You can see the trailer here.
Monday, April 02, 2007
Paizo to Publish Backlisted SF in Planet Stories Line of Books
Magazine and game publisher Paizo Publishing has announced that they will start publishing a line of books featuring backlisted SF and Fantasy titles. The line of books will be published under the heading Planet Stories, and given the nature of the initial catalogue of texts this seems appropriate. Paizo has decided to enter the arena of book publishing in response to the current resistance of larger publishers have to keeping strong backlists. Paizo wants to introduce a new generation of readers to older books which have influenced modern SF and Fantasy, at least that is their claim.
Let's have a look at the validity of that claim by looking at their choices of backlisted books featured in their first wave of publications.
One is struck by a few things when looking at the list. First is the fact that three of these novels fall squarely into the genre known as "Planetary Romance" and one of the authors is a seminal figure in that genre, Leigh Brackett. The focus on Planetary Romance makes it a natural that the line of books should be titled Planet Stories. Incidentally, Planet Stories was the name of a magazine in which Leigh Brackett and Ray Bradbury, among others, were frequently featured.
They even feature Robert E. Howard's (creator of Conan) singular foray into the genre, his novel Almuric. Almuric is an unusual Howard story, so unusual that David Drake, who edited a line of Howard books, speculated that the book might have been written by Otis Adelbert Kline and not Howard. The fact that Kline wrote a number of Planetary Romance novels, in playful competition with Edgar Rice Burroughs, makes the case all the more interesting to imagine even if it is mere speculation.
In addition to the focus on Planetary Romance, one other fact strikes me as particular to the selection of novels. The Anubis Murders is far from a seminal work of SF or Fantasy as far as its influence on modern authors goes, but it is written by a figure seminal in the creation of a genre of game very close at heart to Paizo Publishing's heart. Gary Gygax may not be an SF/F legend, but he is a Founding Father of the Roleplaying Game hobby, which is the focus of Paizo Publishing's two magazines.
What concerns me about the list of chosen novels is how much they ignore the truly overlooked backlisted novel. Sure the Moorcock pastiches to Burroughs are fun and overlooked, but the true inspiration are the Burroughs Mars books which are currently being published by the University of Nebraska Press.. The inclusion of Leigh Brackett is a necessary one, but her works are currently being published by Haffner Press. Yes the editions are more expensive than the $13.00 that Paizo will be charging, but they are hardback and include more stories.
I will certainly be purchasing Paizo's catalogue, but I would like to see the publication list expand from the current list.
Tomorrow, I will likely discuss what I think is a large hole in the current gamer/pulp-nostalgia movement.
Let's have a look at the validity of that claim by looking at their choices of backlisted books featured in their first wave of publications.
Almuric, by Robert E. Howard, is a savage planet of crumbling stone ruins and debased, near-human inhabitants. Into this world comes Esau Cairn, Earthman, swordsman, murderer. Only he can overthrow the terrible devils that enslave Almuric, but to do so he must first defeat the inner demons that forced him to abandon Earth. Filled with vile beasts and thrilling adventure in the tradition of Edgar Rice Burroughs, Almuric is one of Howard’s few novels, and an excellent yarn from one of America’s most distinct literary voices. Robert E. Howard is most known for creating the fictional character, Conan the Cimmerian (a.k.a. Conan the Barbarian), who has been featured in comic books, short stories, novels, and feature films for over 70 years. Howard's work is often credited as the source of the sword-and-sorcery genre and influenced everyone from J.R.R. Tolkien to George R.R. Martin.
The Anubis Murders, by Gary Gygax, weaves a fantastic tale of warring wizards that spans the world from the pyramids of ancient Egypt to the mist-shrouded towns of medieval England. Someone is murdering the world’s most powerful sorcerers, and the trail of blood leads straight to Anubis, the solemn god known by most as the Master of Jackals. Can Magister Setne Inhetep, personal philosopher-wizard to the Pharaoh, reach the distant kingdom of Avillonia and put an end to the Anubis Murders, or will he be claimed as the latest victim? Gary Gygax co-created the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game over 30 years ago and has watched it grow to become one of the largest entertainment sources in the hobby gaming industry. Dungeons & Dragons has been played by tens of millions worldwide and the name Gygax is instantly recognizable to any fans of the game, past or present.
City of the Beast/Warriors of Mars, by Michael Moorcock, features the return of Moorcock's Eternal Champion, Kane of Old Mars, a brilliant American physicist whose strange experiments in matter transmission catapult him across space and time to the Red Planet. Kane’s is a Mars of the distant past, a place of romantic civilizations, fabulous many-spired cities, and the gorgeous princess Shizala. To win her hand and bring peace to Mars, Kane must defeat the terrible Blue Giants of the Argzoon, whose ravaging hordes threaten the whole planet! Adventure in the Edgar Rice Burroughs tradition from the creator of Elric of Melniboné. The first stand-alone American printing since 1979, City of the Beast/Warrior of Mars will be available this September.
