While in Paris Hilton is my favorite hotel chain.

In his Regarding Media column in the L.A. Times on Sunday, Tim Rutten raises a number of interesting questions regarding the proper role of the media when it comes to reporting the misbehavior of celebrities. After reading books like Anger's Hollywood Babylon, I wonder if Rutten’s doom and gloom is misplaced, but I get some of his point. There are interesting legal and philosophical concerns about a judge “making an example” out a defendant not based on the seriousness of her crime, but because she is infamous enough that other people will notice her fate. I’m going to ignore all of that to concentrate on one rather minor paragraph. Rutten writes,

If you inserted Paris Hilton's name into your grocery list and posted it on the web, you'd get tens of thousands of hits. They don't mean anything, but that hasn't stopped desperate news editors from grabbing onto what they mistake for useful information the way a drowning man or woman clutches at anything that might keep them afloat.

Now, obviously, Rutten was exaggerating; there is no way that Cinerati, by posting the name Paris Hilton repeatedly in an otherwise unrelated story, would generate tens of thousands of hits in extra traffic. I think that Rutten’s point is that Paris Hilton, or Lindsay Lohan, or Britney Spears, are known brands, which, by themselves, empty of all other content, generate interest and, thus, readership. The question remains, however, how much traffic would we generate if we repeated the words Paris Hilton over and over again? Will we see an appreciable spike in readership?

So, watch this space for updates. We’ll try to keep you apprised so that if it does in fact work you too can drive traffic to your site by incorporating the words Paris and Hilton in your posts.

Great Art Attracts at Any Wage

Ewan McGregor is returning to the stage at the Donmar Warehouse in London. Unlike his high paying film gigs though, this time McGregor will be making the Equity minimum wage (according to The Press Association). McGregor will be playing Iago in a production of Othello set to open in December.

It is no mystery to me why a highly paid actor would want to take this role instead of (or in addition to) another higher paying gig. McGregor will be playing on of Shakespeare's most famous villains and one of literature's most interesting characters. As a reader, I want to read wonderful things, and actors want to act in wonderful things. If you can afford to, which McGregor certainly can, then you do it at any price.

Though I am still waiting for the version of Othello where Iago is represented as a projection from Othello's own psyche, but that will have to wait. As it is, I wish I were going to be in London this Winter to watch one of my favorite actors.

Flash Gordon Returns to DVD on August 7.

I have fond memories of the weekend of January 10th, 1981. It was the weekend when I celebrated my 10th birthday and finally achieved what my father called "double digit midget" status. It was also when I was finally able to see Mike Hodges' Flash Gordon on the big screen. The film had been out for almost a month and I wanted nothing more than to watch a "modern" big screen adaptation of my favorite serial at the local theater. I had been watching episodes of the serial at my grandparent's house on the weekends and I was hooked. Sam Jones might not have been Buster Crabbe, but it was still Flash! by God. I am sure my dad was fed up with my begging by that weekend, but he happily designed the day around a trip to the film.

It was a wonderful day, yet in the present I look back at the day with a mild sense of nostalgic melancholy. Not because of my distinct memory of the local DJ sawing the soundtrack in half "on the air," all because the station's listeners had decided the album was destined to be "Trash" and not a "Smash." Given how much I like soundtrack, I have distrusted democratic systems ever since.

The day has melancholy because it was wonderful. I went with my two best friends, Stephanie and Joe. Two people who wouldn't be friends for much longer, likely due to the day's activities. You see...Joe tried to pick up on Stephanie at the film, in the awkward way that 10 year-olds flirt. All of which is represented in the awkward classroom note passed surreptitiously asking the target of your affection the most important question of all:

I like you.
Do you like me?

Put a check by choice:

Yes _____

No _____

The note was almost universally returned with the aloof Maybe handwritten in and checked. Even at 10 women know how to be mysteriously alluring.

Stephanie was my maybe. I have memories of walking to her house to play Atari during the afternoons after school. We would talk, laugh, and shoot each other's tanks while playing Combat. I can still think of no better date than two friends spending time together doing something they both enjoy. Atari with Stephanie was wonderful, but after Joe did his subtle "stretch while putting his arm around her" move at the theater those days didn't happen any more. Of course, I can't just blame Joe. My bizarre 10 year-old version of jealousy certainly contributed. It amounted to me attempting my own version of Joe's move. Needless to say it wasn't my best moment.

Regardless of strain attending a movie put upon my friendships, I loved the movie. I loved everything about it, especially Timothy Dalton as Prince Barin. He captured a version of Barin I had yet to experience. Gone was the doughy and dim version from the serials, here was a dashing and charismatic rival for Flash. I could finally understand why Aura might be attracted to Barin, a concept that totally alluded me when watching the Buster Crabbe version. I hadn't read any of the comic strips at this point, so my Barin experience had been limited. Timothy Dalton was perfect for the role and brought an Errol Flynn aura to the movie.

