, I don’t feel either of those definitions fit me. I definitely have elitist tendencies, but I’m not an elitist. I don’t revel in the fact that I listen to good music and actually read (See what I did there?). In fact, I kind of hate my tastes. Anytime someone asks me what kind of music I listen and what not, I don’t like telling them. Not because I feel they’re unworthy of knowing my preferences, but because said preferences tend to make me come off like an elitist blowhard. This whole situation is made worse by the fact that I tend to state my opinions as if they were fact. This is just the way I talk, honest. I don’t view my opinions as impeccable. In fact, I’m fully aware that they’re just opinions.I can’t help it if they also happen to be right. Really, I’m not an elitist.
As for the quotes, allow me to explain them. The one about the Fleet Foxes came about in a conversation about the band. Marko and I were talking, he expressed that he enjoyed the album and asked what I thought of the band. I said they were great, and while I enjoyed the album (My 12th favorite album of last year), I thought a song on their debut ep, So Long to the Headstrong, was their best song. I merely stated my opinion, and under the circumstances of our conversation, I figured Mr. Wilson would realize that. I regret that he misinterpreted my stated opinion as if I thought it was fact, but I don’t regret what I said.
As for the quote about Phoenix, I feel this needs no explanation. Their new album, “Wolfgang Amadeus Phoenix”**, is astounding. It makes me happy every time I listen to it. I know Mr. Wilson enjoys good music, so I thought I’d alert him to it. I was just trying to share some of the joy in my life with him, that is all. The album will be released on the 19th of May and it’s so good that I’m actually going to purchase it. That’s right, this album is so good I’m actually going to spend my elitist money on it.
Until We Meet Again
* Yes I know one of those already exists, but they haven’t made an app form it yet.
** Possibly the best album title ever
I’m wanting to create a completely unofficial Pitchfork.com iPhone** application. For any of you who are unfamiliar, allow me to briefly explain Pitchfork. They have pegged themselves as “The Essential Guide to Indie Music,” and have made a name for themselves by writing up dramatic, condescending, and generally punishing reviews of independent music albums. Pitchfork thrives from the constant clicks from indie music elitist across the nation, primarily by packaging these album reviews into memorable snippets that can later be shared with friends, seemingly as original insights.
The core idea for this application starts in that it will automatically download each and every album that Pitchfork reviews, immediately building the credibility of your personal music catalog. This feature in itself will not sell more than a handful of applications. Most, if not all, of these hipsters have the brain capacity to look up the new reviews on Pitchfork and purchase illegally download accordingly. The real selling point for this application is its ability to generate key lines to use when your friends ask for your opinion of a new CD/you tell them anyway. Examples might include “I was really into ____________ until they got so big. They totally sold themselves out as soon as they starting talking to __________ about doing a record deal.” Or more specifically, “This Fleet Foxes album is fantastic, but anyone who doesn’t own their EP is missing out on the greatest track they have ever recorded” or “You better start listening to Phoenix right now, they are going to be the breakout indie sensation of the summer.” ***
The music elitists in our lives make it look easy to be pompous and condescending about their advanced musical pedigree, but I am personally willing to bet that they would be willing to shell out an extra $5-10 when no one was looking in order to further secure their position as the go to music guru of their social circles. I know I would be.
What are my thoughts on the newest Conor Oberst effort? Hold on, I need to check something on my phone…
Signing off.
Marko Wilson, Guest Blogger
*I admittedly jokingly pronounce the silent “h” in Thom’s name when I speak of him, referencing the fact that I know he has an oddly spelled name, and therefore making me, to some degree, the music elitist that I am currently mocking.
**Although an application for the SideKick would perhaps be a more direct route to my clientele, the iTunes app store is just so much more accessible.
***The last two quotes are directly from our common music elitist friend Calvin Paradise.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I’d be remiss if I didn’t somehow respond to these attack/allegations/truthful quotations leveled against me by Mr. Wilson. I’ll start by saying his iPhone app is one hell of an idea. I would even go a step further and invent an app that’s more or less a hipster handbook*. It could create literary catchphrases for you like “Joyce was a f**king champion” Or spout out film critique/commentary such as “I think my ideal film would be co-written by Charlie Kaufman and David Gordon Green, directed by Spike Jonez, with David Fincher in charge of cinematography” I mean what hipster wouldn’t want said app? And as far as I can tell, hipsters and trophy wives make up 95% of the iPhone’s clientele, so really this app seems like a no brainer. Apple, have your people call mine and let’s get this done.
Anyhow, I most now move on and address the quotes attributed to me by the guest blogger. Both these quotes are true, mostly. While they may not be word-for-word accurate, the sentiment of both remains intact. Before I get to dissecting these quotes, allow me refute the claim, inferred or otherwise, that I’m an elitist. Here’s the dictionaries definition of an elitist:
1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
2.
a. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
b. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
Now, I don’t feel either of those definitions fit me. I definitely have elitist tendencies, but I’m not an elitist. I don’t revel in the fact that I listen to good music and actually read (See what I did there?). In fact, I kind of hate my tastes. Anytime someone asks me what kind of music I listen and what not, I don’t like telling them. Not because I feel they’re unworthy of knowing my preferences, but because said preferences tend to make me come off like an elitist blowhard. This whole situation is made worse by the fact that I tend to state my opinions as if they were fact. This is just the way I talk, honest. I don’t view my opinions as impeccable. In fact, I’m fully aware that they’re just opinions.
As for the quotes, allow me to explain them. The one about the Fleet Foxes came about in a conversation about the band. Marko and I were talking, he expressed that he enjoyed the album and asked what I thought of the band. I said they were great, and while I enjoyed the album (My 12th favorite album of last year), I thought a song on their debut ep, So Long to the Headstrong, was their best song. I merely stated my opinion, and under the circumstances of our conversation, I figured Mr. Wilson would realize that. I regret that he misinterpreted my stated opinion as if I thought it was fact, but I don’t regret what I said.
As for the quote about Phoenix, I feel this needs no explanation. Their new album, “Wolfgang Amadeus Phoenix”**, is astounding. It makes me happy every time I listen to it. I know Mr. Wilson enjoys good music, so I thought I’d alert him to it. I was just trying to share some of the joy in my life with him, that is all. The album will be released on the 19th of May and it’s so good that I’m actually going to purchase it. That’s right, this album is so good I’m actually going to spend my elitist money on it.
Until We Meet Again
* Yes I know one of those already exists, but they haven’t made an app form it yet.
** Possibly the best album title ever
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Some Quick Thoughts on Life and the NBA Playoffs
I haven’t written anything in a while, so hopefully this will satisfy my writing jones. The title of this post is pretty self-explanatory, so I’m just gonna dive right in
Things I Almost Wrote About
- “The Summer of George”: I’m essentially unemployed (working 5-10 hours a week) and I’m leaving for the summer in 2 weeks so there’s no way I can get another job. I now have a scary amount of time on my hands which I mainly spend being unproductive. Most of my day is spent wandering around my house, or to be more specific my parents house (my life is all kinds of awesome). I do read a lot, things ranging from pseudo-pretentious literature I don’t understand to the lowest of low internet ramblings. Since the better part of my day is spent lounging I’m normally dressed like some sort of hipster/jock/vagabond hybrid. Now as long as I don’t leave the house there’s nothing wrong with this get up. Unfortunately, I’ve had to run several errands as of late and I end up going out in public wearing things like UofA basketball shorts and a Yellow Bird Project tee. Combine this with my bad hair cut (I seem to get an endless amount of those) and I look like a complete mess every time I leave the house. I guess since I know that I won’t see anyone in this town for the whole summer I’ve just completely stopped caring about my personal appearance*. The lesson to be learned from all of this: The combination of (almost) unemployment and leaving for 3 months is lethal.
- “Why Lost is Criminally Overrated”: Whenever I have an abundance of time on my hands, I tend to think really deeply on matters that shouldn’t be thought about deeply, i.e. movies, TV shows, music, etc.; I’m like the Thomas Merton of pop culture. The latest victim of my musings has been the uber hit drama(?) Lost. I’ve watched all 5 seasons of this show, and with the exception of the very first one, have almost stopped watching in the middle of every season. I keep coming back because the show generally ends and begins their seasons on high notes. All in all it’s a decent show that tries too hard and whose writers think they’re much more clever than they actually are.
Yet every review I read talks about this show as if it were the greatest thing to ever be played on television. I’ve spent a lot of time wondering why this is, I mean if an amateur like me can see that for everything this shows does well there’s at least 2-3 things it does poorly than why can’t these critics see it as well? And then I realized what it was. Art folks are always bemoaning for some time the loss of shared cultural experiences, i.e. ‘the current musical landscape will never allow for another Beatles’ or ‘I don’t think they’ll ever be another film like It’s a Wonderful Life, that everyone sees and is effected by’. Lost is probably the last big shared cultural experience that Gen Xers, who make up the majority of the publishing world, will have. Therefore this show has to be great, since nothing like this will never come around again (teen crazes like Harry Potter and Twilight don’t count).
In the end I didn’t write this because I’m fairly certain none of my 8 readers watch Lost and because I’m not nearly smart enough or a good enough writer to fully expound on this idea to my liking.
