...that I'm just going to do what Conan's fans didn't - watch Jay Leno on the Tonight Show and support him that way. I like Jay, and I'll follow him wherever he goes. I watched the interview with Oprah yesterday and I watched the little after-show on her website. There are a few important facts many journalists are not including:
1) Craig Ferguson had nearly equal ratings to Conan O'Brien at the end of 2008. Which means that most likely Late Night with Conan O'Brien would have been #2 had he still been there through 2009. There are other things of interest in the link, including how much Jay Leno was beating his competition while still host of the Tonight Show. Aaron Barnhart, the author of the blog in the link, is usually more coherent than he is in a few lines, so cut him some slack. He's been a reporter about television of for a long time and is respected by many.
One thing I find hilarious in the link, and it might not be there when (if) you click on it, is the little tweet at the side that mentions the integrity of TMZ being tarnished. Um...TMZ is really just the Enquirer of the internet. It has never been a reputable source. It is a sensational gossip magazine.
2) CONAN O'BRIEN WAS LOSING TO DAVID LETTERMAN BEFORE THE JAY LENO SHOW CAME ON. Yep, I'm shouting it, because in every freaking news article the Jay Leno Show gets blamed for being a poor lead-in, which would be fine if Conan had been winning and then after September was losing. But you know what? That is false.
3) Leno's sample audience for 2008 = between 3.9 (this statistic is in a link below) to 5.1 million viewers (you have to understand ratings and kind of poke around the link to find this).
Letterman's sample audience for 2009 when he was against Conan for seven months = 3.27 million viewers. And that - THAT - is in second place behind Nightline for that week at 3.36 million and Conan at around three million. These are statistics for one particular week, but the truth is they do represent an average.
4) Leno's finale rating for the Tonight Show = 8.8. Conan's? 7.0.
1 rating point = 1,128,000 viewers approximately. Therefore, Conan's 7 = 7,896,000. I'm not sure then where they are getting the 10.3 million from. Jay's 8.8 = 9,926,400.
Anyway, the point is that Conan's fans couldn't even be bothered to tune in to show NBC why they were making a mistake - they couldn't even give him a bigger sendoff than Jay Leno's fans gave him. Why would NBC be rethinking anything? Conan fans: you couldn't even be loyal for one night! You couldn't even be bothered to help him out in his one hour of need. You know what? That was the point where I began shouting "Shut up, Team CoCo!"
January 29, 2010
January 27, 2010
Many Things
Combining many topics into one. If I get around to talking about late night television, I'll put it last and give a warning so anyone who is tired of it can stop reading at the point.
1) One more movie. Today I finished watching a movie called The Adventure of Sherlock Holmes's Smarter Brother (I cannot not put an 's). I loved it. Of course I did, Gene Wilder is crazy sexy. That man cannot look stupid; he has the most intelligent eyes. And speaking of eyes, Marty Feldman! Also Madeline Kahn and Dom Deluise are so brilliant. I disagree with the reviews I see of this movie as a poor attempt to mimic Mel Brooks. Yeah, I can see that, but there is singing, dancing, word-play, sword-play, and a Gene Wilder. Johnny Depp has nothing on that man.
2) I finished reading Theresa Williams's (there it is again) The Secret of Hurricanes. I enjoyed it very much, and I'm not just saying that because she is my former professor. Even though I don't care much for first-person narrative, the "I" was the only appropriate narrator for this story. I also don't care for revealing plot points before they actually happen, but I overlooked it since the style was easy-going and I found myself reading so quickly I forgot to care about my preferences. I would give it a B. It definitely rose above most slice-of-life fictions, which aren't my favorite kind of story. (Warning: themes of incest, rape, and murder.)
3) I realized today that I can't eat outside of designated times anymore because my body has acclimated itself to eating at either 8:00 a.m., 1:00 p.m., 4:00 p.m., or 10:00 p.m. Today I was trying to eat a shrimp dinner at 5:30 p.m. and even though it was really, really tasty I just couldn't eat it. But I was starving at around 10:00. This...sucks. The times I eat correspond to time periods of my various shifts at work. Screwing with my life when I leave it behind.
*****DANGER, DANGER WILL ROBINSON*****
4)Late night television. Please, please, people, read something other than Bill Carter's book The Late Shift to get a more well-rounded perspective on what happened in 1992. Carter's book is admittedly biased in favor of Letterman and therefore does not give a fair shake to Leno. It also doesn't paint Letterman in a favorable light, anyway, as I feel it makes him look like a child who waited for the world to fall into his lap, then brooded when it didn't. The scenes that are supposed to make me feel bad about him, such as the one where he passes the note to Teri Garr (or Sandra Bernhardt, depending on the source) saying he hates himself seems to me like a person who self-deprecates in order to hear everyone praise him. He is the ultimate passive-agressive.
1) One more movie. Today I finished watching a movie called The Adventure of Sherlock Holmes's Smarter Brother (I cannot not put an 's). I loved it. Of course I did, Gene Wilder is crazy sexy. That man cannot look stupid; he has the most intelligent eyes. And speaking of eyes, Marty Feldman! Also Madeline Kahn and Dom Deluise are so brilliant. I disagree with the reviews I see of this movie as a poor attempt to mimic Mel Brooks. Yeah, I can see that, but there is singing, dancing, word-play, sword-play, and a Gene Wilder. Johnny Depp has nothing on that man.
2) I finished reading Theresa Williams's (there it is again) The Secret of Hurricanes. I enjoyed it very much, and I'm not just saying that because she is my former professor. Even though I don't care much for first-person narrative, the "I" was the only appropriate narrator for this story. I also don't care for revealing plot points before they actually happen, but I overlooked it since the style was easy-going and I found myself reading so quickly I forgot to care about my preferences. I would give it a B. It definitely rose above most slice-of-life fictions, which aren't my favorite kind of story. (Warning: themes of incest, rape, and murder.)
3) I realized today that I can't eat outside of designated times anymore because my body has acclimated itself to eating at either 8:00 a.m., 1:00 p.m., 4:00 p.m., or 10:00 p.m. Today I was trying to eat a shrimp dinner at 5:30 p.m. and even though it was really, really tasty I just couldn't eat it. But I was starving at around 10:00. This...sucks. The times I eat correspond to time periods of my various shifts at work. Screwing with my life when I leave it behind.
*****DANGER, DANGER WILL ROBINSON*****
4)Late night television. Please, please, people, read something other than Bill Carter's book The Late Shift to get a more well-rounded perspective on what happened in 1992. Carter's book is admittedly biased in favor of Letterman and therefore does not give a fair shake to Leno. It also doesn't paint Letterman in a favorable light, anyway, as I feel it makes him look like a child who waited for the world to fall into his lap, then brooded when it didn't. The scenes that are supposed to make me feel bad about him, such as the one where he passes the note to Teri Garr (or Sandra Bernhardt, depending on the source) saying he hates himself seems to me like a person who self-deprecates in order to hear everyone praise him. He is the ultimate passive-agressive.
January 26, 2010
An Evening with Netflix
I watched two movies on Netflix today. They were both strange and wonderful at the same time, though one more than the other in each category.