Black God's Kiss, by C.L. Moore, was first published in the pages of Weird Tales in 1934. C.L. Moore’s Jirel of Joiry is the first significant female sword-and-sorcery protagonist and one of the most exciting and evocative characters the genre has ever known. Published alongside seminal works by H.P. Lovecraft and Robert E. Howard, the five classic fantasy tales included in this volume easily stand the test of time and often overshadow the storytelling power and emotional impact of stories by Moore’s more famous contemporaries. A seminal work from one of fantasy’s most important authors, Black God’s Kiss is an essential addition to any fantasy library and will be available this October.
Elak of Atlantis, by Henry Kuttner. Published in Weird Tales to satisfy fans of Conan the Barbarian in the wake of Robert E. Howard’s death, the four long stories depict a brutal world of flashing swords and primal magic, touched by a hint of Lovecraft’s Cthulhu mythos. Never collected in a mass market edition since their publication in the late 1930s, these exciting tales helped to establish a genre and are a critical part of any fantasy library. Included as a bonus are Kuttner’s two Prince Raynor stories from 1939’s Strange Tales.
With seminal, thrilling adventure tales from one of the most important writers in science fiction and fantasy, Elak of Atlantis is not to be missed! Available in November 2007.
The Secret of Sinharat, by Leigh Brackett. Enter Eric John Stark, adventurer, rebel, wildman. Raised on the sun-soaked, savage world of Mercury, Stark lives among the people of the civilized solar system, but his veneer of calm masks a warrior’s spirit. In the murderous Martian Drylands the greatest criminals in the galaxy hatch a conspiracy of red revolution. Stark’s involvement leads to the forgotten ruins of the Martian Low Canals, an unlikely romance, and a secret so potent it could shake the Red Planet to its core.
In a special bonus novel, People of the Talisman, Stark ventures to the treacherous polar icecap of Mars to return a stolen talisman to an oppressed people.
The Secret of Sinharat and People of the Talisman make an excellent introduction to the work of Leigh Brackett, a pillar of science fantasy and one of the greatest writers to work in the genre. Talented enough to co-write The Big Sleep with William Faulkner and influential enough to write the original screenplay for The Empire Strikes Back, Brackett’s fiction is no less distinguished than her movie work and never fails to deliver thrills and wry smiles.
One is struck by a few things when looking at the list. First is the fact that three of these novels fall squarely into the genre known as "Planetary Romance" and one of the authors is a seminal figure in that genre, Leigh Brackett. The focus on Planetary Romance makes it a natural that the line of books should be titled Planet Stories. Incidentally, Planet Stories was the name of a magazine in which Leigh Brackett and Ray Bradbury, among others, were frequently featured.
They even feature Robert E. Howard's (creator of Conan) singular foray into the genre, his novel Almuric. Almuric is an unusual Howard story, so unusual that David Drake, who edited a line of Howard books, speculated that the book might have been written by Otis Adelbert Kline and not Howard. The fact that Kline wrote a number of Planetary Romance novels, in playful competition with Edgar Rice Burroughs, makes the case all the more interesting to imagine even if it is mere speculation.
In addition to the focus on Planetary Romance, one other fact strikes me as particular to the selection of novels. The Anubis Murders is far from a seminal work of SF or Fantasy as far as its influence on modern authors goes, but it is written by a figure seminal in the creation of a genre of game very close at heart to Paizo Publishing's heart. Gary Gygax may not be an SF/F legend, but he is a Founding Father of the Roleplaying Game hobby, which is the focus of Paizo Publishing's two magazines.
What concerns me about the list of chosen novels is how much they ignore the truly overlooked backlisted novel. Sure the Moorcock pastiches to Burroughs are fun and overlooked, but the true inspiration are the Burroughs Mars books which are currently being published by the University of Nebraska Press.. The inclusion of Leigh Brackett is a necessary one, but her works are currently being published by Haffner Press. Yes the editions are more expensive than the $13.00 that Paizo will be charging, but they are hardback and include more stories.
I will certainly be purchasing Paizo's catalogue, but I would like to see the publication list expand from the current list.
Tomorrow, I will likely discuss what I think is a large hole in the current gamer/pulp-nostalgia movement.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Today is William Shatner's 76th Birthday
I am not a Star Trek fan or even a Trekkie.
