A Charity to Think About.

In times of crisis it is always a blessing to watch the charitable nature of the American people shine, and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is no different. People are giving to the Red Cross in droves, and it is right that they do so, but sometimes in looking at the big picture (and giving to the big charities) some in need are overlooked.

The Red Cross does great work, but the focus of their work is on helping people. Katrina affected more than people, it also affected people's pets. That is why I would ask you to give to the North Shore Animal League of America in addition to the Red Cross. A lot of animals have been displaced by Katrina and are in need of rescuing.

Cinerati's Canon -- Our Most Important Books

Professor Nokes over at Unlocked Wordhoard recently posted his experience with his students regarding their thoughts about whether a book was "literary" or not.

I remember an experience similar to the one he describes when one of my Undergraduate professors, in an American novel class, asked if the book Shane was literature or not. My knee jerk reaction was, "No way! Absolom, Absolom...yes! But Shane! No!" I have since changed my mind, having reread Shane seven or eight times, and find Shane to be the quintessential story of the West. It rightly encapsulates the central conflict in American expansion westward, as discussed by Frederick Jackson Turner in The Frontier in American History, and the book contains a darkness/realism in the title character totally lacking in the movie. In the film, Shane is Davy Crockett, but in the book he is more reminiscent of Doc Holliday, a mysterious Southern gambler/shootist.

Regardless of my thoughts at the time regarding the literary nature, or lack there of, of Shane my external reaction (and that of my classmates) was exactly that described by Professor Nokes.

To quote:

In fact, what happened was a single student took a position, and the rest dodged the question. I pressed them, and soon I came to understand that they did not believe they have a role in Canon formation.

None of us thought we had a role in Canon formation. Why? I credit it to humility more than a failure of education (Nokes' hypothesis). We hadn't been exposed to enough literature, broadly speaking, to trust our own judgements. Nor had we experience in discussing the value of a book. This second is a failure on the part of education. In high school and before, we were asked to tell what "happens" in a book to verify that we have in fact read what the teacher assigned us. We were given tests about places, people, and events. And we were given lectures about the symbolism of the Green Light in The Great Gatsby. But we were never asked whether we thought the book had value, or what was valuable about it. We weren't asked if it was "well written" with proper grammar, or played with existing conventions effectively and proficiently. I imagine the experience for the modern high school student is similar.

My comments on Professor Nokes site addressed a commentor who was critical of "Canon advocates" like Bloom. To which I responded:

I have to agree with you regarding the foundational Canon (KJV, Homer, Aristotle). I would naturally add Plato, actually The Republic is probably number one on my list of non-religious texts.

As to Frank's comments regarding Bloom (don't know if he is referring to Allan or Harold Bloom, not that it matters for his point which is poignant), I think he overestimates how much Bloom (either one) thinks the Canon is etched in stone. Allan would argue that a canon should be something that challenges young people to question the assumptions of the day rather than one that feeds them. Harold believes in an evolving Canon which is affected by the zeitgeist and continues to grow and change. Rarely are books dropped completely from the Canon, but new is added all the time.
I personally prefer Eliot's view (T.S.) that the Canon is a dialogue. The new is always in discussion with the old, either as addition to or reaction against. Some of the best poetry/art is a rejection of things past, but even rejections are improved when grounded in an understanding of the thing they reject. Thus for me the Canon is dynamic, rather than static, and additive. Some books may wane in importance for a time (Jane Austen's Persuasion or Cooper's Deerslayer), but they are a part of the dialogue.
The "literary" quality of a book matters to me, but so does the role the work played in its time or how well it represents that age.

So...what are 10 books I would demand be included in the Canon? Well, let me begin by saying that I largely think that limited lists are next to useless, especially when said lists imply an order of priority. Remember the "Top 100" lists by the American Film Institute recently? Remember how they left out half the movies you thought should be included? Me too. I think that any given list should be qualified with a "I think these are important, but that doesn't mean I think hundreds, even thousands, of others aren't." Given that caveat, here are 10 books I think everyone should read (in no particular order).

• The King James Version of the Bible -- If you want to understand the development and normalization of the written English language, let alone understand the culture, this is a must read.
• The Republic of Plato -- Philosophy begins with Socrates.
• The Complete Works of Shakespeare -- His ability to write for multiple audiences simultaneously amazes me.
• Biographia Literaria by Coleridge -- I always wondered who would write a great companion to Aristotle's Poetics.
• Aristotle's Poetics -- (speaking of which) I have rarely met a screenwriter I respected who didn't have a copy of this dog-eared.
• Hegel's Introductory Lectures on Aesthetics -- As good a beginning place for the philosophy of Hegel as any, and far more accessible.
• Sense and Sensibility by Jane Austen -- I just love this book.
• Time Enough for Love by Robert Heinlein -- Because some of these books should be just for fun.
• King of Elfland's Daughter by Dunsany -- No Elfland, no Tolkien or Lewis. They both heard the horns of Elfland blow when they were younger.
• Lost in Place by Mark Salzman -- Something a little more modern and "non-genre."