-“He’s Just Not That Into You”: I went to see this movie at the dollar theatre for anthropological reasons. I somehow made it to the end of this train-wreck and no longer had any interest in anthropology, or humanity for that matter. This film was watching a two hour abortion, and I’m not saying that to be hyperbolic or shocking, it was honestly that bad.
Ok, this next one needs its own bullet point list. All points are condescended as possible for everyone’s benefit
Why the Bulls-Celtics Series Wasn’t Actually Great
-Vinny Del Negro is probably the worst coach of all-time, at any level
- Game 7 was largely decided by an Eddie House hot streak. I rest my case
- Just about every great moment in this series was due in large part to extremely low basketball IQ (see: BEN GORDON, John Salmons, Paul Pierce in Game 6, Stephon Marbury, etc.) or some horrendous coaching decisions (such as Doc Rivers adjusting his line-up when the Bulls played small ball, everything the aforementioned Vinny D did)
- As far as I could tell Vinny Del Negro was drawing up the double alley-oop play from NBA Jam for all of the Bulls end of game plays. That seems to be the only logical explanation for all the double-teamed, fall away 18-footers Ben Gordon took in big situations throughout this series
- Um, Mr. Del Negro, when the Celtics are down 3, it may be in your best interest to guard their best shooter, Ray Allen
- On that note, Mr. Rivers, when Ray Allen is on his way to a 51 point night and is literally making everything he throws up, you should probably run your offense through him instead of Paul Pierce. And you should absolutely let him take the final shot instead of drawing up a play for Rajon Rondo who was 4-17 and can’t score if he’s further than 8 feet from the basket
- Oh and Mr. Del Negro, Derrick Rose got to the rim at will this series and positive things happened about 70% of the times he drove, so maybe just spread the floor and let him work instead of running Gordon, Salmons and Kirk Hinrich off screens as your primary offensive set
- Also, Vinny, Tyrus Thomas hit a slew of big jumpers in game 1, including the eventual game winner, and had 6 blocks in game 2. Barely playing him in the next 5 games may not have been the best decision
- In the end, this series produced a several great moments, the large majority of which should never have happened had competent coaches been involved. The games weren’t particularly well played, they were just all close. Just because these close games produced a ton of fun highlights doesn’t mean it was a great series, it really doesn’t
- I also had a point about how sports fans now care more about highlights than the entire package, i.e. the rest of the game, being high quality. And how this has led us to anointing this series, in which ignorance was often the main reasons the games were close, as the best first round series of all-time. But that point seems a bit farfetched and rather ostentatious, so really it’s a good thing that I didn’t write about this series
And We Conclude with a Mini-Post of Sorts
Besides my own personal heart ache and horrible officiating, the NBA Playoffs are also known for running their sponsors commercials into the ground. Since the NBA Playoffs actually last an absurdly long time and since the same companies sponsor each round (and usually don’t have the courtesy to change their commercials), viewers are liable to see the same commercial tens-of-thousands of times. Below is a video of this year’s heir apparent to this horrific trend.
What exactly is the point of this commercial? Beyond keeping up Sprite’s name brand recognition? This is supposed to make me want to drink Sprite? Why would I drink something that makes people combust on impact? And why are people so thrilled to be getting drenched by this liquid? Forget for a moment that this downpour is the remnants of their friends. I think we can safely assume that the liquid that’s raining down on them is Sprite. So why again are they happy that Sprite if cascading down on them? If I were to get drenched by Sprite, I’d be extremely anger and sticky, not laughing and pumping my fist. And if this Sprite also happened to be the result of two of my friends spontaneously combusting then I’d be irreparably scared, both mentally and emotionally. This commercial makes my head hurt.
Until We Meet Again
* Damnit I’ve become a hippie. I’d just like to say eff you to all my friends here in town who did nothing to prevent this
Things I Almost Wrote About
- “The Summer of George”: I’m essentially unemployed (working 5-10 hours a week) and I’m leaving for the summer in 2 weeks so there’s no way I can get another job. I now have a scary amount of time on my hands which I mainly spend being unproductive. Most of my day is spent wandering around my house, or to be more specific my parents house (my life is all kinds of awesome). I do read a lot, things ranging from pseudo-pretentious literature I don’t understand to the lowest of low internet ramblings. Since the better part of my day is spent lounging I’m normally dressed like some sort of hipster/jock/vagabond hybrid. Now as long as I don’t leave the house there’s nothing wrong with this get up. Unfortunately, I’ve had to run several errands as of late and I end up going out in public wearing things like UofA basketball shorts and a Yellow Bird Project tee. Combine this with my bad hair cut (I seem to get an endless amount of those) and I look like a complete mess every time I leave the house. I guess since I know that I won’t see anyone in this town for the whole summer I’ve just completely stopped caring about my personal appearance*. The lesson to be learned from all of this: The combination of (almost) unemployment and leaving for 3 months is lethal.
- “Why Lost is Criminally Overrated”: Whenever I have an abundance of time on my hands, I tend to think really deeply on matters that shouldn’t be thought about deeply, i.e. movies, TV shows, music, etc.; I’m like the Thomas Merton of pop culture. The latest victim of my musings has been the uber hit drama(?) Lost. I’ve watched all 5 seasons of this show, and with the exception of the very first one, have almost stopped watching in the middle of every season. I keep coming back because the show generally ends and begins their seasons on high notes. All in all it’s a decent show that tries too hard and whose writers think they’re much more clever than they actually are.
Yet every review I read talks about this show as if it were the greatest thing to ever be played on television. I’ve spent a lot of time wondering why this is, I mean if an amateur like me can see that for everything this shows does well there’s at least 2-3 things it does poorly than why can’t these critics see it as well? And then I realized what it was. Art folks are always bemoaning for some time the loss of shared cultural experiences, i.e. ‘the current musical landscape will never allow for another Beatles’ or ‘I don’t think they’ll ever be another film like It’s a Wonderful Life, that everyone sees and is effected by’. Lost is probably the last big shared cultural experience that Gen Xers, who make up the majority of the publishing world, will have. Therefore this show has to be great, since nothing like this will never come around again (teen crazes like Harry Potter and Twilight don’t count).
In the end I didn’t write this because I’m fairly certain none of my 8 readers watch Lost and because I’m not nearly smart enough or a good enough writer to fully expound on this idea to my liking.
-“He’s Just Not That Into You”: I went to see this movie at the dollar theatre for anthropological reasons. I somehow made it to the end of this train-wreck and no longer had any interest in anthropology, or humanity for that matter. This film was watching a two hour abortion, and I’m not saying that to be hyperbolic or shocking, it was honestly that bad.
Ok, this next one needs its own bullet point list. All points are condescended as possible for everyone’s benefit
Why the Bulls-Celtics Series Wasn’t Actually Great
-Vinny Del Negro is probably the worst coach of all-time, at any level
- Game 7 was largely decided by an Eddie House hot streak. I rest my case
- Just about every great moment in this series was due in large part to extremely low basketball IQ (see: BEN GORDON, John Salmons, Paul Pierce in Game 6, Stephon Marbury, etc.) or some horrendous coaching decisions (such as Doc Rivers adjusting his line-up when the Bulls played small ball, everything the aforementioned Vinny D did)
- As far as I could tell Vinny Del Negro was drawing up the double alley-oop play from NBA Jam for all of the Bulls end of game plays. That seems to be the only logical explanation for all the double-teamed, fall away 18-footers Ben Gordon took in big situations throughout this series
- Um, Mr. Del Negro, when the Celtics are down 3, it may be in your best interest to guard their best shooter, Ray Allen
- On that note, Mr. Rivers, when Ray Allen is on his way to a 51 point night and is literally making everything he throws up, you should probably run your offense through him instead of Paul Pierce. And you should absolutely let him take the final shot instead of drawing up a play for Rajon Rondo who was 4-17 and can’t score if he’s further than 8 feet from the basket
- Oh and Mr. Del Negro, Derrick Rose got to the rim at will this series and positive things happened about 70% of the times he drove, so maybe just spread the floor and let him work instead of running Gordon, Salmons and Kirk Hinrich off screens as your primary offensive set
- Also, Vinny, Tyrus Thomas hit a slew of big jumpers in game 1, including the eventual game winner, and had 6 blocks in game 2. Barely playing him in the next 5 games may not have been the best decision
- In the end, this series produced a several great moments, the large majority of which should never have happened had competent coaches been involved. The games weren’t particularly well played, they were just all close. Just because these close games produced a ton of fun highlights doesn’t mean it was a great series, it really doesn’t
- I also had a point about how sports fans now care more about highlights than the entire package, i.e. the rest of the game, being high quality. And how this has led us to anointing this series, in which ignorance was often the main reasons the games were close, as the best first round series of all-time. But that point seems a bit farfetched and rather ostentatious, so really it’s a good thing that I didn’t write about this series
And We Conclude with a Mini-Post of Sorts
Besides my own personal heart ache and horrible officiating, the NBA Playoffs are also known for running their sponsors commercials into the ground. Since the NBA Playoffs actually last an absurdly long time and since the same companies sponsor each round (and usually don’t have the courtesy to change their commercials), viewers are liable to see the same commercial tens-of-thousands of times. Below is a video of this year’s heir apparent to this horrific trend.