Yes, I own the entire run of "The Original Series," and the "Animated Series," on DVD.
Yes, I am recording the new remastered episodes of "The Original Series" as it airs on NBC late on Sunday nights.
Yes, I can talk about why I think that having Spock and Kirk meet while in Star Fleet Academy is a bad idea for the JJ Abrams film.
All of those things are true. Why? Because I am a William Shatner fan, not a Star Trek fan. Like the lead in Free Enterprise, I cannot stand the 24th century. It is only the classic for me.
I own all of Shatner's Tek War novels, and I find them enjoyable as airplane ride novels. I am a huge fan of Boston Legal. I will watch Kingdom of the Spiders at the drop of a hat. And I can't decide whether Hammy or Ozzie are the best character in Over the Hedge. My head says Hammy, but my heart says Ozzie. I even own a prized copy of the Encyclopedia Shatnerica.
Today is William Shatner's birthday. Happy Birthday Bill, and thanks for all that you've done to entertain me and my fellow fans.
Since I can't afford to go and visit the William Shatner building at McGill University in Montreal, I'll settle for going out and buying a frame for my autographed William Shatner picture. I know just the place, in my game room, to put it.
Yes, I own the entire run of "The Original Series," and the "Animated Series," on DVD.
Yes, I am recording the new remastered episodes of "The Original Series" as it airs on NBC late on Sunday nights.
Yes, I can talk about why I think that having Spock and Kirk meet while in Star Fleet Academy is a bad idea for the JJ Abrams film.
All of those things are true. Why? Because I am a William Shatner fan, not a Star Trek fan. Like the lead in Free Enterprise, I cannot stand the 24th century. It is only the classic for me.
I own all of Shatner's Tek War novels, and I find them enjoyable as airplane ride novels. I am a huge fan of Boston Legal. I will watch Kingdom of the Spiders at the drop of a hat. And I can't decide whether Hammy or Ozzie are the best character in Over the Hedge. My head says Hammy, but my heart says Ozzie. I even own a prized copy of the Encyclopedia Shatnerica.
Today is William Shatner's birthday. Happy Birthday Bill, and thanks for all that you've done to entertain me and my fellow fans.
Since I can't afford to go and visit the William Shatner building at McGill University in Montreal, I'll settle for going out and buying a frame for my autographed William Shatner picture. I know just the place, in my game room, to put it.
Today is the Day the World Was Told Internetelevision is Here to Stay
According to PaidContent.org, NBC Universal and News Corp will be partnering with AOL, Yahoo!, and MSN to bring the world the largest Internet Video distribution network to date. This announcement marks the beginning of true internetelevision, from this day forward your computer is an interactive television network.
From the looks of it, you will be able to interact with the video content in a multitude of ways. As expected, we will be able to watch many of our favorite shows, but we will also be allowed to futz with them now as well. Okay, we've always been "able" to futz with them, but now we will be able to do so without the Man coming down on us. The man will be giving us the tools to futz with the stuff.
The full press release has lots of exciting news for fans and investors.
From the looks of it, you will be able to interact with the video content in a multitude of ways. As expected, we will be able to watch many of our favorite shows, but we will also be allowed to futz with them now as well. Okay, we've always been "able" to futz with them, but now we will be able to do so without the Man coming down on us. The man will be giving us the tools to futz with the stuff.
The full press release has lots of exciting news for fans and investors.
What Cathy Seipp's Friends Have to Say.
For any of you who might read this blog, but don't read any of the blogs of Cathy Seipp's many friends, here is a list of blogs who have written about this wonderful woman.
"Life Gives You Cancer, You Make Cancerade:" A Tribute to Cathy Seipp (Edited 3/22/2007 9:10)
Photo by Jim LowneyMy wife and I love Cathy Seipp, she is one of the people who made Los Angeles feel like home to us. That's not an easy job considering how intimidating this very large city was for a young couple from Reno, Nevada. We weren't quite doe eyed, but we were very much intimidated by the vastness and potential coldness of the big city. Cathy Seipp made Los Angeles feel like a small town where all things were possible. Cathy is the reason my wife has her current job and her declining health is the reason I feel so sad right now.
Before I write too much about how I got to know Cathy and what she means to me, I think it is only fair if I let Cathy tell you a little bit about herself. Since eulogies are the best time to wax poetic, and since my words are likely to fall far short of what she deserves, I would like to open with Cathy's self-described favorite poem.