The first was Alice. It was strange. More strange than wonderful. I'm the first person who loves absolute creepy weirdness, but only if it has a purpose in the end. For instance, let me tell you the story of the video game Silent Hill and its successive installments.
In the first game, and in many of its sequels, the monsters in the game are symbols from the minds/environments of the main characters. The shadow children represent Alessa's schoolmates who were mean to her, flying monsters represent the butterflies she collected, the evil nurses were from the hospital she was kept in, etc. The monsters had a purpose. As the series progressed, the monsters were still scary but lacked symbolism. A monster with what looks like a hammer for a head in the fifth game is a stretch since the story ends *spoiler* with death in a lake. A lake. No hammerhead sharks there, I hate to tell the writers. By this time in the series, I had become disillusioned with the games because I felt like the writers were going more for shock and gore than for metaphor.
This is how I felt with Alice. I'm sure someone far smarter or more artistic than I am will be shouting about how symbolic a crib with vulture wings and claws is, but I don't see how it fits into the story of Alice in Wonderland. I think it's hellacool to have an animal skull with a body that is a glass jar go crawling across the floor in pursuit of Alice, a la that beautifully terrifying penultimate scene in the move Freaks, but why a jar? Because Alice drinks from a jar in the story? Why an animal skull, then? The utter creepiness of the White Rabbit being the world's most disturbing puppet is worth watching but in the end I just find myself scratching my head. I want to like the film for being so gutsy, and I want to believe Lewis Carroll would find it incredibly artistic, but I just felt disappointed.
The second film was In the Realms of the Unreal. This one was more wonderful than strange. This is the story of an eccentric man named Henry Darger who wrote what is believed the longest piece of fiction ever. 15,000+ pages. It's an incredible allegory. I mean, the symbolism is unreal (did you like that pun, you-know-who) - by which I mean it's quite beautiful. The struggle he depicts, which through notes in his journal we come to understand represents the struggles within himself, is just amazing. I have one question for anyone who might be doing more research on him:
Was there, possibly, a young girl named Vivian Darger adopted at the time Henry's sister was taken away? Because there must be a reason the little heroine girls have the last name "Vivian." It is said early in the film that Henry remembers nothing about her...but possibly he remembers, just vaguely, her appearance and name, which is why he is obsessed with little blonde girls and why he gives his characters that moniker. I think this is quite obvious.
It's a sad yet brilliant film to watch. I wish I had the money to buy the book about it. I don't, probably not in this decade. I highly recommend this movie to anyone though I will warn - there is animated nudity and Darger walks the line of the pedophile. I don't think he was thinking of the little girls in any way other than angels, but it's slightly disturbing, so be warned.
The first was Alice. It was strange. More strange than wonderful. I'm the first person who loves absolute creepy weirdness, but only if it has a purpose in the end. For instance, let me tell you the story of the video game Silent Hill and its successive installments.
In the first game, and in many of its sequels, the monsters in the game are symbols from the minds/environments of the main characters. The shadow children represent Alessa's schoolmates who were mean to her, flying monsters represent the butterflies she collected, the evil nurses were from the hospital she was kept in, etc. The monsters had a purpose. As the series progressed, the monsters were still scary but lacked symbolism. A monster with what looks like a hammer for a head in the fifth game is a stretch since the story ends *spoiler* with death in a lake. A lake. No hammerhead sharks there, I hate to tell the writers. By this time in the series, I had become disillusioned with the games because I felt like the writers were going more for shock and gore than for metaphor.
This is how I felt with Alice. I'm sure someone far smarter or more artistic than I am will be shouting about how symbolic a crib with vulture wings and claws is, but I don't see how it fits into the story of Alice in Wonderland. I think it's hellacool to have an animal skull with a body that is a glass jar go crawling across the floor in pursuit of Alice, a la that beautifully terrifying penultimate scene in the move Freaks, but why a jar? Because Alice drinks from a jar in the story? Why an animal skull, then? The utter creepiness of the White Rabbit being the world's most disturbing puppet is worth watching but in the end I just find myself scratching my head. I want to like the film for being so gutsy, and I want to believe Lewis Carroll would find it incredibly artistic, but I just felt disappointed.
The second film was In the Realms of the Unreal. This one was more wonderful than strange. This is the story of an eccentric man named Henry Darger who wrote what is believed the longest piece of fiction ever. 15,000+ pages. It's an incredible allegory. I mean, the symbolism is unreal (did you like that pun, you-know-who) - by which I mean it's quite beautiful. The struggle he depicts, which through notes in his journal we come to understand represents the struggles within himself, is just amazing. I have one question for anyone who might be doing more research on him:
Was there, possibly, a young girl named Vivian Darger adopted at the time Henry's sister was taken away? Because there must be a reason the little heroine girls have the last name "Vivian." It is said early in the film that Henry remembers nothing about her...but possibly he remembers, just vaguely, her appearance and name, which is why he is obsessed with little blonde girls and why he gives his characters that moniker. I think this is quite obvious.
It's a sad yet brilliant film to watch. I wish I had the money to buy the book about it. I don't, probably not in this decade. I highly recommend this movie to anyone though I will warn - there is animated nudity and Darger walks the line of the pedophile. I don't think he was thinking of the little girls in any way other than angels, but it's slightly disturbing, so be warned.
January 25, 2010
January 23, 2010
Questions...the Stolen Idea
(I will not begin this post with the word "so.")
I'm stealing an idea from a few blogs I read, where I feel I've learned some important little things (and big things) about my friends by reading their answers to a few questions. I'm just glad this post isn't a rant about Late-Night-Talk-Show-Host-Who-Must-Never-Ever-Ever-Be-Named-Again-In-American-Society. You can devise for yourselves who I mean by that, whether it be whom America hates or whom I hate.
Anyway...onto the stealing. I took this list from here. I cut out two questions I thought were similar to the previous questions.
Great questions for anyone
What was the happiest moment of your life? Pass.
The saddest? I'd say the day my cousin Tim died. Probably because he wasn't far away, or someone I saw once a year or less, but was right across town and frequently at our house. I couldn't control my emotions in public, which I can't say for any other time.
Who was the most important person in your life? Why "was"? My mother. The thought of losing her makes me panic. It is one of the reasons I haven't moved out, and I know that makes me seem childish to some.
Can you tell me about him or her? She gives and gives, not without complaint. Her first husband died in Vietnam, her second was extremely physically abusive, and her third may not have much money, causing stress and worry all around, but he's around and he rarely gets angry.
Who has been the kindest to you in your life? Certain professors who never used their power to make me feel inferior or inept, and who never whined about how much harder it was when they went to school.
What are the most important lessons you’ve learned in life? To apologize. I don't feel as though anyone has ever apologized to me when they've hurt me, and it has made me always want to be the one who steps up and faces embarrassment.
What is your earliest memory? The layout of the house when I was about two years old. Particularly the divide between the living room and the kitchen. The sliding glass door in the kitchen. There was a long hallway and the bedroom where I slept only had one incredibly small window (maybe 2 feet by 1 foot). I apparently was sick from the lack of light in that room.
Are there any words of wisdom you’d like to pass along to me? No.
What are you proudest of in your life? My education. I do believe I'm the first person in my extended family to go beyond college.
When in life have you felt most alone? Right now.