What exactly is the point of this commercial? Beyond keeping up Sprite’s name brand recognition? This is supposed to make me want to drink Sprite? Why would I drink something that makes people combust on impact? And why are people so thrilled to be getting drenched by this liquid? Forget for a moment that this downpour is the remnants of their friends. I think we can safely assume that the liquid that’s raining down on them is Sprite. So why again are they happy that Sprite if cascading down on them? If I were to get drenched by Sprite, I’d be extremely anger and sticky, not laughing and pumping my fist. And if this Sprite also happened to be the result of two of my friends spontaneously combusting then I’d be irreparably scared, both mentally and emotionally. This commercial makes my head hurt.
Until We Meet Again
* Damnit I’ve become a hippie. I’d just like to say eff you to all my friends here in town who did nothing to prevent this
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Make a Narrative About Falling in Love in Pittsburg the Summer After You Graduate College and Everyone Will Love It
This past Sunday night I saw Adventureland(this post may act as a pseudo-spoiler, you’ve been warned). The movie was relatively enjoyable (especially the fact that the discoteque the characters go to called Razzmatazz had a marquee that read: “A Sophisticated Meeting Place”. For some reason this absolutely killed me) and I left the theatre thinking the film was ok but nothing special. I also felt like the movie should have been better, but I often feel that with these types of films. And by these types of films I mean the slow moving, indie, coming-of-age-and-falling-in-love flicks that allow their soundtracks to do the heavy lifting for the plot and characters (See: Juno, Garden State, Igby Goes Down, etc.*)
When I got home I couldn’t sleep so I started reading some reviews of the film. I always read reviews in hindsight, whether it’s a music, book, film or any other sort of review. Before I see, read or listen to something all I need is a nice, concise rating to let me judge whether or not it might be worth my time. Reviews should always be read after the fact, I feel pretty strongly about this. Anyways, as I read multiple reviews, everyone seemed to really like this movie. This didn’t surprise, but the reasons everyone really liked it did. Countless reviews I read from several credible writers talked about how the film was extraordinarily ‘deep’ for a teen comedy, and how great it was that even the side characters all had their own heartache and trauma outside the main storyline. Now I’m not a film critic, but it seems that the nation’s critics unanimously decided that this film was layered with subtext that quite frankly didn’t exist.
I think the main reason for the critical praise this film is receiving is because the vast majority of American film critics graduated from or were in college around the time this film was made. Or at the very least they remember this time period enough to properly empathize with the characters. The characters in this film are the types of people that film critics want to be, i.e. hip kids who live their lives with a sort of confined wreckless abandon, smoke lots of pot and listen to Lou Reed and the Replacements. And in fairness, this type of carefree lifestyle, at least ideologically, does sound pretty great. So there’s that, but this film is also cleverly shallow.
Just about every review I read went out of its way to mention the complexity of the supporting characters and how they all had their own little story. On the surface, this is true. In most teen comedies the characters are just archetypes with no real depth. In Adeventureland these characters are still archetypes, but they also have effed up home lives! Literally every character in this film, including the main protagonists, have some sort of travesty going on in their family lives. However, none of this personal drama is ever really expounded upon, it’s just casually mentioned or hinted at, even in the main characters case. So really all these supposed subplots are little more than a cheap way to give your characters some perceived depth. When looked at analytically, this film is little more than some shallow, self-serving nostalgia for its writer/director Greg Mottola (also known as the guy who directed Superbad). And yet, just about every critic failed to see that, which in my mind, seems kind of obvious. I think this actually the first film I’ve ever seen that I actually liked less after I saw it because of the positive reviews I l read about it post-viewing.
In some ways, this film reminded me of Michael Chabon’s first novel The Mysteries of Pittsburgh. Now this novel is different from Adventureland, but they have several similarities. Both are set in Pittsburgh and follow the misadventures of a male hero in his first summer after graduating college in which he does nothing but party, fall in love and learn a little bit about himself along the way. Like Adventureland, I thought this book was marginally ok, yet it also received tons of critical acclaim. Perhaps American critics just have a soft spot for narratives that take place in Pennsylvania steel towns. Or maybe they’re just suckers for decently written coming of age stories. And maybe I’m just bitter because I’ve clearly never experienced this type of summer. Who really knows?
Until We Meet Again
* I’ve seen and enjoyed all the movies I just mentioned. F*ck
When I got home I couldn’t sleep so I started reading some reviews of the film. I always read reviews in hindsight, whether it’s a music, book, film or any other sort of review. Before I see, read or listen to something all I need is a nice, concise rating to let me judge whether or not it might be worth my time. Reviews should always be read after the fact, I feel pretty strongly about this. Anyways, as I read multiple reviews, everyone seemed to really like this movie. This didn’t surprise, but the reasons everyone really liked it did. Countless reviews I read from several credible writers talked about how the film was extraordinarily ‘deep’ for a teen comedy, and how great it was that even the side characters all had their own heartache and trauma outside the main storyline. Now I’m not a film critic, but it seems that the nation’s critics unanimously decided that this film was layered with subtext that quite frankly didn’t exist.
I think the main reason for the critical praise this film is receiving is because the vast majority of American film critics graduated from or were in college around the time this film was made. Or at the very least they remember this time period enough to properly empathize with the characters. The characters in this film are the types of people that film critics want to be, i.e. hip kids who live their lives with a sort of confined wreckless abandon, smoke lots of pot and listen to Lou Reed and the Replacements. And in fairness, this type of carefree lifestyle, at least ideologically, does sound pretty great. So there’s that, but this film is also cleverly shallow.
Just about every review I read went out of its way to mention the complexity of the supporting characters and how they all had their own little story. On the surface, this is true. In most teen comedies the characters are just archetypes with no real depth. In Adeventureland these characters are still archetypes, but they also have effed up home lives! Literally every character in this film, including the main protagonists, have some sort of travesty going on in their family lives. However, none of this personal drama is ever really expounded upon, it’s just casually mentioned or hinted at, even in the main characters case. So really all these supposed subplots are little more than a cheap way to give your characters some perceived depth. When looked at analytically, this film is little more than some shallow, self-serving nostalgia for its writer/director Greg Mottola (also known as the guy who directed Superbad). And yet, just about every critic failed to see that, which in my mind, seems kind of obvious. I think this actually the first film I’ve ever seen that I actually liked less after I saw it because of the positive reviews I l read about it post-viewing.
In some ways, this film reminded me of Michael Chabon’s first novel The Mysteries of Pittsburgh. Now this novel is different from Adventureland, but they have several similarities. Both are set in Pittsburgh and follow the misadventures of a male hero in his first summer after graduating college in which he does nothing but party, fall in love and learn a little bit about himself along the way. Like Adventureland, I thought this book was marginally ok, yet it also received tons of critical acclaim. Perhaps American critics just have a soft spot for narratives that take place in Pennsylvania steel towns. Or maybe they’re just suckers for decently written coming of age stories. And maybe I’m just bitter because I’ve clearly never experienced this type of summer. Who really knows?
Until We Meet Again
* I’ve seen and enjoyed all the movies I just mentioned. F*ck
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
On the Radio
My oldest brother recently moved to Washington D.C. and I inherited what was left of his car. Not that I really care, mainly since I got the car for free, but this thing is an absolute sh*t pile. If it actually does start it shakes so violently it's basically doing the automobile equivalence of a full body sneeze. Pretty much all the tread on the tires has worn off and neither of the driver side windows roll up (or down for that matter). This doesn't really bother me, since I've been driving old p.o.s. cars for the better part of my driving existence. The thing about this particular car that absolutely kills me is that my only audio option is to listen to the radio.
Now I don't mean to sound snobbish, but just about everything that's played on regular radio is absolutely terrible. Most of the time I just listen to talk radio on the AM stations, not that that's much better. What's really killer though is the commercials that are played on the radio. Obviously people's budget is gonna be the lowest for radio advertisement, yet the quality of these ads is still breathtakingly bad. There's one ad in particular that gets a reaction from me no matter how many times I hear it. The commercial is for a windshield replacement business called Safelight. Here's a brief paraphrasing of their ad:
(Man talking): "When something seems to good to be true, it probably is. Take my customer the other day who was at a carwash when this pushy guy came out of nowhere and told her she had to get her windshield replaced. He was really aggressive and even stooped to offering her free stuff to get her business.
Well that just didn't feel right to her. Chances are this guy wanted to make a quick buck and get out of town."
The ad then goes on to talk about how Safelight is the best and you should always get your windshield replaced by them or THE CONSEQUENCES COULD BE DIRE!!! Now the reason this commercial bugs me is not because it’s poorly done and highly unethical. It bugs me because of how improbable it is. The “Chances are this guy wanted to make a quick buck and get out of town” line wrecks me every time. Even though I’m driving alone every time I hear that line I look around puzzled and sometimes say “What?” aloud. I mean really? Make a quick buck and get out of town? What is this guy The Music Man of windshield repairs? Honestly, aren’t the days of rolling into town, sexing up librarians and bolting with a bag of cash long gone? And were those days ever even around for the windshield replacement industry?
I’m really not sure what the answers to any of these questions are. But what I really want to know is who is this commercial swaying? Are there really people out there listening to the radio in the middle of the afternoon with a broken windshield who’ve gotten burned by windshield replacement con men in the past who are just jumping for joy when they hear this ad, thinking “finally someone has realized my plight. I’m going to Safelight for all my windshield replacement needs from now on. I won’t be fooled again.” I mean this ad can’t possibly be effective right?