On September 24, 2004 in an online interview with Norman Geras, Cathy was asked if she has a favorite poem. Her response was, "One that often echoes in my head is 'Pied Beauty' by Gerard Manley Hopkins. She also blogged about her love of this poem in a post about a conversation she had with the manager of The Stand. Just picturing her at the gourmet hot dog venue where the shift manager has a Ph.D. in English Literature provides the perfect image of the Los Angeles I have come to love thanks to Cathy. It is a place where one finds beauty in the oddest places, like Ph.D. hotdog boutique managers. The Hopkins poem she described is as follows:
GLORY be to God for dappled things --
For skies of couple-colour as the brinded cow;
For rose-moles all in stipple upon trout that swim;
Fresh-firecoal chestnut-falls; finches' wings;
Landscape plotted and pieced - fold, fallow, and plough;
And áll trádes, their gear and tackle and trim.
All things counter, original, spare, strange;
Whatever is fickle, freckled (who knows how?)
With swift, slow; sweet, sour; adazzle, dim;
He fathers-forth whose beauty is past change:
Praise him.
Cathy is a wonderful woman who somehow manages a balancing act that allows her to be an utter snob, while simultaneously being able to discuss her love of Donald Duck in Mathemagicland and Joss Whedon's Firefly (and the Buffyverse for that matter). It is no wonder that I fell in love with her writing so rapidly. Her writing is funny, smart, sophisticated, and disarmingly pop-culture savvy. In other words, she is exactly what I think a modern critic should be. I only wish I had discovered her writing sooner, so that I could claim to have been a fan since her days at Buzz. I also wish, very selfishly, that I could have known her better and for longer.
Like many other people, I came to know her first as a commenter on her blog Cathy's World. Which isn't exactly true, I first read her at National Review Online. My job at a non-profit devoted to youth civic engagement has me constantly looking for potential speakers and reading multiple political magazines. After reading heavy handed reactionary pieces about how our culture is going to Hell in a hand-basket, Cathy's columns were a breath of fresh air. She was an ideal candidate for a "cross-expectational" conservative speaker at discussion forums.
"If only there was some way, I could get to know her so that I could ask her to speak at one of our events without being presumptuous," I said to myself. Lo and behold, I looked on the bottom of the NRO webpage and saw a link to her blog.
During her over four years of blogging, Cathy Seipp gathered and interesting group of commenters. For a large part of those four years, I was one of them. I wasn't a commenter on her first blog entry, but then again no one else was there yet. No one commented her interesting post about whether dog barks are free speech either. She didn't even have Haloscan which allowed non-journalspace commenters until her 107th post. Nor was I a commenter on her last blog entry, there were so many that I would easily have been lost in the haystack.
Near as I can tell, my first comment was in response to her 353rd blog post where she discussed marketing to children. I wrote the following:
Wish I was a member, my comments could be longer.
One, the market assumes rational actors, i.e. people acting in their own self interest. Enlightened self-interest if you will.
Two, kids don't have enlightened self interest, but unfocused greed.
Three, parents do have enlightened self interest.
Four, government has tried to replace the parent in far too many ways.
Five, even Adam Smith considered the government a part of the Marketplace.
There is more, but I am sure I won't have room to type it or even elaborate.
Not exactly the best first paragraph to write or say to someone to begin a friendship. Could you imagine a guy walking up to you at a bar in the middle of a conversation and saying the above? My second response wasn't much better. In an effort to not seem so "geeky," I made a feeble attempt at a funny comment on her 354th post where she asked if anyone knew how to "take care" of her "raccoon problem." I wittily responded with a link to a video game ad and wrote, "Personally, I say if you can't beat them join them. Make sure you click on the safe to finish the flash animation."
Somehow, even after such an ignoble beginning, I managed to become a friend of Cathy's, or rather came to consider her as a friend. She was a reliable and willing participant in a number of my program's events. She even introduced me to her amazing group of friends, a group of smart people with widely differing political views who could only be found around a woman as amazing as Cathy. When Cathy spoke at my events, she was usually the panelist that the students most remembered. They were taken by her unique sense of style, metropolitan bohemian conservative, and her forceful personality. She was never one to back down from a disagreement in any of the discussions in which she participated.
Though none of the disagreements on Arsalyn panels could compare to the confrontation she had with Lawrence O'Donnell on the Dennis Miller Show. The look she gave Lawrence O'Donnell after he exclaimed "Every single teacher my daughter has had has been a GREAT teacher" was priceless. And her response, "You're delusional," was classic Cathy. It was a strong, direct, and unapologetic response to what she thought was a ridiculous statement. I think it was her ability to be strong, direct, and unapologetic was what made her such a surprise to the students at my events. I don't think that many young people expect a conservative female columnist to be as independent as Cathy and it isn't an act with Cathy. She means what she says.