Flash Gordon is one of the few times that I have liked a campy version of one of my passions. A good campy film is a rare gem because it requires both integrity of adaptation while simultaneously taking jabs at the source material. I thought, and still do, that Flash Gordon achieves this delicate balance. The only thing I don't like are some of the visual effects, the weird reddish purple clouds get old, but I can forgive that.

I recently wanted to purchase a copy of Flash on DVD, but was shocked that region 1 versions were running upwards of $50 on Ebay. I had resigned myself to wait for a new release and it looks like I won't have to wait long. Flash Gordon is returning to DVD on August 7th with it's "Saviour of the Universe Edition."




The new digitally remastered version includes a painted cover by fan favorite comic artist Alex Ross (Marvels) and the first chapter of the classic Buster Crabbe serial, in addition to a couple of other cool bonus features. Though the version is campy, it remains honest to the source material and captures a lot of what attracted me to the 4 color strips when I finally discovered those. When watching the film, look for moments that inspired Star Wars that were drawn from the strips and the serial. Though Flash came out in 1980, the source material is much older and the "imitation" is of the source and not of Lucas' work. They were both inspired by the same muse, the pen of Alex Raymond.

If they were to do a special theatrical release the same weekend I would wait in line for this film, melancholy memories and all.

Playing Games Illegal in South Carolina

For some time state Rep. Wallace Scarborough, R-Charleston has been trying to add an exception to Title 16, Chapter 19 of the South Carolina Code of Laws to allow for charity Poker tournaments. According to the Post and Courier, it seems that his plan has run into a little snag. It appears that Title 16, Chapter 19 makes the playing of any game that uses dice or cards an illegal act.

When I first read the Post and Courier article I giggled. I assumed that the article was a delayed April Fool's Day joke, and the snarky tone of the article contributed to my assumption. The author of the article couldn't refrain from inserting as many game names as possible into the piece, which detracted from the article's credibility. Sadly, the fact is that the law is pretty clear. In fact, "dice and cards" aren't the only thing that makes a game illegal. Let's have a look at the law:

SECTION 16-19-40. Unlawful games and betting.

If any person shall play at any tavern, inn, store for the retailing of spirituous liquors or in any house used as a place of gaming, barn, kitchen, stable or other outhouse, street, highway, open wood, race field or open place at (a) any game with cards or dice, (b) any gaming table, commonly called A, B, C, or E, O, or any gaming table known or distinguished by any other letters or by any figures, (c) any roley-poley table, (d) rouge et noir, (e) any faro bank (f) any other table or bank of the same or the like kind under any denomination whatsoever or (g) any machine or device licensed pursuant to Section 12-21-2720 and used for gambling purposes, except the games of billiards, bowls, backgammon, chess, draughts, or whist when there is no betting on any such game of billiards, bowls, backgammon, chess, draughts, or whist or shall bet on the sides or hands of such as do game, upon being convicted thereof, before any magistrate, shall be imprisoned for a period of not over thirty days or fined not over one hundred dollars, and every person so keeping such tavern, inn, retail store, public place, or house used as a place for gaming or such other house shall, upon being convicted thereof, upon indictment, be imprisoned for a period not exceeding twelve months and forfeit a sum not exceeding two thousand dollars, for each and every offense.

I'm going to excerpt portions, hopefully without changing meaning, which make this law absurd.

If any person shall play...in any house used as a place of gaming...any game with cards or dice,...except the games of billiards, bowls, backgammon, chess, draughts, or whist when there is no betting...upon being convicted thereof, before any magistrate, shall be imprisoned for a period of not over thirty days or fined not over one hundred dollars

So it is illegal to play most games that exist on the market today without technically breaking this law. In the Post and Courier article the Attorney General's office is quoted as saying, "Our research and reading of the law suggests that Candyland, for the moment, is safe in South Carolina," but this is actually an inaccurate statement. Given that Candyland, traditionally, uses cards to determine movement, it violates the wording of the law. The travel version of Candyland with its spinner based movement might be legal, but for one clarification in the law. You will notice that the law contains a list of games that are excepted from punishment. These games include draughts (checkers), chess, and billiards. Correct me if I am wrong, but checkers, chess, and billiards all lack dice or cards in game play. It should also be added that none of those three could be considered "games of chance" as they are either "perfect knowledge" or a "dexterity based" games. By including examples of games to exclude from conviction games which contain neither dice nor cards, the law broadens the definition of gaming.