These, and several other questions like them*, are the ones I want answered.
Until We Meet Again
* Such as “What’s the success rate of ‘Missed Connections’ postings on Craigslist?”
Now I don't mean to sound snobbish, but just about everything that's played on regular radio is absolutely terrible. Most of the time I just listen to talk radio on the AM stations, not that that's much better. What's really killer though is the commercials that are played on the radio. Obviously people's budget is gonna be the lowest for radio advertisement, yet the quality of these ads is still breathtakingly bad. There's one ad in particular that gets a reaction from me no matter how many times I hear it. The commercial is for a windshield replacement business called Safelight. Here's a brief paraphrasing of their ad:
(Man talking): "When something seems to good to be true, it probably is. Take my customer the other day who was at a carwash when this pushy guy came out of nowhere and told her she had to get her windshield replaced. He was really aggressive and even stooped to offering her free stuff to get her business.
Well that just didn't feel right to her. Chances are this guy wanted to make a quick buck and get out of town."
The ad then goes on to talk about how Safelight is the best and you should always get your windshield replaced by them or THE CONSEQUENCES COULD BE DIRE!!! Now the reason this commercial bugs me is not because it’s poorly done and highly unethical. It bugs me because of how improbable it is. The “Chances are this guy wanted to make a quick buck and get out of town” line wrecks me every time. Even though I’m driving alone every time I hear that line I look around puzzled and sometimes say “What?” aloud. I mean really? Make a quick buck and get out of town? What is this guy The Music Man of windshield repairs? Honestly, aren’t the days of rolling into town, sexing up librarians and bolting with a bag of cash long gone? And were those days ever even around for the windshield replacement industry?
I’m really not sure what the answers to any of these questions are. But what I really want to know is who is this commercial swaying? Are there really people out there listening to the radio in the middle of the afternoon with a broken windshield who’ve gotten burned by windshield replacement con men in the past who are just jumping for joy when they hear this ad, thinking “finally someone has realized my plight. I’m going to Safelight for all my windshield replacement needs from now on. I won’t be fooled again.” I mean this ad can’t possibly be effective right?
These, and several other questions like them*, are the ones I want answered.
Until We Meet Again
* Such as “What’s the success rate of ‘Missed Connections’ postings on Craigslist?”
Thursday, March 26, 2009
I'm Just Another Sell Out
I'm more or less broke and in an act of pure desperation I'm trying to make some money via my writing. so please click here to read my newest post. Thanks, but only if you clicked on the link.
Good night and good luck
Edit: Apparently I can't do simple html so just copy and paste this:
http://www.ehow.com/how_4871172_like-whats-going-mens-sweet.html
Good night and good luck
Edit: Apparently I can't do simple html so just copy and paste this:
http://www.ehow.com/how_4871172_like-whats-going-mens-sweet.html
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Who Am I Now?
There seems to be a prevailing need in American society to define everything. We become very uneasy if something or someone can fit neatly into a box. Where all this comes from I have no idea, but looking back through time it seems that this need is less cultural and more something that we all share as human beings. The ancient Greeks came up with elaborate myths to try and explain why things are the way they are. Here in modern times, we have Dr. Phil and the E! Network to tell us about the world at large.
This phenomenon tends to reach its apex in high school, when everyone is defined by their social group, i.e. the jocks, the Goths, the rich girls, the wallflowers, the ruggedly handsome loner who comes out of nowhere senior year to date the best looking, most popular and remarkably complex girl in the school*, the stoners, etc. After high school such defining wanes considerably, although people still tend to be defined by their job or their family.
I recently read Kurt Vonnegut's Breakfast of Champions, which for the most part deals with how most people tend to view themselves as characters in literature, a film, TV show, ect. Vonnegut believes this is a sort of illness that most of America suffers from. Not only do I think he's right, but I'd also count myself as among the victims of this epidemic. However I really don’t think my problem of identify with fictional characters is as fatal as Vonnegut makes it out to be. For the better part in my life I've often thought of myself as a character in some sort of narrative. I’ve also been known to try and make my life more like a fictional characters’. For the latter part of my high school career as well as my first few years of college I tried as hard as I could to be an elitist like John Cuasak in "High Fidelity"**. And who could forget the awkward few days I tried to be like Tyrone Slothrop. Thankfully for mine and humanities sake this didn’t pan out.
If you had asked me a few months ago when I was working 50+ hours between two jobs, I would have told you that my life was all too closely resembling the Loverboy song Working for the Weekend (a song I’ve always kinda liked, but never one I wanted to model my life after.) Now in moments of reflection I see that my life closely resembles a lead character in a Walker Percy novel. Only I don’t have the money, grandiose existential adventure, southern culture and two-dimensional sex icon/savior figure female character.
So really my life is nothing like a Walker Percy protagonist. I guess that means I am nothing…
Until We Meet Again
** Or maybe that’s only in John Hughes and Cameron Crowe movies
* 85% of cases of men trying to be fictional characters involve John Cusack
This phenomenon tends to reach its apex in high school, when everyone is defined by their social group, i.e. the jocks, the Goths, the rich girls, the wallflowers, the ruggedly handsome loner who comes out of nowhere senior year to date the best looking, most popular and remarkably complex girl in the school*, the stoners, etc. After high school such defining wanes considerably, although people still tend to be defined by their job or their family.
I recently read Kurt Vonnegut's Breakfast of Champions, which for the most part deals with how most people tend to view themselves as characters in literature, a film, TV show, ect. Vonnegut believes this is a sort of illness that most of America suffers from. Not only do I think he's right, but I'd also count myself as among the victims of this epidemic. However I really don’t think my problem of identify with fictional characters is as fatal as Vonnegut makes it out to be. For the better part in my life I've often thought of myself as a character in some sort of narrative. I’ve also been known to try and make my life more like a fictional characters’. For the latter part of my high school career as well as my first few years of college I tried as hard as I could to be an elitist like John Cuasak in "High Fidelity"**. And who could forget the awkward few days I tried to be like Tyrone Slothrop. Thankfully for mine and humanities sake this didn’t pan out.
If you had asked me a few months ago when I was working 50+ hours between two jobs, I would have told you that my life was all too closely resembling the Loverboy song Working for the Weekend (a song I’ve always kinda liked, but never one I wanted to model my life after.) Now in moments of reflection I see that my life closely resembles a lead character in a Walker Percy novel. Only I don’t have the money, grandiose existential adventure, southern culture and two-dimensional sex icon/savior figure female character.
So really my life is nothing like a Walker Percy protagonist. I guess that means I am nothing…
Until We Meet Again
** Or maybe that’s only in John Hughes and Cameron Crowe movies
* 85% of cases of men trying to be fictional characters involve John Cusack
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
I've Either Lost My Mind or Achieved Nirvana
This was far to difficult to format at this ungodly hour, especially since I have little to no html knowledge. Read my newest blog here
Friday, February 06, 2009
Andy Roddick, Bruce!, Disabled Students and You
Right before the Superbowl I wanted to write a post that was a blatant rip off of Tim Keown's The List articles that runs weekly on espn.com. If you’re unfamiliar with this column, you’re missing out. It’s one of my very favorite on the internet. He's an excellent writer who’s always funny and engaging and every so often there's a subtle hint of racism in his work. So more or less, he's exactly the type of writer I want to be. The List has a similar format each week in which Keown writes a few paragraphs on a certain issue in sports and then finishes the column with a List of other things going on in the sports world. This List is more or less a bunch of humorous one liners, which is probably why I like it so much.
Anyways, I was going to write about watching Andy Roddick get destroyed by Roger Federer and how Roddick’s on the court meltdown was one of the best things I’ve ever seen. It happens every time they play, honestly. I think Roddick might be the most compelling person in sports, mainly because he actually comes off like an actual human being. I was going to write about how Roddick arguing with the center judge to divert his own attention from the ass-whipping he was receiving was so relatable, since I myself have done similar things in sporting events/real life. I had all sorts of things to say about it, but I never found time to write it before the weekend. And then Federer and Nadal had another classic match (which I watched until I fell asleep a set and half in) and then there was the Superbowl and it no longer seemed relevant.
So instead you’re just going get this post which gives a nice synopsis of Keown’s list column and brief outline of my thoughts on Andy Roddick. I’ve also decided to include a few other thoughts that have been bumping around in my head. Enjoy:
- You put down them chicken fingers and listen up, ‘cause your life’s about to change: One part of the Superbowl that I definitely undersold in the moment was Bruce Springsteen's half time show. I was still crushed due to the James Harrison TAINT and thus couldn't fully appreciate the Boss's show. In retrospect though, his performance was really something. He was so enthusiastic and earnest, it's like he legitimately thought he could rock America right out of this recession. Every time I watch or listen to Bruce I think he's either the least self-aware man of all-time or he's a so self-aware that his entire act is some kind of highbrow parody of blue collar rock n’ roll. The truth, as it always does, probably lies somewhere in the middle of those two extremes. I love him either way.