Contrary to the image of "the scowling critic" that the O'Donnell story might raise in your mind, most of my memories of Cathy are of her smiling or laughing. She had a wonderful smile, and whenever I was in her company I would try to make her smile. Sometimes my attempts were feeble and I would be rewarded with judgmental eyes behind a light smile. Other times, I could tell I really tickled her funny bone. I think maybe my best attempt at making her laugh was a piece I wrote in March 2005 in response to a feud she had been having with Susan Estrich. It also included a couple, okay quite a few, inside jokes. I was also making fun of a particular "Troll Dolls" character, who has been up to some recent wickedness from what I hear. Both Cathy and Maia seemed to really enjoy the piece, Maia even posted it on her Facebook (please read it, she found it very funny). I think it captures her as well as anything else I could write.
I guess it is her sense of humor which inspired her to have a living wake where many of her friends roasted her while also demonstrating how much they love her. I very much liked Rob Long's table setting roast and have included it below, but I should mention that everybody who presented did a bang up job and you can find video of the event at You Tube. Just type Cathy Seipp Roast and you should be directed to the right webpage.
I can't say how much Cathy has done for me and for Jody, but I never would have met her if her daughter Maia hadn't forced her to create a blog. Though my own mom died when I was an undergraduate at the University of Nevada, I am not so bold as to say that I understand how Maia will feel. Our circumstances are very different. But I would like to share some of my thoughts with her, if she is reading this (or this far down). I have recently been imagining meeting Cathy after I pass this mortal coil. In my imagination, I find her sitting next a warm fire talking with C.S. Lewis and comparing notes with my mom. He was one of her favorite writers and, not surprisingly, he wrote a book about loss and grief. I found great solace in Lewis's observations after my mom died. What struck me most was an observation he made about emotional suffering. Lewis wrote:
Aren't all these notes the senseless writhings of a man who won't accept the fact that there is nothing we can do with suffering except to suffer it? Who still thinks there is some device (if only he could find it) which will make pain not to be pain. It doesn't really matter whether you grip the arms of the dentist's chair or let your hands lie in your lap. The drill drills on.
And grief still feels like fear. Perhaps, more strictly, like suspense. Or like waiting; just hanging about waiting for something to happen. it gives life a permanently provisional feeling. It doesn't seem worth starting anything. I can't settle down.
I found solace in the fact that others had felt as hopeless and empty as I had. I also found solace in the Chaos chapter of The Education of Henry Adams. It, too, captured some sense of how I felt.
One had heard and read a great deal about death, and even seen a little of it, and knew by heart the thousand commonplaces of religion and poetry which seemed to deaden one's senses and veil the horror. Society being immortal, could put on immortality at will. Adams being mortal, felt only the mortality. Death took features altogether new to him, in these rich and sensuous surroundings. Nature enjoyed it, played with it, the horror added to her charm, she liked the torture, and smothered her victim with caresses. Never had one seen her so winning. The hot Italian summer brooded outside, over the market-place and the picturesque peasants, and, in the singular color of the Tuscan atmosphere, the hills and vineyards of the Apennines seemed bursting with mid-summer blood. The sick-room itself glowed with the Italian joy of life; friends filled it; no harsh northern lights pierced the soft shadows; even the dying women shared the sense of the Italian summer, the soft, velvet air, the humor, the courage, the sensual fullness of Nature and man. She faced death, as women mostly do, bravely and even gaily, racked slowly to unconsciousness, but yielding only to violence, as a soldier sabred in battle. For many thousands of years, on these hills and plains, Nature had gone on sabring men and women with the same air of sensual pleasure.
Cathy once told me that one of her favorite films was The Lady Vanishes. It is one of my favorites too. Cathy affected enough lives that I don't believe she, or her influence, will ever vanish.
Some have said that in a just world someone like Cathy wouldn't die so soon, but I don't think that is right. In an unjust world, I would never have met Cathy, her friends, or her lovely daughter.
Monday, March 19, 2007
300 and the Disconnect Between Critics and Viewers
Peter Bart, over at Variety, wrote a column last Thursday about how so far this has been a year where there is a large disconnect between what critics opinions of a movie are and what the viewing audience's opinion is. He bases what the audience's opinion is based on the financial success of a particular film rather than on some kind of random survey data. I imagine that his method is as accurate as a good survey would be, people do vote with their dollars. This is particularly true if a given film is successful for more than one week, which implies that word of mouth was positive rather than negative. Bart has noticed that the audience reactions to Ghost Rider, 300, Wild Hogs, and Norbit are very much out of synch with the reactions of critics.