How has your life been different than what you’d imagined? I didn't imagine living at home and working at a clothing store at this point. But it's of my own doing.
How would you like to be remembered? As brilliant. I'm not going to lie or be cheesy. I want to write the book that wins a Pulitzer and which literature classes read for hundreds of years.
Do you have any regrets? That I doddled around for too long and am just now realizing it.
What does your future hold? A bagel with sundried tomato and basil cream cheese.
Is there anything that you’ve never told me but want to tell me now? Yes, but not now. Not yet.
Is there something about me that you’ve always wanted to know but have never asked? Plenty, but I don't ask. In the same way I don't ask people if I can hold their babies.
What was the happiest moment of your life? Publishing my Master's thesis, my way, my subject. That seems lame, but it's the one moment where I didn't back down and I feel proud.
I'm stealing an idea from a few blogs I read, where I feel I've learned some important little things (and big things) about my friends by reading their answers to a few questions. I'm just glad this post isn't a rant about Late-Night-Talk-Show-Host-Who-Must-Never-Ever-Ever-Be-Named-Again-In-American-Society. You can devise for yourselves who I mean by that, whether it be whom America hates or whom I hate.
Anyway...onto the stealing. I took this list from here. I cut out two questions I thought were similar to the previous questions.
Great questions for anyone
What was the happiest moment of your life? Pass.
The saddest? I'd say the day my cousin Tim died. Probably because he wasn't far away, or someone I saw once a year or less, but was right across town and frequently at our house. I couldn't control my emotions in public, which I can't say for any other time.
Who was the most important person in your life? Why "was"? My mother. The thought of losing her makes me panic. It is one of the reasons I haven't moved out, and I know that makes me seem childish to some.
Can you tell me about him or her? She gives and gives, not without complaint. Her first husband died in Vietnam, her second was extremely physically abusive, and her third may not have much money, causing stress and worry all around, but he's around and he rarely gets angry.
Who has been the kindest to you in your life? Certain professors who never used their power to make me feel inferior or inept, and who never whined about how much harder it was when they went to school.
What are the most important lessons you’ve learned in life? To apologize. I don't feel as though anyone has ever apologized to me when they've hurt me, and it has made me always want to be the one who steps up and faces embarrassment.
What is your earliest memory? The layout of the house when I was about two years old. Particularly the divide between the living room and the kitchen. The sliding glass door in the kitchen. There was a long hallway and the bedroom where I slept only had one incredibly small window (maybe 2 feet by 1 foot). I apparently was sick from the lack of light in that room.
Are there any words of wisdom you’d like to pass along to me? No.
What are you proudest of in your life? My education. I do believe I'm the first person in my extended family to go beyond college.
When in life have you felt most alone? Right now.
How has your life been different than what you’d imagined? I didn't imagine living at home and working at a clothing store at this point. But it's of my own doing.
How would you like to be remembered? As brilliant. I'm not going to lie or be cheesy. I want to write the book that wins a Pulitzer and which literature classes read for hundreds of years.
Do you have any regrets? That I doddled around for too long and am just now realizing it.
What does your future hold? A bagel with sundried tomato and basil cream cheese.
Is there anything that you’ve never told me but want to tell me now? Yes, but not now. Not yet.
Is there something about me that you’ve always wanted to know but have never asked? Plenty, but I don't ask. In the same way I don't ask people if I can hold their babies.
What was the happiest moment of your life? Publishing my Master's thesis, my way, my subject. That seems lame, but it's the one moment where I didn't back down and I feel proud.
January 22, 2010
This Post Is Not about Late Night Television!
It's about my weekly goal for reading and writing. So far I think it's going quite well. I wrote a short story last week that I will now put aside to read and revise when I get some distance from it. I'm thinking I'll read it the next time short story writing comes around (two weeks from now). There is a backyard wedding scene in the story that is giving me some problems. It hasn't turned out how I wanted it to and I'm struggling to think of how to fix it. Maybe putting it out of sight / out of mind will help.
Weekly book: The Secret of Hurricanes by Theresa Williams. This book was written by my former professor and I'm ashamed to say I haven't read it yet. That is about to change. Thirty pages each day to read it in one week.
Weekly writing: One chapter in my "random" novel.
Weekly book: The Secret of Hurricanes by Theresa Williams. This book was written by my former professor and I'm ashamed to say I haven't read it yet. That is about to change. Thirty pages each day to read it in one week.
Weekly writing: One chapter in my "random" novel.
Because I'm Like a Dog...
...with a chew toy. Sigghhhhhhh.
No one will ever read this who cares, but I have to say it somewhere. Another thing no one ever thinks about in the whole Jay/Dave (because ultimately, it will now always be about the two of them an no one else) mess is what would have happened had Letterman actually been given the Tonight Show. Let's envision an alternate universe where this happens:
Jay Leno is guest hosting for Johnny Carson, somewhere around 40% of the episodes. He is hot among the younger demographic and is sustaining and/or beating the ratings when he guest hosts. He needs some job security so he isn't permanently stuck in neutral, plus he's been getting offers from other networks to host his own late night talk show, particularly at CBS. He asks NBC what they can offer him. They do not offer him the Tonight Show, instead promising it to David Letterman, who Carson prefers. Leno then chooses to leave NBC for his own show on CBS. Let's call this show Late Show with Jay Leno.
Now, let's give Jay Leno about two years before David Letterman takes over the Tonight Show when Carson retires. In this time Jay Leno stumbles around, fires his manager, retools a bit. His ratings slowly rise though at first he doesn't quite beat Carson but instead gains on him. David Letterman then takes over the Tonight Show.
Letterman creams Leno for about eighteen months. Leno plugs along, never falling in his ratings from the #2 spot and still slowly gaining more viewers. Letterman remains Letterman and so he begins losing viewers. Leno overtakes him (which he was trending toward doing even without Hugh Grant's infamous interview, you know, the one where viewers were tricked into staying with Leno because they didn't know how to change the channel the next night). Now, the great Tonight Show is #2 and Late Show with Jay Leno is #1. Leno remains #1 on CBS for fifteen years while the Tonight Show falls behind Nightline at times to #3 (which happened to Letterman quite a few times). Now, Letterman has the reputation of being the man who ruined the Tonight Show.
Now, here are what I think critics would argue: the Tonight Show name would have carried David Letterman to #1 because that is the only reason people watched Jay Leno, not because of Leno himself. So Leno would have never won against David Letterman. Counterargument: So are you saying that David Letterman is equally not as capable of carrying his own show to #1 unless he has the Tonight Show name behind him? Because he wasn't #1 without that name until Conan O'Brien took over.
What if Leno had never fired his manager or realized his show needed to be different than what it was in the beginning? Good point. That is totally valid. That would have changed the outcome. I can't really aruge that other than to say I think most of that was inevitable. CBS might not have had the leverage to force Leno to fire Kushnick, but I think Leno, who has publicly acknowledged fear of losing what he's gained, would have fired her to keep his show, Tonight Show or not.
Letterman would not have been as cranky and would have had more appeal. Maybe. But he really isn't much different now than he was on Late Night, so most likely not.