What would you add to this list? Please comment.

The Shatner Speaks!

From the Canadian who read the Preamble to the Constitution better than any American I have ever heard:

“I’m overwhelmed with sadness and also very angry at the incompetence and filled with pity about the disaster in the South. Let’s react like America always has—with courage, fortitude and, especially, generosity. We have always led the world in rebuilding from ashes…let’s once again do what’s right and give of ourselves to charity.”
-William Shatner

The man is charitable , charitable, and he is the Shatner.

[Ed: Belated hat tip to David N. Scott frequent poster here and manager of the Pererro site.]

Some Affordable Aids for Your RPG Session.

This one is for all you D&D'ers or Shadowrunners out there. I would like to take a moment to feature two of the most useful RPG products I have ever used. If you don't have them you aren't giving your gaming group an optimal experience.

How many times has someone in your game gone..."No, I wasn't caught in the fireball. I was around the corner!"

For most of us this isn't too big a problem, we either play with "purely imaginative" type players who always let the DM beat them up relentlessly. Or we use the old battle-mat and markers. It's cheap and it's efficient. It does have two drawbacks though. It's messy and it ain't pretty. Well, it ain't pretty unless you are a professional hand draftsman or some such, but I'm not.

So what can a DM do to increase the visual stimulation of his players, and the veracity of any "combat rulings" without costing him/herself a bundle?

I have two solutions and you can pick between them or combine them.

And before you get all worried, no I am not referring to the Dwarven Forge stuff, which is beautiful but unless you are Bill Gates it is unaffordable for most games.

The first product is World Works Chunky Dungeons.

The Chunky Dungeons, and other World Works products, are beautiful, fun, and easy to use. Their only drawback is they take time to assemble and you have to have some minor skill at modelling. All said though, the World Works stuff is something you should have on your hard-drive.

The other product with near limitless functionality is for those of us who aren't master Photoshoppers, but want nifty looking maps and cartography (oh and battle maps too because you can print 1" scale maps for use instead of the messy battle mat). That product is Fluid Software's Dundjinni software. Dundjinni is a full-featured fantasy map creation program. It allows users to create walls and floors, place objects, insert text, and more. It boasts an intuitive interface and an impressive selection of objects and textures (over 190 images). It also allows you to author d20 adventures in a simple yet elegant way.

Mouse Race 2000? Grand Theft Mickey?

It appears, according to ICV2, that the Mouse house has purchased the rights to Roger Corman's Concorde-New Horizons library of films.

This could either be horrifying or entertaining.

Horrifying example number 1:

A remake of Death Race 2000 starring Ben Affleck (Don't forget that Pearl Harbor was a mouse house product)

Horrifying example number 2:

An animated version of Big Bad Momma with music by Tim Rice and Phil Collins. It could happen.

Entertaining option 1:

A remake of Death Race 2000 without Ben Affleck.

Entertaining option 2:

Stitch 3: Little Stitch of Horrors.

Entertaining option 3:

I'll finally get to see Peter Bogdanovich's film Voyage to the Planet of Prehistoric Women.

Feel free to add your own terrified/overjoyed examples in the comments section.

This is Superman?

I agree with Jim Treacher.

From Newsweek's story on the new Superman movie:

Inside a soundstage in Sydney, Australia, Brandon Routh, as the Man of Steel, crawls across a black, wet wasteland, pursued by the evil Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) and Luthor's three henchmen. One of the thugs grabs Superman by his hair and shoves his face into a dark puddle, holding the hero's head underwater as he struggles for air. Luthor strides up behind Superman, stabs him in the back with some sort of Kryptonite shiv and whispers a sentence so horrifying (and, for now, top secret) into his ear that Superman cries out in agony.
That sentence? "I just tested positive."

OK, I thought my post got everything backwards, so here's a rewrite. Of course, now I'm really tired so I just may make it worse.

First, this, combined with what I've heard about Lois having a child of uncertain origin and turning her back on Superman entirely, makes me think that this movie will be rather dark for Superman. I dunno: Superman is one hero who never really left the Silver Age, in my mind anyway.

Second, why are they drowning Superman? Uh, even in post-Crisis continuity, can't he still hold his breath a really, really long time? I guess he's Kryptonited, but still Superman basically getting a swirlie is kind of... off to me.

I mean, I got mad at Spiderman 2 for that. After what seemed like hours of agony, Spiderman swings into action... and gets taken out by Doc Ock. Kinda underwhelming.