Ben Fritz, at the same magazine, also writes about the critical reaction to 300 and focuses on how the critics often compare 300 to a video game. Fritz argues that the critics use of this comparison is "both artistically demeaning and substantively wrong." Fritz doesn't, and he likely should in a future article, articulate how the opposite is more often true. Videogames are becoming more like films, a statement that is both artistically complimentary and substantively correct. One need only watch a few of the interstitial sequences in Marvel Ultimate Alliance to discern that the Marvel video game is attempting to create an entertaining narrative while also allowing the player to beat hell out of Dr. Doom and the Masters of Evil.
Which brings me back to the Bart article. Bart asks a couple of key questions in his editorial criticizing the critics. His central, and most important question, is whether "critics make a passing attempt to tune in to pop culture?" Bart begs the question, but he doesn't directly answer it. His editorial is more a discussion starter than an answer, though one could guess his answer might be a caveat laden "Yes...but..."
I would have liked to see Bart take a brave stand on this issue, which I don't believe is limited to this year's box office or critics. I think that it has been a problem for quite some time. I have often in conversation asked my friends, "Do you think that (insert favorite hated critic here) would like That Touch of Mink or Ben Hur if it came out today?" I usually get one of two reactions to this question. Sometimes my interlocutor agrees with me that the critic would hate both of these films, and might add that they would also dislike M because it ends advocating the execution of a child molester by "extra legal" means. Other times, the response might be that the person had never thought about that particular question. It often seems to me that critics are so fond of the French New Wave that they have rejected the idea that movies can be entertaining, they must have meaning!
With Bart not providing an answer to the question, one can be thankful that sci-fi writer extraordinaire Neal Stephenson decided to weigh in on the disconnect between critics and audience in yesterday's New York Times. His point was that the critics who negatively review the film won't even give the film a serious review, possibly because the subject matter is rooted in geekdom (at least in the case of 300). He also brings up some of the criticisms that have been thrown at the movie and dismisses them by saying, "such criticisms aren't really worth arguing with, because they are not serious in the first place -- and that is their whole point. Many critics dislike 300 so intensely that they refused to do it the honor of criticizing it as if it were a real movie." I agree. I also believe that any critic who feels this way is also practicing a bit of onanism. They are writing to read just how creatively they can mock a movie, and their only real audience is themselves. They "know" that audiences, lowest common denominator brutes that we are, will like the movie regardless of their review. So they decide to write witty and scathing responses so they can read just how well they can mock a movie. This is about as morally edifying as some critics have said they thought 300 was.
Stephenson provides a couple of key quotes from critics he finds to be particularly good examples of this type of criticism, but one in particular stood out to me.
As I have already pointed out, in quoting Victor Davis Hanson, "If critics think that 300 reduces and simplifies the meaning of Thermopylae into freedom versus tyranny, they should reread carefully ancient accounts and then blame Herodotus, Plutarch, and Diodorus — who long ago boasted that Greek freedom was on trial against Persian autocracy, free men in superior fashion dying for their liberty, their enslaved enemies being whipped to enslave others." But such critics deserve more than an appeal to History as a response, as these critics exhibit one of the greatest flaws I believe a critic can have. These critics lack a love of virtue and in aesthetics this is almost unforgivable, at least in aesthetics as traditionally understood (Schiller, Kant, Hegel) and not in criticism how it is currently taught (Gramsci, Krakauer, Baudrillard). Before you flame me, it should be noted that I very much like Simulacra and Simulation and the Mirror of Production and think Benjamin's analysis in The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction is wonderfully insightful given YouTube etc. My point isn't that aesthetic critical discussions oughtn't include observations by the Frankfurt School and Post-Structuralists, rather that critics should also be aware of earlier aesthetic studies and their links to how aesthetics represent/affect virtue.
Nietzsche gave this kind of study a bad name, but that is because he turned the arguments on their head much like Marx did with Hegel. Of course, one should never forget the power of irony in philosophy, but that is another discussion.
These high art vs. vulgar art critics, a very Adorno-esque dichotomy, disdain both pious depictions of morality and the base comedy of films like The Wedding Crashers. Nevermind that Aristophanes has a multi-page discussion of farts and fart jokes in his play The Clouds. One word...Thunder. Just think about it. I hear that in Ancient Phrygia they used the word Phartos to describe Thunder. Most people turn off when I mention Aristophanes in a conversation, and my knowledge of his plays is much shallower than Fritz's (cinerati Fritz not Variety Fritz). Most people think I am making a high art vs. vulgar art distinction and trying to talk down to them when I am doing just the opposite. I am trying to demonstrate how even "high art" has abundant fart jokes. Don't even get me started on Shakespeare.