- I guess sometimes things are too obvious: Somehow music critics have failed to mention that Animal Collective's universally hailed Merriweather Post Pavilion sounds a lot more like a Panda Bear record than an Animal Collective album. I personally prefer Panda Bear’s stuff to Animal Collective, so I’m more than ok with it, just think it warrants mentioning that no one is talking about this. My apologizes to anyone reading who’s never heard of either of those bands, just let me assure you that they exist and I’m not speaking in gibberish.
- On a similar note: I recently saw The Wrestler and it was as soul crushing and brilliant as everyone’s been saying it is. I was also thrilled that Aronofsky's trusted his audience enough to get the films point, obvious as it may have been. He practically filmed this thing like it was a documentary. He just got out of the story’s way and doesn't try to influence how the audience interprets it in anyway. It was a very nice and refreshing change to see a director do this.
- The future of Lost: Is it also its past?*:
(***WARNING!!!! Pseudo-Lost Spoiler Alert***)
So I finally watched the first two episodes of Lost Season 5 and I’m continually flabbergasted by this show. The writers come up with some of the most amazing concept, but don’t know how to their strengths. For the last time, just focus on the overarching story line, that’s easily the strongest part of your show. Please stop trying to make me care about the poorly written emotional plights of your two dimensional characters (Unless it’s Desmond). And lastly, if you’re gonna be a full-blow time travel show, at least have the decency to make some Back to the Future allusions. Also, if you’re trying to make a realistic time travel show, don’t explain the rules to us and then provide your loophole to said rules five minutes later. That’s just embarrassing for everyone involved.
(***Pseudo-Lost Spoiler Alert Over***)
- At times, this world is too much for me: So I was recently taking a test at a community college where I encountered sign in front of an office door that read:
Welcome to Disabled Students Resources: Your “I Will” is more important than your “IQ”
Turns out this sign was serious and this was a legitimate department. I’m still not really sure why IQ was in quotations, yet I digress. All unintentional comedy aside, I did see 3 people working inside this tiny office. Now I don’t want to come off as insensitive, but maybe the reason this state’s education is it such disarray and forced to make astronomical budget cuts is because they spend their money on things like 3 full-time employees for a Disable Student Resource department on a remote satellite campus of a community college. But then again, what do I know?
Until We Meet Again
* With apologizes to The Onion
Anyways, I was going to write about watching Andy Roddick get destroyed by Roger Federer and how Roddick’s on the court meltdown was one of the best things I’ve ever seen. It happens every time they play, honestly. I think Roddick might be the most compelling person in sports, mainly because he actually comes off like an actual human being. I was going to write about how Roddick arguing with the center judge to divert his own attention from the ass-whipping he was receiving was so relatable, since I myself have done similar things in sporting events/real life. I had all sorts of things to say about it, but I never found time to write it before the weekend. And then Federer and Nadal had another classic match (which I watched until I fell asleep a set and half in) and then there was the Superbowl and it no longer seemed relevant.
So instead you’re just going get this post which gives a nice synopsis of Keown’s list column and brief outline of my thoughts on Andy Roddick. I’ve also decided to include a few other thoughts that have been bumping around in my head. Enjoy:
- You put down them chicken fingers and listen up, ‘cause your life’s about to change: One part of the Superbowl that I definitely undersold in the moment was Bruce Springsteen's half time show. I was still crushed due to the James Harrison TAINT and thus couldn't fully appreciate the Boss's show. In retrospect though, his performance was really something. He was so enthusiastic and earnest, it's like he legitimately thought he could rock America right out of this recession. Every time I watch or listen to Bruce I think he's either the least self-aware man of all-time or he's a so self-aware that his entire act is some kind of highbrow parody of blue collar rock n’ roll. The truth, as it always does, probably lies somewhere in the middle of those two extremes. I love him either way.
- I guess sometimes things are too obvious: Somehow music critics have failed to mention that Animal Collective's universally hailed Merriweather Post Pavilion sounds a lot more like a Panda Bear record than an Animal Collective album. I personally prefer Panda Bear’s stuff to Animal Collective, so I’m more than ok with it, just think it warrants mentioning that no one is talking about this. My apologizes to anyone reading who’s never heard of either of those bands, just let me assure you that they exist and I’m not speaking in gibberish.
- On a similar note: I recently saw The Wrestler and it was as soul crushing and brilliant as everyone’s been saying it is. I was also thrilled that Aronofsky's trusted his audience enough to get the films point, obvious as it may have been. He practically filmed this thing like it was a documentary. He just got out of the story’s way and doesn't try to influence how the audience interprets it in anyway. It was a very nice and refreshing change to see a director do this.
- The future of Lost: Is it also its past?*:
(***WARNING!!!! Pseudo-Lost Spoiler Alert***)
So I finally watched the first two episodes of Lost Season 5 and I’m continually flabbergasted by this show. The writers come up with some of the most amazing concept, but don’t know how to their strengths. For the last time, just focus on the overarching story line, that’s easily the strongest part of your show. Please stop trying to make me care about the poorly written emotional plights of your two dimensional characters (Unless it’s Desmond). And lastly, if you’re gonna be a full-blow time travel show, at least have the decency to make some Back to the Future allusions. Also, if you’re trying to make a realistic time travel show, don’t explain the rules to us and then provide your loophole to said rules five minutes later. That’s just embarrassing for everyone involved.
(***Pseudo-Lost Spoiler Alert Over***)
- At times, this world is too much for me: So I was recently taking a test at a community college where I encountered sign in front of an office door that read:
Welcome to Disabled Students Resources: Your “I Will” is more important than your “IQ”
Turns out this sign was serious and this was a legitimate department. I’m still not really sure why IQ was in quotations, yet I digress. All unintentional comedy aside, I did see 3 people working inside this tiny office. Now I don’t want to come off as insensitive, but maybe the reason this state’s education is it such disarray and forced to make astronomical budget cuts is because they spend their money on things like 3 full-time employees for a Disable Student Resource department on a remote satellite campus of a community college. But then again, what do I know?
Until We Meet Again
* With apologizes to The Onion
Monday, February 02, 2009
Don't Look Back in Anger
As I sit here the day after the Cardinals Super Bowl defeat sweating out an odd mixture of PBR, bratwurst, numerous kinds of buffalo wings and feeling so sore that it feels like I played in the game, I can't help but
think that as much as this loss stings in the short term, the lingering affects won't be that bad. Yes it was absolute gut-punch/kick to the groin loss. And sure I'll have to look away in every Super Bowl from now until the end of time when they show Harrison's interception return or Holmes's catch. And yes I'm sure I'll stay up countless nights wondering what would have happened if Fransico hadn't slipped thus setting up Holmes's catch and run that made it 1st and Goal. But even with all the what ifs, I still don't think this loss will have that much staying power.
In the end, the Steelers are a better team than the Cardinals. They'd probably win at least 65% of the times the two teams were to play. What hurts the most about this loss is that the Cardinals played a better game than the Steelers, they just didn't catch enough breaks to win. Yes the loss is going to hurt, but the total context of this loss is what's going to keep it from being truly tragic. Just look at the circumstances of how the Cardinals got here. Once we beat the Falcons in the first round, we were playing with the house's money. After the Jake Delhome game, this was officially the best Cardinals team of the modern era. The comeback win against the Eagles made this the best NFL season of my life and forever changed the way I'll watch Cardinals games. Thanks to that comeback, I'll no longer watch every Cardinals game certain they'll find a new and exciting way to blow it.
I'll now begrudgingly buy some NFC Championship gear, which will go great with my Phoenix Suns 1993 Western Conference Champions, all my UofA Final Four shirts from years other than 1997, etc. But I'm gonna feel a lot better looking at the Cardinals NFC Championship than the aforementioned fan gear because the Cardinals weren't suppose to get that far. There run to the Superbowl was wholly unexpected and exciting, thrilling, and any other cliché you wanna throw out there. It also distracted me from what appears to be the first UofA basketball team in my life time that won't be participating in March Madness. So yes this loss hurt, but in the end I can't really be that upset about it. And pitchers and catchers report in 14 days, which should provide a nice distraction for when the Cardinals management starts effing up this off-season.
Until We Meet Again
think that as much as this loss stings in the short term, the lingering affects won't be that bad. Yes it was absolute gut-punch/kick to the groin loss. And sure I'll have to look away in every Super Bowl from now until the end of time when they show Harrison's interception return or Holmes's catch. And yes I'm sure I'll stay up countless nights wondering what would have happened if Fransico hadn't slipped thus setting up Holmes's catch and run that made it 1st and Goal. But even with all the what ifs, I still don't think this loss will have that much staying power.
In the end, the Steelers are a better team than the Cardinals. They'd probably win at least 65% of the times the two teams were to play. What hurts the most about this loss is that the Cardinals played a better game than the Steelers, they just didn't catch enough breaks to win. Yes the loss is going to hurt, but the total context of this loss is what's going to keep it from being truly tragic. Just look at the circumstances of how the Cardinals got here. Once we beat the Falcons in the first round, we were playing with the house's money. After the Jake Delhome game, this was officially the best Cardinals team of the modern era. The comeback win against the Eagles made this the best NFL season of my life and forever changed the way I'll watch Cardinals games. Thanks to that comeback, I'll no longer watch every Cardinals game certain they'll find a new and exciting way to blow it.