Anyway, what happened in real life cannot be ignored for people who wish it had turned out differently. If we look at the facts of the matter, Leno beat Letterman. That is history. The truth is that Jay Leno kept the Tonight Show #1 for a long time and whether one set of viewers thinks he's lame, another set of viewers thought he was funny, and one is not less valid than the other.
I don't understand the people who get upset when they are told to watch something else if they don't like what's on station #1. Turn to station #2, then. You don't like to read the Twilight books? Read Doris Lessing, then. You don't want to be a Buddhist? Then practice Hinduism. Period.
I'll express it again - I don't know why this sticks in my craw so much. These are millionaires and I don't know why I care what's fair to say about them. Whatever, I'm going to Youtube to watch some Craig Ferguson.
(P.S.) I would like to thank Mark Evanier for a lot of these ideas. He is really brilliant. You can blame him, if you wish, for enabling my obsession.
No one will ever read this who cares, but I have to say it somewhere. Another thing no one ever thinks about in the whole Jay/Dave (because ultimately, it will now always be about the two of them an no one else) mess is what would have happened had Letterman actually been given the Tonight Show. Let's envision an alternate universe where this happens:
Jay Leno is guest hosting for Johnny Carson, somewhere around 40% of the episodes. He is hot among the younger demographic and is sustaining and/or beating the ratings when he guest hosts. He needs some job security so he isn't permanently stuck in neutral, plus he's been getting offers from other networks to host his own late night talk show, particularly at CBS. He asks NBC what they can offer him. They do not offer him the Tonight Show, instead promising it to David Letterman, who Carson prefers. Leno then chooses to leave NBC for his own show on CBS. Let's call this show Late Show with Jay Leno.
Now, let's give Jay Leno about two years before David Letterman takes over the Tonight Show when Carson retires. In this time Jay Leno stumbles around, fires his manager, retools a bit. His ratings slowly rise though at first he doesn't quite beat Carson but instead gains on him. David Letterman then takes over the Tonight Show.
Letterman creams Leno for about eighteen months. Leno plugs along, never falling in his ratings from the #2 spot and still slowly gaining more viewers. Letterman remains Letterman and so he begins losing viewers. Leno overtakes him (which he was trending toward doing even without Hugh Grant's infamous interview, you know, the one where viewers were tricked into staying with Leno because they didn't know how to change the channel the next night). Now, the great Tonight Show is #2 and Late Show with Jay Leno is #1. Leno remains #1 on CBS for fifteen years while the Tonight Show falls behind Nightline at times to #3 (which happened to Letterman quite a few times). Now, Letterman has the reputation of being the man who ruined the Tonight Show.
Now, here are what I think critics would argue: the Tonight Show name would have carried David Letterman to #1 because that is the only reason people watched Jay Leno, not because of Leno himself. So Leno would have never won against David Letterman. Counterargument: So are you saying that David Letterman is equally not as capable of carrying his own show to #1 unless he has the Tonight Show name behind him? Because he wasn't #1 without that name until Conan O'Brien took over.
What if Leno had never fired his manager or realized his show needed to be different than what it was in the beginning? Good point. That is totally valid. That would have changed the outcome. I can't really aruge that other than to say I think most of that was inevitable. CBS might not have had the leverage to force Leno to fire Kushnick, but I think Leno, who has publicly acknowledged fear of losing what he's gained, would have fired her to keep his show, Tonight Show or not.
Letterman would not have been as cranky and would have had more appeal. Maybe. But he really isn't much different now than he was on Late Night, so most likely not.
Anyway, what happened in real life cannot be ignored for people who wish it had turned out differently. If we look at the facts of the matter, Leno beat Letterman. That is history. The truth is that Jay Leno kept the Tonight Show #1 for a long time and whether one set of viewers thinks he's lame, another set of viewers thought he was funny, and one is not less valid than the other.
I don't understand the people who get upset when they are told to watch something else if they don't like what's on station #1. Turn to station #2, then. You don't like to read the Twilight books? Read Doris Lessing, then. You don't want to be a Buddhist? Then practice Hinduism. Period.
I'll express it again - I don't know why this sticks in my craw so much. These are millionaires and I don't know why I care what's fair to say about them. Whatever, I'm going to Youtube to watch some Craig Ferguson.
(P.S.) I would like to thank Mark Evanier for a lot of these ideas. He is really brilliant. You can blame him, if you wish, for enabling my obsession.
January 21, 2010
Using Awesome Knowledge for Stupid Purposes
Best College Class of All Time: Philosophy of Punishment
Professor of Said Class: The Amazing Dr. James Stuart
Lesson: Philosophical Arguments
So, a backstory. My best friend and I were in a class together called the Philosophy of Punishment (which was about the penal system in our capitalist society) taught by an extremely funny, intelligent man named Dr. Stuart. Dr. Stuart referred to himself in the third person when lecturing about articles he had written (i.e. "Stuart says in paragraph four...." "You're Stuart!" we would quietly say. Then we would smile, and thus we became "The Smiling Girls.") We were the only ones who understood his jokes because everyone else in the class was clueless. What I remember most: the difference between systematic and abberational errors, with the classic example of Lee Iacocca taking over GM and expunging it of its systematic errors. Anyway, one day Dr. Stuart taught us about philosophical arguments. Basically, they go as thus:
John F. Kennedy was murdered.
People who are murdered are dead.
________________________________
Therefore, John F. Kennedy is dead.
Two or more premises lead to a conclusion and to make a logical argument, the conclusion must follow the logic of the premises. Simple, no? Well, I'm going to use this awesome ability Dr. Stuart has bestowed upon me to make an inane, unimportant-to-anyone-but-apparently-me argument. Of course, it's about late night TV. Surprised? Have you read this blog?
The logic according to the critics:
Jay Leno threatened to leave NBC if they didn't give him the Tonight Show.
Threatening to leave if you don't get a show makes you a douchebag.
________________________________________________________________________
Therefore, Jay Leno is a douchebag.
Okay, using their own logic:
Conan O'Brien threatened to leave NBC if they didn't give him the Tonight Show.
Threatening to leave if you don't get a show makes you a doucebag.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Therefore, Conan O'Brien is a douchebag.
See the double standard there?
I don't think Conan is a douchebag. I enjoy Conan on occasion. I just wanted to point out how the critics skew their own logic because they've made a decision on who is "cool" and must spin every story to support their opinions.
There will be more arguments to come (I hear that groan). I had a few in mind but of course, they aren't coming to mind right now. They will, though. They will.
Professor of Said Class: The Amazing Dr. James Stuart
Lesson: Philosophical Arguments
So, a backstory. My best friend and I were in a class together called the Philosophy of Punishment (which was about the penal system in our capitalist society) taught by an extremely funny, intelligent man named Dr. Stuart. Dr. Stuart referred to himself in the third person when lecturing about articles he had written (i.e. "Stuart says in paragraph four...." "You're Stuart!" we would quietly say. Then we would smile, and thus we became "The Smiling Girls.") We were the only ones who understood his jokes because everyone else in the class was clueless. What I remember most: the difference between systematic and abberational errors, with the classic example of Lee Iacocca taking over GM and expunging it of its systematic errors. Anyway, one day Dr. Stuart taught us about philosophical arguments. Basically, they go as thus:
John F. Kennedy was murdered.
People who are murdered are dead.
________________________________
Therefore, John F. Kennedy is dead.