Back to the virtue discussion and whether 300 should be ironic. One of the classical virtues is that of thumos a kind of spritedness which combines patriotism and courage. It is the virtue that is central to the Spartan society. In fact, Spartan society might be said to value thumos over almost any other part of virtue as we understand it. Spiritedness is a powerful force in people, we like to take pride in our society and we value those who fight to defend it. That is thumos in a nutshell and that is what 300 is about. The film doesn't spend time showing us the ways that Sparta was unjust, and they were in many ways, because then the film -- and comic -- would be about Sparta. This film isn't about Sparta, it is about thumos.
Those critics who fear that the film is fascistic because of its overemphasis of thumos do have a point, but not as large a point as they believe. If the film were merely about thumos it would be true, but the films is also about freedom, equality under the law, and the need for just rulers. There is a reason that Plato devoted two dialogues toward critiquing Spartan culture. Both his Republic and The Laws present critiques of societies based solely on thumos. The "republic" of the Republic everyone tells you Plato thought was the "Just" society (though they forget to tell you how easily Plato has this society decay)? That could easily be read as a description of Sparta. And one of the key interlocutors in The Laws is a great Spartan who comes to understand that thumos and courage are only a part of Justice, the Stranger argues that Wisdom is the central component of Justice. These are not talked about in the film, but those would be the discussions to have if you wanted to criticize the film.
Instead a critic talked about how the film wasn't sufficiently ironic, as if the virtues the film advances ought not be taken seriously at all. Or that if you want them to be taken seriously you must use them ironically. This is the mentality that Roger Scruton argues against in his book on Modern Culture when he writes,
This is how critics are reacting to Miller's 300, they have disdain for its open admiration of nobility. That disdain must naturally result in mockery. Ironically, I have argued that Frank Miller himself helped contribute to the crisis in modern comics where the hero is eternally deconstructed when the "constructed" hero is so badly needed.
What do we need more in a world where our choices are so often gray, than a hero who has a clear and consistent morality?
Ben Fritz, at the same magazine, also writes about the critical reaction to 300 and focuses on how the critics often compare 300 to a video game. Fritz argues that the critics use of this comparison is "both artistically demeaning and substantively wrong." Fritz doesn't, and he likely should in a future article, articulate how the opposite is more often true. Videogames are becoming more like films, a statement that is both artistically complimentary and substantively correct. One need only watch a few of the interstitial sequences in Marvel Ultimate Alliance to discern that the Marvel video game is attempting to create an entertaining narrative while also allowing the player to beat hell out of Dr. Doom and the Masters of Evil.
Which brings me back to the Bart article. Bart asks a couple of key questions in his editorial criticizing the critics. His central, and most important question, is whether "critics make a passing attempt to tune in to pop culture?" Bart begs the question, but he doesn't directly answer it. His editorial is more a discussion starter than an answer, though one could guess his answer might be a caveat laden "Yes...but..."
I would have liked to see Bart take a brave stand on this issue, which I don't believe is limited to this year's box office or critics. I think that it has been a problem for quite some time. I have often in conversation asked my friends, "Do you think that (insert favorite hated critic here) would like That Touch of Mink or Ben Hur if it came out today?" I usually get one of two reactions to this question. Sometimes my interlocutor agrees with me that the critic would hate both of these films, and might add that they would also dislike M because it ends advocating the execution of a child molester by "extra legal" means. Other times, the response might be that the person had never thought about that particular question. It often seems to me that critics are so fond of the French New Wave that they have rejected the idea that movies can be entertaining, they must have meaning!
With Bart not providing an answer to the question, one can be thankful that sci-fi writer extraordinaire Neal Stephenson decided to weigh in on the disconnect between critics and audience in yesterday's New York Times. His point was that the critics who negatively review the film won't even give the film a serious review, possibly because the subject matter is rooted in geekdom (at least in the case of 300). He also brings up some of the criticisms that have been thrown at the movie and dismisses them by saying, "such criticisms aren't really worth arguing with, because they are not serious in the first place -- and that is their whole point. Many critics dislike 300 so intensely that they refused to do it the honor of criticizing it as if it were a real movie." I agree. I also believe that any critic who feels this way is also practicing a bit of onanism. They are writing to read just how creatively they can mock a movie, and their only real audience is themselves. They "know" that audiences, lowest common denominator brutes that we are, will like the movie regardless of their review. So they decide to write witty and scathing responses so they can read just how well they can mock a movie. This is about as morally edifying as some critics have said they thought 300 was.
Stephenson provides a couple of key quotes from critics he finds to be particularly good examples of this type of criticism, but one in particular stood out to me.
300 is not sufficiently ironic. It takes themes (duty, loyalty, sacrifice, the preservation of Western civilization against enormous odds) too seriously to, well, be taken seriously.