I'll now begrudgingly buy some NFC Championship gear, which will go great with my Phoenix Suns 1993 Western Conference Champions, all my UofA Final Four shirts from years other than 1997, etc. But I'm gonna feel a lot better looking at the Cardinals NFC Championship than the aforementioned fan gear because the Cardinals weren't suppose to get that far. There run to the Superbowl was wholly unexpected and exciting, thrilling, and any other cliché you wanna throw out there. It also distracted me from what appears to be the first UofA basketball team in my life time that won't be participating in March Madness. So yes this loss hurt, but in the end I can't really be that upset about it. And pitchers and catchers report in 14 days, which should provide a nice distraction for when the Cardinals management starts effing up this off-season.
Until We Meet Again
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Brief Thoughts from Sunday
I feel like I have to write something about the Cardinals historic victory on Sunday, but I'm especially pressed for time this week so I'll just list off a few brief observations from my Sunday spent in front of the TV watching football.
- The Cardinals game started better than I possibly could have imagined, and then the 2nd half started. The Eagles comeback played out exactly the way I thought the whole game would, i.e. Cardinals D unable to get off the field and Warner looking like he shat himself as the Eagles blitz him with apprx. 30 players each down. I should have know what was coming. Soon as the Eagles took the lead I felt sick to my stomach and I was certain the Cardinals were done. In fact I was upset at myself for allowing the Cardinals to sucker me in for the umpteenth time. And then something remarkable happened. For the first time in my life time, actually for the first time in anyone under the age of 61's life time, the Cardinals proceeded to not crumble in the face of adversity. They actually rolled with the punches and put together a remarkable game winning drive that seem to defy all logic. The Cardinals showed grit, determination and a good deal of testicular fortitude while holding on to the ball for 8 minutes as they drove down the field for their game winning touchdown. That drive went against everything the Cardinals have ever stood for and it was a microcosm of this entire post season run. It was the definition of clutch (damnit now I sound like Jason Whitlock). Forget all the hyperbolic media quotes about how amazing the Cardinals going to the Super Bowl is, what's truly remarkable is how the Cardinals got there, namely with that drive. I allowed myself to believe that the Cardinals could win Sundays game, but I never imagined they would have won it like they did. Now I normally hate the 2 weeks leading up to the Super Bowl and the ungodly amount of hype that comes with it, but this year I'm actually looking forward to it. I can't wait read all the overly done and poorly written profile and puff pieces, because this year they're going to be about MY team. Right now I'm so excited that I don't even care that they'll all be extremely redundant and be littered with phrases like "These are not your father's Cardinals", etc. Normally I avoid this type of journalism like the plague, but over the next to week's I'm going to devoured all of it. I plan on reading just about every word that is written about the Cardinals because a.) this has never happened and b.) it may never happen again. So I'm just going try to live in the moment and soak it all in.
- The AFC Championship game bored me to tears. Maybe it's because I was exhausted from rooting for the Cardinals or maybe it's because the Steelers were infinitely better than the Ravens (seriously if the Steelers could have punted effectively and if Swede would have caught that wide open touchdown pass then they would have won the game by 30+) but I could barely get into the game. Even when the Steelers were up 2 and the Ravens had the ball with under 6 minutes left, you knew that the Steelers were gonna stop them and close it out. The game just lacked any real excitement, except..
- For the hit at the end of the game on McGhee, which may have given me a concussion
- It's gotten to the point that I'm going to have to stop excepting samples all together just to avoid being in a Pizza Hut commercial. Between them and Howie Mendel, they're gonna make fools of this entire nation.
- CBS dubbed their inauguration coverage "Change & Challenge". How very astute. Apparently they chose that over "A Black President. WOW."
- Regardless of your feelings on said inauguration, let's all just be thankful that now 99% of Americans will go nearly 4 years without having an opinion on politics. So really it's a win-win for everyone.
- Perhaps my favorite moment on Sunday was when Jim Nantz said “Joe Flacco. Well it hasn’t been a shaky start…” after a Flacco incompletion. At that point in the game Flacco was 1-9 for 2 yards and had thrown and Interception. No, that’s not a shaky start at all, that’s an out and out train wreck. Or a quarterbacking abortion. But definitely not a shaky start.
- Since this country is about to be over saturated with Super Bowl coverage, I'm going to try an abstain from writing anything about it. However, I'd be remised if I didn't at least give a prediction for the Cardinals first ever Super Bowl. Now I have little to know football knowledge, although I was starting QB for my Pop Warner flag football team when I was 6, so take everything I say with a grain of salt. Anyhow, I think this is a terrible match up for the Cardinals. The Steelers have the cornerbacks to match up with Fitz, Boldin and CO. and they're front 7 is impossible to run against and to block for an extended period of time. Warner is going to get lit up. In fact there's a good chance he may get split it half, horror movie style, by a Pittsburg blitz. Unless Big Ben and the Steelers offense has a plethora of turnovers, I just don't see anyway that the Cardinals can win this game. In the end I suspect they'll lose by about 10, but the outcome of this game really doesn't matter. Because just by making it to the Super Bowl and by overcoming all the adversity they faced along the way this team has proven that, these are not your father's Cardinals.
Until We Meet Again
- The Cardinals game started better than I possibly could have imagined, and then the 2nd half started. The Eagles comeback played out exactly the way I thought the whole game would, i.e. Cardinals D unable to get off the field and Warner looking like he shat himself as the Eagles blitz him with apprx. 30 players each down. I should have know what was coming. Soon as the Eagles took the lead I felt sick to my stomach and I was certain the Cardinals were done. In fact I was upset at myself for allowing the Cardinals to sucker me in for the umpteenth time. And then something remarkable happened. For the first time in my life time, actually for the first time in anyone under the age of 61's life time, the Cardinals proceeded to not crumble in the face of adversity. They actually rolled with the punches and put together a remarkable game winning drive that seem to defy all logic. The Cardinals showed grit, determination and a good deal of testicular fortitude while holding on to the ball for 8 minutes as they drove down the field for their game winning touchdown. That drive went against everything the Cardinals have ever stood for and it was a microcosm of this entire post season run. It was the definition of clutch (damnit now I sound like Jason Whitlock). Forget all the hyperbolic media quotes about how amazing the Cardinals going to the Super Bowl is, what's truly remarkable is how the Cardinals got there, namely with that drive. I allowed myself to believe that the Cardinals could win Sundays game, but I never imagined they would have won it like they did. Now I normally hate the 2 weeks leading up to the Super Bowl and the ungodly amount of hype that comes with it, but this year I'm actually looking forward to it. I can't wait read all the overly done and poorly written profile and puff pieces, because this year they're going to be about MY team. Right now I'm so excited that I don't even care that they'll all be extremely redundant and be littered with phrases like "These are not your father's Cardinals", etc. Normally I avoid this type of journalism like the plague, but over the next to week's I'm going to devoured all of it. I plan on reading just about every word that is written about the Cardinals because a.) this has never happened and b.) it may never happen again. So I'm just going try to live in the moment and soak it all in.
- The AFC Championship game bored me to tears. Maybe it's because I was exhausted from rooting for the Cardinals or maybe it's because the Steelers were infinitely better than the Ravens (seriously if the Steelers could have punted effectively and if Swede would have caught that wide open touchdown pass then they would have won the game by 30+) but I could barely get into the game. Even when the Steelers were up 2 and the Ravens had the ball with under 6 minutes left, you knew that the Steelers were gonna stop them and close it out. The game just lacked any real excitement, except..
- For the hit at the end of the game on McGhee, which may have given me a concussion
- It's gotten to the point that I'm going to have to stop excepting samples all together just to avoid being in a Pizza Hut commercial. Between them and Howie Mendel, they're gonna make fools of this entire nation.
- CBS dubbed their inauguration coverage "Change & Challenge". How very astute. Apparently they chose that over "A Black President. WOW."
- Regardless of your feelings on said inauguration, let's all just be thankful that now 99% of Americans will go nearly 4 years without having an opinion on politics. So really it's a win-win for everyone.
- Perhaps my favorite moment on Sunday was when Jim Nantz said “Joe Flacco. Well it hasn’t been a shaky start…” after a Flacco incompletion. At that point in the game Flacco was 1-9 for 2 yards and had thrown and Interception. No, that’s not a shaky start at all, that’s an out and out train wreck. Or a quarterbacking abortion. But definitely not a shaky start.
- Since this country is about to be over saturated with Super Bowl coverage, I'm going to try an abstain from writing anything about it. However, I'd be remised if I didn't at least give a prediction for the Cardinals first ever Super Bowl. Now I have little to know football knowledge, although I was starting QB for my Pop Warner flag football team when I was 6, so take everything I say with a grain of salt. Anyhow, I think this is a terrible match up for the Cardinals. The Steelers have the cornerbacks to match up with Fitz, Boldin and CO. and they're front 7 is impossible to run against and to block for an extended period of time. Warner is going to get lit up. In fact there's a good chance he may get split it half, horror movie style, by a Pittsburg blitz. Unless Big Ben and the Steelers offense has a plethora of turnovers, I just don't see anyway that the Cardinals can win this game. In the end I suspect they'll lose by about 10, but the outcome of this game really doesn't matter. Because just by making it to the Super Bowl and by overcoming all the adversity they faced along the way this team has proven that, these are not your father's Cardinals.