And, I don't know if it was the article, the movie, or Treacher's comment, but something about this yells prison sex to me now. The whispering, the drowning, the screaming.

It's especially interesting given the Matthew Shepardization of Clark Kent in the early Smallville posters, I think.

What about it? Uh, I don't want Superman to suck. And, it had some unexpected subtexts, in my (odd) mind, anyway.

Maybe I'm just bitter about Loser Superman in Dark Knight Returns 2. Man, that Superman was lame.

Getting the Object of Your Affections to Appreciate Comic Books. (Part 2)

In an earlier post on Getting the Object of Your Affections to Appreciate Comic Books, it was briefly mentioned that the "post-modern deconstructive" nature of the representation of Superheroes in titles like Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns are probably not the best way to bring new people into the comic book hobby.

The column had been written with the assumption that readers would have read the earlier post discussing Comics and "Art". That article paraphrased a section of Roger Scuton's book Modern Culture in an attempt to illustrate why modern comics sales are low. Even during an era where Spider-Man 2 the movie makes money hand over fist, the Spider-Man comic book title sells fewer than 100,000 copies a month. Why is this? That is the question Cinerati is continually trying to address. To follow up on the Scruton comparison, Cinerati's argument is essentially this.

"Our sympathy for the comic book superhero stems from the deepdown recognition that his predicament is ours. Precisely because we live in a morbidly unheroic world." We as comic book readers are looking for people who can behave heroically in a world gone mad. We are looking for people with "purer" motives than our own. If we look at Spider-Man's original origin, we find a character who initially makes the same decision we would make. We would decide to use our power for profit not virtue and damn the consequences. When faced with the inevitiable consequences of his own failings, the murder of his uncle Ben, Peter Parker rejects his base motiviations and adheres to a mantra. It is a powerful mantra indeed, "With great power comes great responsibility." From that point on the conflicts of Spider-Man's narrative are between desire and responsibility, and Peter relentlessly chooses responsibility. The consequences of forfeiting or surpressing desire are the loss of friends and social alienation, but failing to meet responsibilities leads to death. This is especially true in the early stories by Steve Ditko. Many of Spider-Man's villains are created because he temporarily chose desire over responsibility. It is only though responsible behavior for its own sake that Spider-Man historically received "peace."

The traditional Superhero, up through the early Marvel Era, was often a tragic and lonely figure, but it was also a distinctly moral figure. Superman had his Fortress of Solitude, but even though he had the power to rule the world his primary motivation was to make contact with people and become a "normal man." Superman has no need for a secret identity save the fact that he desires to be a part of the City. Aristotle said that whoever "can live without the City is either a man or a god." Superman an exile from a once great people, who seems to have godlike power, shows us that the best and most powerful of men still require the City and its norms. Similar things can be said of Batman. He has his Batcave and a burning desire for vengeance. Yet he too maintains a social persona, one which strives more than anything to create a new "family."

The traditional Superhero narrative is not pure virtue for virtue's sake with the abandonment of the "real world," but Superheroes are those who exist both inside and outside of the real world. Spider-Man exists completely outside the City, but Peter Parker is a part of it. The same for Batman and Superman. The hero who can live fully within the City is rare, even the Fantastic Four don't quite qualify (especially the ever-lovin' blue eyed Thing).

But this historic narrative changed with sophisticated narratives like Watchmen. In Watchmen we are given a godlike figure who does in fact reject the City and in doing so becomes a beast. We have a moralist who is shown as a madman. While the tale makes for compelling and well written deconstruction it fails as foundation for continuing myth. "Society" had already, post-Nietzsche, killed God (and thus all appeals to moral authority). That was why society needed the artistic myth. The artistic myth is the morally redemptive force Mark Salzman focuses on in his book Lying Awake which allows him to understand how compelling and powerful religion is for the faithful. But in the post-modern comic narrative we are given "the final rejection of high culture as a redemptive force and the ruination of the sacred in its last imagined form." There is nothing redemptive in Watchmen, or in much of modern comics (read The Ultimates and The Ultimates 2) and this is why I think that comics are less appealing to audiences today than the movies based on them. The movies still maintain the "classic" elements, narrative techniques the comics have often abandoned.

Steve Bennett of ICV2 has written a wonderful article with his assessments of low comic readership. His central thesis is, "as currently written and drawn, the super-hero comic book is just too overwhelmingly dark to appeal to [the vast mass audience]." Please read the article.

Like Steve, Cinerati is not claiming that authors should return the writing techniques of some by gone age. Silver Age stories were simplistic and the move to more literary tales is a positive one. But like Steven, we would ask "Is this anyone's idea of fun?"

As always Cinerati would appreciate your feedback regarding comics you think would bring new people into the wonderful world of comics.