To be honest, it is pretty clear that the law is intended to exclude games played for the purpose of betting, but the language is vague enough to allow for a broad reading. And to be fair, it is within the "proper" scope of police powers to exclude any kind of gambling, regardless of the game being used as the basis for betting. But given that the law makes it clear that chess, checkers, and billiards are okay to play when there is no betting, but doesn't exclude the play of any game so long as there is no betting involved, this is a poorly written law. It is an example of how legislatures don't often think when they create legislation.

The law could have been simple. Instead, it is vague and unenforceable as written.

Where Have I Been?!

Those of you who stop by this site every now and then, both of you, might just be wondering why I haven't posted since April 18th. It certainly isn't because nothing has been going on in the world, rather it is due to the fact that I have been wandering the wilds of Wisconsin. Oh, and catching a game at Wrigley Field.



From time to time, I have to travel for work and the past week has been one such occasion. While in Wisconsin, I spent time in the wonderful city of Racine discussing ways to inspire young people to vote in next year's elections (primary and general). I was able to meet with a number of exciting individuals who work for some remarkable organizations. The work was very rewarding and I came away from the get together with a tremendous amount of energy and ready to get back to work.

That said, I love Wisconsin. I don't know that I ever want to live there, the winters are too harsh, the springs (even the 40 degree raining springs) are beautiful.



Of course...Chicago is pretty cool too.

Frustrated with the NYT and the Media Generally

In the wake of the recent massacre at Virginia Tech, the New York Times (and other media outlets) are desperately looking for "reasons" why someone might perpetrate the murder of over 30 people. They are looking for these answers in the sparse moments between the hours of exploitation of the victims and their families. Welcome to the Big Carnival. At least Jack Shafer is willing to point out how the press is going overboard. NBC and ABC actually did Facebook solicitations for interviews, talk about tacky.

The Times streaming blog regarding the Virginia Tech murders has recently revealed that the perpetrator imitated an image from the Korean film Oldboy, which we all know no "right minded" individual could enjoy.

I was so happy to hear that I am a "cult-film aficionados for whom distinctions between high art and low are unknown, unrecognized and certainly unwelcome." Ignore the fact that I have, unlike most modern critics, read my Hegel, Kant, and Schiller. Ignore that I often have discussions about the nature of morality and the importance of mores in maintaining the social contract.

I wish the media would spend more time reporting the facts instead of exploiting a situation for ratings. I also wish that someone, just one, would talk about the difference between correlation and causation to the public. Yes, mentally unbalanced people like violent movies/games/comics, but so do a lot of normal people.

Mike Resnick's Pulp Parody in Print

I often have conversations with my friends regarding how Hollywood used to make really bad fantasy adventure films. Recently, I had such a conversation when a group of my friends were complaining about how much they hated Eragon.

"Sure," I said, "Eragon has nothing original for me to praise."
"It's nothing but an awful Star Wars rip-off," protested a good friend.
"Actually, it's closer to a combination of King Arthur and the Dragonheart, but your point is well taken."
"It's Star Wars!"
"Look, even Star Wars was referencing older stories. There's a whole book called Hero of a Thousand Faces which has an introduction describing how Star Wars meets all the classic archetypes of saga narratives."
"That's different!"
"Then there's the scenes Star Wars lifted whole cloth from Flash Gordon..."
"That's different!"

It was at this point that I had to talk about just how spoiled we have become as Fantasy/Science Fiction movie fans. I had to remind my friend that Beastmaster was once at the pinnacle of quality for Fantasy film productions. Excalibur was of a quality that could only be prayed for, as opposed to a film like Hawk the Slayer which was standard fare. Back in the day, as they say, we used to have some real crap passed off on us Fantasy/Science Fiction fans. The majority of the films, excepting films like Excalibur, I watched as a child make Eragon look like a masterpiece. Which brings me to Mike Resnick's hilarious character Lucifer Jones.

You see, Mike Resnick was inspired to write a parody of classic adventure tales when he watched the movie She. The film was so monumentally bad, it was funny. Which made him wonder how funny an adventure tale could be if the parody was intentional. Naturally, being parody, the adventure tale would also have to be good on its own merits. Otherwise he would just be doing incompetent storytelling which is unintentionally funny, like the movie She (it should be mentioned that the book She isn't pitifully funny, rather is an interesting classic adventure tale). So Mike Resnick created the character Lucifer Jones, you can read more about the origins of this unique character at the Subterranean Press website. Where you can also read new adventures featuring this wonderful con man character, like "The Lost Continent of Moo."

Quick sidenote, Lucifer Jones is even funnier if you have read the Silver John/John/John the Balladeer stories by Manly Wade Wellman. Lucifer Jones is a "con man missionary" version of John's saintly innocent wandering musician.

All of which, once again, reinforces how something can be referencing -- heck, it can even be ripping off liberally -- another narrative and still be entertaining. In fact, I think I will go reread some Raymond Feist just to stick it to my Tolkien purist friends.