As I have already pointed out, in quoting Victor Davis Hanson, "If critics think that 300 reduces and simplifies the meaning of Thermopylae into freedom versus tyranny, they should reread carefully ancient accounts and then blame Herodotus, Plutarch, and Diodorus — who long ago boasted that Greek freedom was on trial against Persian autocracy, free men in superior fashion dying for their liberty, their enslaved enemies being whipped to enslave others." But such critics deserve more than an appeal to History as a response, as these critics exhibit one of the greatest flaws I believe a critic can have. These critics lack a love of virtue and in aesthetics this is almost unforgivable, at least in aesthetics as traditionally understood (Schiller, Kant, Hegel) and not in criticism how it is currently taught (Gramsci, Krakauer, Baudrillard). Before you flame me, it should be noted that I very much like Simulacra and Simulation and the Mirror of Production and think Benjamin's analysis in The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction is wonderfully insightful given YouTube etc. My point isn't that aesthetic critical discussions oughtn't include observations by the Frankfurt School and Post-Structuralists, rather that critics should also be aware of earlier aesthetic studies and their links to how aesthetics represent/affect virtue.
Nietzsche gave this kind of study a bad name, but that is because he turned the arguments on their head much like Marx did with Hegel. Of course, one should never forget the power of irony in philosophy, but that is another discussion.
These high art vs. vulgar art critics, a very Adorno-esque dichotomy, disdain both pious depictions of morality and the base comedy of films like The Wedding Crashers. Nevermind that Aristophanes has a multi-page discussion of farts and fart jokes in his play The Clouds. One word...Thunder. Just think about it. I hear that in Ancient Phrygia they used the word Phartos to describe Thunder. Most people turn off when I mention Aristophanes in a conversation, and my knowledge of his plays is much shallower than Fritz's (cinerati Fritz not Variety Fritz). Most people think I am making a high art vs. vulgar art distinction and trying to talk down to them when I am doing just the opposite. I am trying to demonstrate how even "high art" has abundant fart jokes. Don't even get me started on Shakespeare.
Back to the virtue discussion and whether 300 should be ironic. One of the classical virtues is that of thumos a kind of spritedness which combines patriotism and courage. It is the virtue that is central to the Spartan society. In fact, Spartan society might be said to value thumos over almost any other part of virtue as we understand it. Spiritedness is a powerful force in people, we like to take pride in our society and we value those who fight to defend it. That is thumos in a nutshell and that is what 300 is about. The film doesn't spend time showing us the ways that Sparta was unjust, and they were in many ways, because then the film -- and comic -- would be about Sparta. This film isn't about Sparta, it is about thumos.
Those critics who fear that the film is fascistic because of its overemphasis of thumos do have a point, but not as large a point as they believe. If the film were merely about thumos it would be true, but the films is also about freedom, equality under the law, and the need for just rulers. There is a reason that Plato devoted two dialogues toward critiquing Spartan culture. Both his Republic and The Laws present critiques of societies based solely on thumos. The "republic" of the Republic everyone tells you Plato thought was the "Just" society (though they forget to tell you how easily Plato has this society decay)? That could easily be read as a description of Sparta. And one of the key interlocutors in The Laws is a great Spartan who comes to understand that thumos and courage are only a part of Justice, the Stranger argues that Wisdom is the central component of Justice. These are not talked about in the film, but those would be the discussions to have if you wanted to criticize the film.
Instead a critic talked about how the film wasn't sufficiently ironic, as if the virtues the film advances ought not be taken seriously at all. Or that if you want them to be taken seriously you must use them ironically. This is the mentality that Roger Scruton argues against in his book on Modern Culture when he writes,
"modern producers, embarrassed by dramas that make a mockery of their way of life, decide in their turn to make a mockery of the dramas. Of course, even today, musicians and singers, responding as they must to the urgency and sincerity of the music, do their best to produce the sounds...intended. But the action is invariably caricatured, wrapped in inverted commas, and reduced to the dimensions of a television sitcom. Sarcasm and satire run riot on the stage, not because they have anything to prove or say in the shadow of this unsurpassably noble music, but because nobility has become intolerable. The producer tries to distract the audience from [the] message, and to mock every heroic gesture, lest the point of the drama should finally come home."
This is how critics are reacting to Miller's 300, they have disdain for its open admiration of nobility. That disdain must naturally result in mockery. Ironically, I have argued that Frank Miller himself helped contribute to the crisis in modern comics where the hero is eternally deconstructed when the "constructed" hero is so badly needed.
What do we need more in a world where our choices are so often gray, than a hero who has a clear and consistent morality?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)