Until We Meet Again
Friday, January 16, 2009
Growing Up Cardinal
In Which I Try and Explain What It's Like to be a “Fan” of the Worst Run Franchise in Sports and How Their Surreal Rise to Prominence has Affected Me
(Edit. Note: I actually am a Cardinals fan. I didn't just jump on the bandwagon during the past two weeks and this isn't some frivolous attempt to be culturally relevant like Rick Riley's truly awful article on Beer Pong)
Webster describes a fan as “an enthusiastic devotee, follower, or admirer of a sport, past time, or celebrity, etc.”. When it comes to my fandom of the Arizona Wildcats, Phoenix Suns and the Arizona Diamondbacks, I feel like this description undersells my over-the-top, border line religious support of those teams. But as far as my NFL team, the Arizona Cardinals, is concern, well that's a different story. For most of my life I've lived in Arizona and I've been a follower of the Cardinals, which wasn't always easy considering 95% of our home games in the metal coffin known as Sun Devil Stadium used to be blackout on local TV because they never came close to selling out unless the Cowboys or 49ers were in town. I've always rooted for them over any other NFL team* and was generally rewarded for my support about 5 times per season. Now going back to Webster's definition, it's truly hard to admire such ineptitude, in fact to call the Cardinals inept seems like an insult to inept teams everywhere. I'm not being over-exaggerating here, after all The Cardinals have only had 2 winning seasons in my life time. In a league that's actually over active in promoting parity, such incompetence is truly something special. The Cards have raised the bar on how to run a franchise into the ground. You'd have to be a masochist to be an enthusiastic devotee of such a putrid team. So really the only part of Webster's dictionary that applies to me is “follower”. Yes I care about the team and have been let down so many times that I've lost count and have been desensitized over the years. Given the years of numbing defeats this team has dealt me then it's understandable why the Cardinals unprecedented playoff surge has felt more surreal than gratifying for me.
Quick tangent: I read an article from a Phoenix paper earlier this week about how the problem with the Cardinals these past 21 years wasn't their horrible owner Bill Bidwell being cheap, but it was the fact that Bidwell just didn't know how to win. WHAT!?!?!?!?! That’s the best excuse they could come up with? If by some chance it’s true that Bidwell didn't/doesn't know how to win, then how dumb is he? How did this guy make enough money to own an NFL team? I mean continuing to own an NFL team and not having a clue how to win makes about as much sense as me saying "Well I don't know how this whole stock market thing works, but I'm gonna pour a lot of money into anyway", and doing that for 21 straight years. I mean this is truly unbelievable. Even if it was true at the beginning of his tenure, don't you think he would have figured something out in his 21 straight years on the job? I mean honestly, this was one of the sh*ttiest articles I've ever read. I would have found it more believable if you had told me that the reason the Cardinals were so bad these last two decades was because Bidwell's mom was sick so he couldn't fully concentrate on running the team. I’m honestly, it’s great that the Cardinals are finally winning, but let’s not rewrite history here and try and portray Bidwell as anything but one of the worst and most frugal owners in sports history.
Ok, tangent over.
Anyhow, I still don't fully believe that the Cardinals are playing in, let alone hosting, the NFC Championship game. For starters, this is a team whose greatest accomplishments are finding new and interesting ways to lose games (and ending Steve Young's career). Some sports teams, like the championship era Yankees or Cowboys always found miraculous ways to comeback and win the seemingly unwinnable games. Since moving to Arizona in 1988, the Cardinals have done the exact opposite. They’re practically the antithesis of those aforementioned dynasties. Even last week as Jake Delhome was submitting the worst playoff performance of all-time**, I still never felt comfortable until there was about 3 minutes left in the game. Only then could I relax and actually allow myself to think that the Cardinals would win.
For the past 5 days I've been trying to come up with an analogy of what the Cardinals improbable run to the NFC Championship game has been like. Here's the best I could come up with: Imagine you had a close relative, for this example's sake will say a cousin, who's roughly the same age as you but has always been a colossal f*ck up. By the time he was 10 he was already smoking cigarettes and getting into fights at school. When he was 13 he go drunk on Thanksgiving and challenged your dad to a fistfight. A few years later during Christmas Dinner he left the table and went and took a dump in your living room. Since then he's been in and out of rehab and every time it looks like he just might be clean, he relapses, generally in the most public and embarrassing of fashions. And no matter how sad, upsetting, obnoxious, and all in all hopeless he may seem, you still care about him and keep tabs on him because he's family. Then one day, without any warning, he's out of rehab for the umpteenth time and doing great. You're expecting him to relapse at any moment, but it looks like he may actually have his life together. And now he's written a book, and Oprah just selected it for her book club. He's the talk of the literary world, he's doing the talk show circuit and all that jazz. This whole time as you're watching from a distance you’re incredibly proud of him, and yet at the same time you’re thinking “that's the same guy who took a dump in my living room a few Christmases ago”
(Note: This analogy is wholly fiction. As far as I know this describes no one in my family. immediate or otherwise.)
And that's what it's like right now to be an Arizona Cardinals fan. You're proud, amazed and yet complete bewildered because it goes against everything you've ever known about the Cardinals. Regardless of what happens Sunday, this has been the best Cardinals season of my life time. I suspect they'll probably lose by 10ish, but then again I thought that about the last two games. In fact, I feel like the Cardinals will lose by about 10 in 95% of the games they play, but that's neither here nor there. So, um, go Cards.
Until We Meet Again
* With the exception of few years in which I was a young child and allowed my father and older brother to influence me and I rooted for the New York football Giants and Dallas Cowboys over the home town Cardinals. What can I say, but 'when I was child I reasoned like a child', etc.
** That might actually be an understatement. Calling it the worst performance of all-time doesn't fully capture how truly sh*tty Delhome was.
(Edit. Note: I actually am a Cardinals fan. I didn't just jump on the bandwagon during the past two weeks and this isn't some frivolous attempt to be culturally relevant like Rick Riley's truly awful article on Beer Pong)
Webster describes a fan as “an enthusiastic devotee, follower, or admirer of a sport, past time, or celebrity, etc.”. When it comes to my fandom of the Arizona Wildcats, Phoenix Suns and the Arizona Diamondbacks, I feel like this description undersells my over-the-top, border line religious support of those teams. But as far as my NFL team, the Arizona Cardinals, is concern, well that's a different story. For most of my life I've lived in Arizona and I've been a follower of the Cardinals, which wasn't always easy considering 95% of our home games in the metal coffin known as Sun Devil Stadium used to be blackout on local TV because they never came close to selling out unless the Cowboys or 49ers were in town. I've always rooted for them over any other NFL team* and was generally rewarded for my support about 5 times per season. Now going back to Webster's definition, it's truly hard to admire such ineptitude, in fact to call the Cardinals inept seems like an insult to inept teams everywhere. I'm not being over-exaggerating here, after all The Cardinals have only had 2 winning seasons in my life time. In a league that's actually over active in promoting parity, such incompetence is truly something special. The Cards have raised the bar on how to run a franchise into the ground. You'd have to be a masochist to be an enthusiastic devotee of such a putrid team. So really the only part of Webster's dictionary that applies to me is “follower”. Yes I care about the team and have been let down so many times that I've lost count and have been desensitized over the years. Given the years of numbing defeats this team has dealt me then it's understandable why the Cardinals unprecedented playoff surge has felt more surreal than gratifying for me.
Quick tangent: I read an article from a Phoenix paper earlier this week about how the problem with the Cardinals these past 21 years wasn't their horrible owner Bill Bidwell being cheap, but it was the fact that Bidwell just didn't know how to win. WHAT!?!?!?!?! That’s the best excuse they could come up with? If by some chance it’s true that Bidwell didn't/doesn't know how to win, then how dumb is he? How did this guy make enough money to own an NFL team? I mean continuing to own an NFL team and not having a clue how to win makes about as much sense as me saying "Well I don't know how this whole stock market thing works, but I'm gonna pour a lot of money into anyway", and doing that for 21 straight years. I mean this is truly unbelievable. Even if it was true at the beginning of his tenure, don't you think he would have figured something out in his 21 straight years on the job? I mean honestly, this was one of the sh*ttiest articles I've ever read. I would have found it more believable if you had told me that the reason the Cardinals were so bad these last two decades was because Bidwell's mom was sick so he couldn't fully concentrate on running the team. I’m honestly, it’s great that the Cardinals are finally winning, but let’s not rewrite history here and try and portray Bidwell as anything but one of the worst and most frugal owners in sports history.
Ok, tangent over.
Anyhow, I still don't fully believe that the Cardinals are playing in, let alone hosting, the NFC Championship game. For starters, this is a team whose greatest accomplishments are finding new and interesting ways to lose games (and ending Steve Young's career). Some sports teams, like the championship era Yankees or Cowboys always found miraculous ways to comeback and win the seemingly unwinnable games. Since moving to Arizona in 1988, the Cardinals have done the exact opposite. They’re practically the antithesis of those aforementioned dynasties. Even last week as Jake Delhome was submitting the worst playoff performance of all-time**, I still never felt comfortable until there was about 3 minutes left in the game. Only then could I relax and actually allow myself to think that the Cardinals would win.