Two or more premises lead to a conclusion and to make a logical argument, the conclusion must follow the logic of the premises. Simple, no? Well, I'm going to use this awesome ability Dr. Stuart has bestowed upon me to make an inane, unimportant-to-anyone-but-apparently-me argument. Of course, it's about late night TV. Surprised? Have you read this blog?
The logic according to the critics:
Jay Leno threatened to leave NBC if they didn't give him the Tonight Show.
Threatening to leave if you don't get a show makes you a douchebag.
________________________________________________________________________
Therefore, Jay Leno is a douchebag.
Okay, using their own logic:
Conan O'Brien threatened to leave NBC if they didn't give him the Tonight Show.
Threatening to leave if you don't get a show makes you a doucebag.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Therefore, Conan O'Brien is a douchebag.
See the double standard there?
I don't think Conan is a douchebag. I enjoy Conan on occasion. I just wanted to point out how the critics skew their own logic because they've made a decision on who is "cool" and must spin every story to support their opinions.
There will be more arguments to come (I hear that groan). I had a few in mind but of course, they aren't coming to mind right now. They will, though. They will.
More Ranting, More Ranting
Feel free to skip this post if you're tired of hearing me harp about this issue. Issue? Iowa? It's not even an issue worth anything (not that Iowa isn't worth anything either - it's a fine state, I'm sure). I don't even understand my own obsession with this late night thing. I don't even watch Jay or Conan or Dave or Jon Stewart or Craig Ferguson (who is the person I actually watch the most - on Youtube).
1) Hahahahaha.
2) Hollywood is saying they won't go on the Tonight Show when Jay Leno takes it over again. Great! Thank God! Jay, talk to the janitor from your show, or the gas station attendant, or your wife. All of those people are most likely far more interesting than the majority of celebrities.
3) Be more like you used to be. Be more like you were during the strike when a good deal of critics said you seemed spontaneous and acidic. Reinvent yourself.
4) Conan seems to have stopped making fun of Jay Leno himself and is sticking to jokes about NBC.
5) How is a masturbating bear more intelligent than Jay Leno? Please, someone, explain this logic to me. I must be really, really stupid.
6) I'm still mad at you, Jay. You should not have agreed to 11:35 in any of the capacities NBC offered it to you again. You are to blame there. You could have just waited out your contract or told them you would be a correspondent for the Today Show or something. You have a major obstacle of your own construction to overcome here. I'm rooting for you, nonetheless, and I don't understand why.
7) I'm pretty certain Jay Leno knew what Jimmy Kimmel was going to do on his show. I don't think he was blindsided at all. I wouldn't be surprised if he wrote some of those barbs Jimmy threw at him. However, Jimmy Kimmel's comment that he had kids to take care of and Jay Leno doesn't was really a lame argument - you're a millionaire and if you feel you need any more money than you have then you haven't been smart with your money. Plus, Jay has said his Tonight Show money is tied up in scholarships and charity donations. So, while Jimmy is arguing about money for his own kids Jay is giving his money to...other...people's...kids. He is EVIL!
8) Leno did not cross a line simply because he made fun of Letterman's affairs (which he claims are private but unfortunately are very public). Letterman crossed a line when he insinuated Leno should drop dead. That is far more personal - it is a wish of death on another person. Why is Letterman always praised for being "ascerbic" while Leno is criticized for being "low?" And I can't repeat it enough: Letterman cheated on his then live-in girlfriend. So, according to the media, feel free to cheat on your boyfriends and girlfriends because those relationsips do not matter.
More later, I'm sure.
1) Hahahahaha.
2) Hollywood is saying they won't go on the Tonight Show when Jay Leno takes it over again. Great! Thank God! Jay, talk to the janitor from your show, or the gas station attendant, or your wife. All of those people are most likely far more interesting than the majority of celebrities.
3) Be more like you used to be. Be more like you were during the strike when a good deal of critics said you seemed spontaneous and acidic. Reinvent yourself.
4) Conan seems to have stopped making fun of Jay Leno himself and is sticking to jokes about NBC.
5) How is a masturbating bear more intelligent than Jay Leno? Please, someone, explain this logic to me. I must be really, really stupid.
6) I'm still mad at you, Jay. You should not have agreed to 11:35 in any of the capacities NBC offered it to you again. You are to blame there. You could have just waited out your contract or told them you would be a correspondent for the Today Show or something. You have a major obstacle of your own construction to overcome here. I'm rooting for you, nonetheless, and I don't understand why.
7) I'm pretty certain Jay Leno knew what Jimmy Kimmel was going to do on his show. I don't think he was blindsided at all. I wouldn't be surprised if he wrote some of those barbs Jimmy threw at him. However, Jimmy Kimmel's comment that he had kids to take care of and Jay Leno doesn't was really a lame argument - you're a millionaire and if you feel you need any more money than you have then you haven't been smart with your money. Plus, Jay has said his Tonight Show money is tied up in scholarships and charity donations. So, while Jimmy is arguing about money for his own kids Jay is giving his money to...other...people's...kids. He is EVIL!
8) Leno did not cross a line simply because he made fun of Letterman's affairs (which he claims are private but unfortunately are very public). Letterman crossed a line when he insinuated Leno should drop dead. That is far more personal - it is a wish of death on another person. Why is Letterman always praised for being "ascerbic" while Leno is criticized for being "low?" And I can't repeat it enough: Letterman cheated on his then live-in girlfriend. So, according to the media, feel free to cheat on your boyfriends and girlfriends because those relationsips do not matter.
More later, I'm sure.
January 18, 2010
The Virgin Suicides
Maybe one of the five most important books I've ever read in my life.
It does everything I hope to do with my own fiction. It is darkly witty. It reveals the dark side of human psychology. It has obsessive characters who are at times nameless (and dark). We never truly understand how the girls came to their decision (which means they seem to have been dropped into their situation with no explanation of how they got there). It is an allegory for our current society. It is both extremely personal and tells a universal truth. The girls are seductive in their mystery.
I'm more excited than ever to write the novel I know is the only novel I can write at this time in my life. It will include thoughts and actions from my own life but will be fiction, as I think I will need to weave the story with more details and scenes to help the reader understand my psychology. It will be a fictionalized memoir, which has two meanings. One meaning is to write a novel pretending it is a fictional character's memoir. The other meaning is to write a true memoir but hide it behind a character with added content. My novel is the latter.
The Virgin Suicides by Jeffrey Eugenides gets an A. Go read it and then give it to someone else. I don't say that about many books. I can't even think of one right now.
It does everything I hope to do with my own fiction. It is darkly witty. It reveals the dark side of human psychology. It has obsessive characters who are at times nameless (and dark). We never truly understand how the girls came to their decision (which means they seem to have been dropped into their situation with no explanation of how they got there). It is an allegory for our current society. It is both extremely personal and tells a universal truth. The girls are seductive in their mystery.
I'm more excited than ever to write the novel I know is the only novel I can write at this time in my life. It will include thoughts and actions from my own life but will be fiction, as I think I will need to weave the story with more details and scenes to help the reader understand my psychology. It will be a fictionalized memoir, which has two meanings. One meaning is to write a novel pretending it is a fictional character's memoir. The other meaning is to write a true memoir but hide it behind a character with added content. My novel is the latter.
The Virgin Suicides by Jeffrey Eugenides gets an A. Go read it and then give it to someone else. I don't say that about many books. I can't even think of one right now.
January 17, 2010
Favorite Blog
A man named Mark Evanier writes a blog that I think is incredibly smart, funny, and knowledgeable. He has been in the television, comedy, and comics (like DC/Marvel kind of comics) business for a long, long time. He knows the ins and outs of the industry. He is also fairly unbiased when he writes about this industry. He gives great insight into the sides of show-biz that we don't often know about so the public can understand decisions we usually only see one side of. Anyway, he wrote a long essay that I think is, quite simply, fair and honest about the latest bruhaha in late night.
January 16, 2010
Helping Me Not Care
This article says exactly what I think, deep down, I believe as well. Most of the late night shows aren't anything special anymore. None of them are innovative and each of them has its pros and cons. I am upset that Conan is off the Tonight Show even though I seem to have an unnatural attachment to Jay Leno. I hope one of my favorite bloggers is right when he says Jay will redeem himself if he brings the Tonight Show back to number one in the ratings.
Reading Redux
Well, reading one book a week is going well. It's too bad I'm not smart enough to make that sentence a palindrome. I once wrote a poem that was a palindrome. Someday I'll post it. (It even sorta makes sense.)
Anyway, I think I may have to abandon the ten-pages-a-day goal. I often forget to read those pages and, to be honest, the Mahabharata and the Koran are a bit boring. I can't believe I'm about to admit this, but the Bible is actually interesting. I'm certain it's because I was raised in the West on the idea that a story is chronological and goes action by action. The Mahabharata is too much information packed into each page and the Koran is too much information told by the translator (not as though he were translating text, but as though he felt the need to make things clear). Otherwise the Koran is just a lot of praising, which is fine, but boring to read.
I think I bite off more than I can chew because I often feel lazy. One book a week is not very many. But maybe it's enough for a starter goal. This week, the book is The Virgin Suicides, by Jeffrey Eugenides. I'm also writing one short story this week, one chapter in novel #1 next week, once chapter in novel #2 the following week. Be ready for me to revise these goals often.
Anyway, I think I may have to abandon the ten-pages-a-day goal. I often forget to read those pages and, to be honest, the Mahabharata and the Koran are a bit boring. I can't believe I'm about to admit this, but the Bible is actually interesting. I'm certain it's because I was raised in the West on the idea that a story is chronological and goes action by action. The Mahabharata is too much information packed into each page and the Koran is too much information told by the translator (not as though he were translating text, but as though he felt the need to make things clear). Otherwise the Koran is just a lot of praising, which is fine, but boring to read.
I think I bite off more than I can chew because I often feel lazy. One book a week is not very many. But maybe it's enough for a starter goal. This week, the book is The Virgin Suicides, by Jeffrey Eugenides. I'm also writing one short story this week, one chapter in novel #1 next week, once chapter in novel #2 the following week. Be ready for me to revise these goals often.
January 14, 2010
And One More Whine
Scenario:
If David Letterman had been wooed back to NBC and was kicking Conan off the air and Jay Leno had made the joke about "Law and Order: Letterman Victims Unit" the critics would say it was lame and low. This is my problem with it all because, truth be told, I thought the "Law and Order: Lenos Victim Unit" joke was clever but my enjoyment was tainted with the knowledge that Jay Leno would never have been allowed to make that joke and be called clever. It's not that I think Jay does no wrong ("Are you going to let this bitch outbid you?" Really, Jay?), but that I think most of the media thinks he can do no right.
P.S. I don't have the will right now to link to all of these things but will eventually, including articles that call Jay the "Heir-aparent" and the one where he royally screws up (the "bitch" comment).
If David Letterman had been wooed back to NBC and was kicking Conan off the air and Jay Leno had made the joke about "Law and Order: Letterman Victims Unit" the critics would say it was lame and low. This is my problem with it all because, truth be told, I thought the "Law and Order: Lenos Victim Unit" joke was clever but my enjoyment was tainted with the knowledge that Jay Leno would never have been allowed to make that joke and be called clever. It's not that I think Jay does no wrong ("Are you going to let this bitch outbid you?" Really, Jay?), but that I think most of the media thinks he can do no right.
P.S. I don't have the will right now to link to all of these things but will eventually, including articles that call Jay the "Heir-aparent" and the one where he royally screws up (the "bitch" comment).
Venting about Late Night
Le sigh....
This will be a constant subject during the whole NBC debacle so just be ready for me to whine. Anyway, as many people know, I have tried to like David Letterman but can't. There's a part of me completely willing to admit that maybe it isn't Letterman himself I hate but the media's boot-licking admiration for him despite any wrongdoings. Let me make this clear: sleeping with half of his staff was dispicable. Disrespectful toward his wife, sending bad messages to his kid (the one thing people should be saying but aren't), creating a hostile work environment for both the women he slept with and the women he didn't, and, so frustrating it bears repeating twice - DISRESPECTFUL TOWARD HIS WIFE. Even though she wasn't his wife at the time, what part of "longtime girlfriend since 1986" does the public not understand?
What does this have to do with the current NBC drama? My man (who will be vehemently defended so just be aware) Jay (who will be called by his first name as I've given up being a professional) made a joke earlier this week about sleeping with his staff for nothing. And the critics say this is low, unfair, out of nowhere, and mean. Dave has been doing jokes about Jay for the past two weeks and, according to the critics, they are hilarious with bite. Now, months ago when Dave got into his little mess Jay did a few jokes then and people said they were...low and mean and played to the lowest common denominator. Other late night hosts did jokes about Dave, all with similar punchlines to Jay's, and those were sarcastic and showed those hosts were not going to play favorites just because Dave is one of them. A scandal's a scandal, right?
I guess my feelings are that Jay can never win and every decision he makes is the wrong decision. Even when he gives to charity I read countless articles about how the manner he chooses is shameless and egotistical. I hate to tell them this, but I'm sure he does a lot of private donations but sometimes raising money needs to be...public. And loud. And I never understood why him getting the original Tonight Show was horrible on his part. I can and have shown a lot of Jay-haters articles from before 1992 that pointed out NBC's interest in him as the future host. "Heir-aparent" and "Anointed-one" are words describing him in hundreds of articles (yes, I'm aware you have inferred I have too much time and not enough of a life). I think the whole thing started because a guy (Jay) who worked hard got a job that some people felt another guy with a lot of talent (Dave) should have gotten. So, Jay deserved the job but Dave deserved it more based on the fact that Johnny Carson liked Dave better. Fair enough, but please, critics, stop saying Jay didn't deserve it AT ALL. That is untrue.
That being said a message to Jay he will never read: LET THE RUMORS THAT YOU WILL LEAVE NBC WITH CONAN BE TRUE. Staying is a bad decision. The media will not be putting their own spin on it this time. Staying = bad. Leaving = only choice. I wish it hadn't come to Conan leaving, too. But let me make this just as clear: NBC screwed the pooch. NBC slapped Conan in the face. Jay is a "yes man" who would have done whatever they asked of him and so the decision to put him at 11:35 and move the freaking TONIGHT SHOW back to 12:05 was stupid ON THEIR PART. What were they thinking?