For the past 5 days I've been trying to come up with an analogy of what the Cardinals improbable run to the NFC Championship game has been like. Here's the best I could come up with: Imagine you had a close relative, for this example's sake will say a cousin, who's roughly the same age as you but has always been a colossal f*ck up. By the time he was 10 he was already smoking cigarettes and getting into fights at school. When he was 13 he go drunk on Thanksgiving and challenged your dad to a fistfight. A few years later during Christmas Dinner he left the table and went and took a dump in your living room. Since then he's been in and out of rehab and every time it looks like he just might be clean, he relapses, generally in the most public and embarrassing of fashions. And no matter how sad, upsetting, obnoxious, and all in all hopeless he may seem, you still care about him and keep tabs on him because he's family. Then one day, without any warning, he's out of rehab for the umpteenth time and doing great. You're expecting him to relapse at any moment, but it looks like he may actually have his life together. And now he's written a book, and Oprah just selected it for her book club. He's the talk of the literary world, he's doing the talk show circuit and all that jazz. This whole time as you're watching from a distance you’re incredibly proud of him, and yet at the same time you’re thinking “that's the same guy who took a dump in my living room a few Christmases ago”
(Note: This analogy is wholly fiction. As far as I know this describes no one in my family. immediate or otherwise.)
And that's what it's like right now to be an Arizona Cardinals fan. You're proud, amazed and yet complete bewildered because it goes against everything you've ever known about the Cardinals. Regardless of what happens Sunday, this has been the best Cardinals season of my life time. I suspect they'll probably lose by 10ish, but then again I thought that about the last two games. In fact, I feel like the Cardinals will lose by about 10 in 95% of the games they play, but that's neither here nor there. So, um, go Cards.
Until We Meet Again
* With the exception of few years in which I was a young child and allowed my father and older brother to influence me and I rooted for the New York football Giants and Dallas Cowboys over the home town Cardinals. What can I say, but 'when I was child I reasoned like a child', etc.
** That might actually be an understatement. Calling it the worst performance of all-time doesn't fully capture how truly sh*tty Delhome was.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
The Problem with Jane Austen, Women in General and (to a lesser extent) Humanity as a Whole
(Ed. Note: All stats presented here are based on conjecture, guestimation or complete fabrication.)
So the other day I was facebook chatting (which I'm told is very impersonal) with a female friend of mine and I noticed that her "status" said something to the effect of 'of all the men Jane Austen wrote about, Mr. Darcy is the one I most love'. Now it was probably worded more articulately and more clever than that, but you get the general sentiment. This of course got me thinking about Jane Austen* and Mr. Darcy (or all the male character she's ever written, since they're all essentially some variation of the same two dudes). And while my mind was wondering I came to the realization that Mr. Darcy is primarily responsible for 92% of the heartache suffered by literate women and men (or women) who pursue literate women.
As you've probably guessed, this all boils down to unrealistic expectations. I realize this has already been covered by a multitude of people, done best by Chuck Klosterman in his essay "This is Emo", so with that in mind I'll keep my observations brief and at the very least try to add something new to the discussion.
Anyhow, my beef with Mr. Darcy and Ms. Austen is as follows: The character of Fitzwilliam Darcy is complete and utter bullsh*t. Here's a man who changes from a grade A, narcissistic prick to the most loving, selfless, kindhearted human being not name Jesus or Gandhi to ever exist in the matter of a couple hundred pages. And what brings about this dramatic transformation? Well, he was verbally 'put in his place' by some poor girl with a presumably alcoholic father and a floozy of a mother. This is probably the most unbuyable character development/transformation of all time. People don't change that dramatically, ever, regardless of the century or locale. Generally speaking, if people change at all it's a slow, strenuous process and it usually takes a few years before any of the said changes become even remotely apparent to other people. Change is never this dramatic or this rapid. But it's not just the speed of the change that is so unrealistic.
As the reader, or viewer, for those of you who just saw the movie adaptation, we're suppose to believe that this rich, arrogant guy changed his personality entirely in order to woo and then marry some attractive poor girl who delivers quick one-liners and has a highly volatile family No guy has ever changed this much for a girl. In fact, no where in recorded history will you see a man changed half this much for a girl or anything else. 98 out of 100 times that a guy changes for a girl he does so in order to sleep with her** and once he has done that the changes quickly wane or disappear completely. Not even true love could dictate such a dramatic transformation, especially not in Victorian era England.
By writing a character as unrealistic as Mr. Darcy, Jane Austen is setting up women and ,based on her own history, herself, up for failure. Since Ms. Austen is a very good writer, literate girls all across the globe are now convinced that men actually can change. She essetenially ruined girls perceptions of men the same way Garden State ruined the Shins. All the Shins wanted was to be another indie rock band out of the Pacific Northwest with clever lyrics and catchy guitar hooks. Then Garden State came around and all of a sudden they're suppose to be some life changing band that gives you a deeper understanding of life and an instant connection with girls like Natalie Portman. I mean who can live up to such expectations? I'm fully convinced that Garden State is wholly responsible for there being only 3-4 good songs on the last Shins album. Likewise, Austen is wholly responsible for women thinking that men actually have the ability to change. And all the while men are trying to make these dramatic, wholesale changes in under to gain favor with women. They always fall short, it'd be impossible for us not to. The whole things is just one giant circle of unfulfilled expectations and disappointment for both parties. And it never ends well. In fact it can only end with mountains upon mountains of compromised by everyone involved.
And that's why you should never read or associate with those who read Jane Austen. And if you have children, advice them to do the same. She is, intentionally or otherwise, pure evil.
Until We Meet Again
* Whom I have read. What do you want from me? I was in 8th grade, home schooled and my Jane Austen loving mother made my curriculum. I literally had no choice.
** Maybe once out of 100 times the changes actually stick, the other time the guy changes and then realizes he's gay
So the other day I was facebook chatting (which I'm told is very impersonal) with a female friend of mine and I noticed that her "status" said something to the effect of 'of all the men Jane Austen wrote about, Mr. Darcy is the one I most love'. Now it was probably worded more articulately and more clever than that, but you get the general sentiment. This of course got me thinking about Jane Austen* and Mr. Darcy (or all the male character she's ever written, since they're all essentially some variation of the same two dudes). And while my mind was wondering I came to the realization that Mr. Darcy is primarily responsible for 92% of the heartache suffered by literate women and men (or women) who pursue literate women.
As you've probably guessed, this all boils down to unrealistic expectations. I realize this has already been covered by a multitude of people, done best by Chuck Klosterman in his essay "This is Emo", so with that in mind I'll keep my observations brief and at the very least try to add something new to the discussion.
Anyhow, my beef with Mr. Darcy and Ms. Austen is as follows: The character of Fitzwilliam Darcy is complete and utter bullsh*t. Here's a man who changes from a grade A, narcissistic prick to the most loving, selfless, kindhearted human being not name Jesus or Gandhi to ever exist in the matter of a couple hundred pages. And what brings about this dramatic transformation? Well, he was verbally 'put in his place' by some poor girl with a presumably alcoholic father and a floozy of a mother. This is probably the most unbuyable character development/transformation of all time. People don't change that dramatically, ever, regardless of the century or locale. Generally speaking, if people change at all it's a slow, strenuous process and it usually takes a few years before any of the said changes become even remotely apparent to other people. Change is never this dramatic or this rapid. But it's not just the speed of the change that is so unrealistic.
As the reader, or viewer, for those of you who just saw the movie adaptation, we're suppose to believe that this rich, arrogant guy changed his personality entirely in order to woo and then marry some attractive poor girl who delivers quick one-liners and has a highly volatile family No guy has ever changed this much for a girl. In fact, no where in recorded history will you see a man changed half this much for a girl or anything else. 98 out of 100 times that a guy changes for a girl he does so in order to sleep with her** and once he has done that the changes quickly wane or disappear completely. Not even true love could dictate such a dramatic transformation, especially not in Victorian era England.
By writing a character as unrealistic as Mr. Darcy, Jane Austen is setting up women and ,based on her own history, herself, up for failure. Since Ms. Austen is a very good writer, literate girls all across the globe are now convinced that men actually can change. She essetenially ruined girls perceptions of men the same way Garden State ruined the Shins. All the Shins wanted was to be another indie rock band out of the Pacific Northwest with clever lyrics and catchy guitar hooks. Then Garden State came around and all of a sudden they're suppose to be some life changing band that gives you a deeper understanding of life and an instant connection with girls like Natalie Portman. I mean who can live up to such expectations? I'm fully convinced that Garden State is wholly responsible for there being only 3-4 good songs on the last Shins album. Likewise, Austen is wholly responsible for women thinking that men actually have the ability to change. And all the while men are trying to make these dramatic, wholesale changes in under to gain favor with women. They always fall short, it'd be impossible for us not to. The whole things is just one giant circle of unfulfilled expectations and disappointment for both parties. And it never ends well. In fact it can only end with mountains upon mountains of compromised by everyone involved.
And that's why you should never read or associate with those who read Jane Austen. And if you have children, advice them to do the same. She is, intentionally or otherwise, pure evil.
Until We Meet Again
* Whom I have read. What do you want from me? I was in 8th grade, home schooled and my Jane Austen loving mother made my curriculum. I literally had no choice.
** Maybe once out of 100 times the changes actually stick, the other time the guy changes and then realizes he's gay
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