I think it's a little unfair to Jay to say that NBC believing in him is somehow his fault. I'm sorry if others see it as NBC being blind and that Jay is lame so why do they believe in him? It's got to hurt his feelings that people say he doesn't deserve anything he has because someone else deserved it, too. Maybe he clings to NBC because they are the only people left who praise him in their strange, screwed-up manner?
But they also liked Conan, which in a way, makes Conan a little like Jay. They said, now is the time where we will believe in you, Conan. And then...didn't. I think that is incredibly crappy on their part. Conan is the biggest victim here but I just feel there are a lot of people defending him and so it doesn't need to be said here.
Let the tomatoes fly.
This will be a constant subject during the whole NBC debacle so just be ready for me to whine. Anyway, as many people know, I have tried to like David Letterman but can't. There's a part of me completely willing to admit that maybe it isn't Letterman himself I hate but the media's boot-licking admiration for him despite any wrongdoings. Let me make this clear: sleeping with half of his staff was dispicable. Disrespectful toward his wife, sending bad messages to his kid (the one thing people should be saying but aren't), creating a hostile work environment for both the women he slept with and the women he didn't, and, so frustrating it bears repeating twice - DISRESPECTFUL TOWARD HIS WIFE. Even though she wasn't his wife at the time, what part of "longtime girlfriend since 1986" does the public not understand?
What does this have to do with the current NBC drama? My man (who will be vehemently defended so just be aware) Jay (who will be called by his first name as I've given up being a professional) made a joke earlier this week about sleeping with his staff for nothing. And the critics say this is low, unfair, out of nowhere, and mean. Dave has been doing jokes about Jay for the past two weeks and, according to the critics, they are hilarious with bite. Now, months ago when Dave got into his little mess Jay did a few jokes then and people said they were...low and mean and played to the lowest common denominator. Other late night hosts did jokes about Dave, all with similar punchlines to Jay's, and those were sarcastic and showed those hosts were not going to play favorites just because Dave is one of them. A scandal's a scandal, right?
I guess my feelings are that Jay can never win and every decision he makes is the wrong decision. Even when he gives to charity I read countless articles about how the manner he chooses is shameless and egotistical. I hate to tell them this, but I'm sure he does a lot of private donations but sometimes raising money needs to be...public. And loud. And I never understood why him getting the original Tonight Show was horrible on his part. I can and have shown a lot of Jay-haters articles from before 1992 that pointed out NBC's interest in him as the future host. "Heir-aparent" and "Anointed-one" are words describing him in hundreds of articles (yes, I'm aware you have inferred I have too much time and not enough of a life). I think the whole thing started because a guy (Jay) who worked hard got a job that some people felt another guy with a lot of talent (Dave) should have gotten. So, Jay deserved the job but Dave deserved it more based on the fact that Johnny Carson liked Dave better. Fair enough, but please, critics, stop saying Jay didn't deserve it AT ALL. That is untrue.
That being said a message to Jay he will never read: LET THE RUMORS THAT YOU WILL LEAVE NBC WITH CONAN BE TRUE. Staying is a bad decision. The media will not be putting their own spin on it this time. Staying = bad. Leaving = only choice. I wish it hadn't come to Conan leaving, too. But let me make this just as clear: NBC screwed the pooch. NBC slapped Conan in the face. Jay is a "yes man" who would have done whatever they asked of him and so the decision to put him at 11:35 and move the freaking TONIGHT SHOW back to 12:05 was stupid ON THEIR PART. What were they thinking?
I think it's a little unfair to Jay to say that NBC believing in him is somehow his fault. I'm sorry if others see it as NBC being blind and that Jay is lame so why do they believe in him? It's got to hurt his feelings that people say he doesn't deserve anything he has because someone else deserved it, too. Maybe he clings to NBC because they are the only people left who praise him in their strange, screwed-up manner?
But they also liked Conan, which in a way, makes Conan a little like Jay. They said, now is the time where we will believe in you, Conan. And then...didn't. I think that is incredibly crappy on their part. Conan is the biggest victim here but I just feel there are a lot of people defending him and so it doesn't need to be said here.
Let the tomatoes fly.
January 12, 2010
The Narrow House
I finished The Narrow House by Evelyn Scott today and I am very torn on how to write a review of it. On one hand it seemed almost shockingly real for its time period (1921), but on the other hand it's not easy to get through 221 pages when not one character is even likeable. And I mean this - I could barely stand to read about these people because they were so depressing, annoying, frustrating, horrible, and selfish. Two characters were nothing more than pitiful. I know this is "truth" through fiction and all that jazz, but I think I finally understand what one of my graduate professors was trying to tell me about making the reader feel like the situation has "hope."
Okay, first, a little bit about the novel. It is about a family, the Farleys (mother, father, son, daughter, son's wife and two - eventually three - children), who all live in a house together. I of all people know how crazy it is to live with as many people under one roof. So, I sympathize with them. The Narrow House is really a novel about emotions, though, and what our feelings toward each other turn into when we are forced to live in close quarters.
And this is the novel's strength - the unmitigated feelings one has toward loved ones when subjected to facing them daily. That was a lot of unnecessarily big words there. The novel is stark (imagery of nakedness pops up frequently) with regards to feelings: the need to be needed and the pain of feeling unneeded; the freedom of being unnoticed in the background, untethered to someone else's emotions; the terrible mixture of grief and guilt we feel when a loved one dies of a long illness, especially a stressful illness; the desire to live vicariously when the chance for one's own action has been lost; feelings of self-destruction. Most of these emotions aren't pretty.
And this brings me to the weakness of the novel - I spent these past few days waiting for even one character to change. The only thing that changes is that the Farleys begin to accept their circumstances, but they don't change them or even change their reactions to these circumstances. They accept their indifference, selfishness, and fear and continue to instill these not-so-wonderful qualities into the three children.
My graduate professor talked to me once about her theory that every story should have some glimmer of hope about the human race. I balked at the idea at the time, all talking my ideas of high-art and "reality" and blah...blah...blah. But not all situations come out hopeful at the end, right? Isn't fiction supposed to reflect the world at large? It turns out that this is true only to the extent that I don't want to come out of days of reading feeling depressed about my life and the world I live in. I want to stress that these characters were the most whiny, frustrating, unsympathizing characters in the history of my reading experience. I forced myself to continue reading in the "hope" that one of them would be redeemed in the end (particularly the little girl May). Nope. Nada. It reminds me of Kafka's immortal Metamorphosis in that I was so frustrated with the mother, father, and sister in Kafka's story but then the end...changed my mind and showed me their cruelty was necessary to save their own lives. The Narrow House? No change. No life saving. No.
I don't even know what grade to give it. I was extremely impressed by its naked emotion. But I know most readers will want to put it down, with good reason. I'm going to give it a solid C, maybe even a C+. I want to recommend it to others who will understand what a risk the novel is for its (and really any) time period. I'm just certain that it would be a forced reading.
Okay, first, a little bit about the novel. It is about a family, the Farleys (mother, father, son, daughter, son's wife and two - eventually three - children), who all live in a house together. I of all people know how crazy it is to live with as many people under one roof. So, I sympathize with them. The Narrow House is really a novel about emotions, though, and what our feelings toward each other turn into when we are forced to live in close quarters.
And this is the novel's strength - the unmitigated feelings one has toward loved ones when subjected to facing them daily. That was a lot of unnecessarily big words there. The novel is stark (imagery of nakedness pops up frequently) with regards to feelings: the need to be needed and the pain of feeling unneeded; the freedom of being unnoticed in the background, untethered to someone else's emotions; the terrible mixture of grief and guilt we feel when a loved one dies of a long illness, especially a stressful illness; the desire to live vicariously when the chance for one's own action has been lost; feelings of self-destruction. Most of these emotions aren't pretty.
And this brings me to the weakness of the novel - I spent these past few days waiting for even one character to change. The only thing that changes is that the Farleys begin to accept their circumstances, but they don't change them or even change their reactions to these circumstances. They accept their indifference, selfishness, and fear and continue to instill these not-so-wonderful qualities into the three children.
My graduate professor talked to me once about her theory that every story should have some glimmer of hope about the human race. I balked at the idea at the time, all talking my ideas of high-art and "reality" and blah...blah...blah. But not all situations come out hopeful at the end, right? Isn't fiction supposed to reflect the world at large? It turns out that this is true only to the extent that I don't want to come out of days of reading feeling depressed about my life and the world I live in. I want to stress that these characters were the most whiny, frustrating, unsympathizing characters in the history of my reading experience. I forced myself to continue reading in the "hope" that one of them would be redeemed in the end (particularly the little girl May). Nope. Nada. It reminds me of Kafka's immortal Metamorphosis in that I was so frustrated with the mother, father, and sister in Kafka's story but then the end...changed my mind and showed me their cruelty was necessary to save their own lives. The Narrow House? No change. No life saving. No.
I don't even know what grade to give it. I was extremely impressed by its naked emotion. But I know most readers will want to put it down, with good reason. I'm going to give it a solid C, maybe even a C+. I want to recommend it to others who will understand what a risk the novel is for its (and really any) time period. I'm just certain that it would be a forced reading.
Late Night
Those who know me and know who I am are most likely (not) wondering how I feel about late night TV and the big shakeup at NBC. Why would they wonder this? Because I have a strange, secret, not-so-secret crush on Jay Leno for god knows what reasons that I don't dare to try to explain. Anyway, was I sad he left the Tonight Show? No. I never watched it as of late, to be frank, mainly because I don't watch much TV at all anymore. Do I care that his 10:00 p.m. show has been cancelled? No. It was a little cheesy and an hour was too long. I really wished he hadn't started it in the first place. The rumored contract in Vegas with him performing a la Wayne Newton would have been a better choice for him based mainly on his strength as a stand-up vs. his weakness as an interviewer. Do I think he should go back to 11:35 and that this will solve NBC's problems? No.
My suggestion would be to keep Conan O'Brien and the Tonight Show name at 11:35 and sandwich Jay, if he's got to be in there at all, in at 12:35 for a half-hour program (a monologue and an interview would be about it, and on some nights maybe a short monologue, a skit, and an interview). To me, if Jay's show as a lead-in is to blame for Conan's falling ratings, NBC would have to admit this and Conan would get the time and attention needed to find his footing a little better. If Conan still slips in the ratings and continues to underperform across from David Letterman (why would anyone, though?) then Conan and all the Jay-haters will have to realize that Jay's show was not the cause for Conan's poor ratings.
Anyway, I love Jay and am extremely fascinated by his choices, personality, and legendary good-nature. I wish, however, he would retire from television. He can go back on the road or book himself in Vegas or whatever he has to do to fuel his need to work, but he should stop subjecting himself to the critics who hate him so much. All of these talk shows are hit-or-miss anymore but it just seems like his misses get more attention than other shows' misses, and vice versa, other shows' hits get more attention than his hits. He is, without a doubt, some kind of masochist.
I guess all comedians are?
(I'm disgusted that I call them Jay and Conan, by the way, as I would yell at my students if they used the first name of a celebrity or politician, but I suppose Jay and Conan are so familiar it's different?)
My suggestion would be to keep Conan O'Brien and the Tonight Show name at 11:35 and sandwich Jay, if he's got to be in there at all, in at 12:35 for a half-hour program (a monologue and an interview would be about it, and on some nights maybe a short monologue, a skit, and an interview). To me, if Jay's show as a lead-in is to blame for Conan's falling ratings, NBC would have to admit this and Conan would get the time and attention needed to find his footing a little better. If Conan still slips in the ratings and continues to underperform across from David Letterman (why would anyone, though?) then Conan and all the Jay-haters will have to realize that Jay's show was not the cause for Conan's poor ratings.
Anyway, I love Jay and am extremely fascinated by his choices, personality, and legendary good-nature. I wish, however, he would retire from television. He can go back on the road or book himself in Vegas or whatever he has to do to fuel his need to work, but he should stop subjecting himself to the critics who hate him so much. All of these talk shows are hit-or-miss anymore but it just seems like his misses get more attention than other shows' misses, and vice versa, other shows' hits get more attention than his hits. He is, without a doubt, some kind of masochist.
I guess all comedians are?
(I'm disgusted that I call them Jay and Conan, by the way, as I would yell at my students if they used the first name of a celebrity or politician, but I suppose Jay and Conan are so familiar it's different?)
January 8, 2010
Addendum to Yesterday
Re: The Narrow House
So, yesterday I said the novel I was reading by Evelyn Scott had been out of print for seventy years, as this is what my professor had informed us. But, the copyright page and the foreward had Scott's death listed as 1963, which was not seventy years ago, therefore the book was in fact in print at least until that year. Was the professor lying or uninformed? You be the judge.
So, yesterday I said the novel I was reading by Evelyn Scott had been out of print for seventy years, as this is what my professor had informed us. But, the copyright page and the foreward had Scott's death listed as 1963, which was not seventy years ago, therefore the book was in fact in print at least until that year. Was the professor lying or uninformed? You be the judge.
January 7, 2010
Cycle of the Werewolf
So the first week has gone by and I've stuck to the schedule including my writing schedule. I really hope I can keep it up because the first few days is always easy when starting a routine. Anyway, I promised a review of Stephen King's Cycle of the Werewolf, so here it is.
Let me begin with the statement that I love Stephen King. He is the author who made me want to be a writer. His prose is extremely concise, poetic, and entertaining all at once. I mean, he's no Vladimir Nabokov when it comes to poetic prose but he does know how to turn a phrase. And boy, does he know how to write a story.
That being said, he does not know how to write an ending. This is his major shortcoming, in my opinion. I read his novel Rose Madder with a reckless need to get to the end and see how the main character, Rose, escaped her abusive husband, Norman. Throughout that novel, Rose was strong and witty and outsmarted Norman at every turn. It was a psychological thriller. But then, about three-fourths of the way into Norman's downfall, the book became supernatural. Now, I saw this coming because there was foreshadowing afoot, and I'm aware it was Stephen King and I shouldn't have suspected any less but...but...it took the story away from Rose as clever heroine and made it into Rose as superhero goddess with magical powers. But...but...she didn't need supernatural help. She was beating (pardon that terrible, terrible pun) Norman at his own game - psychological trickery. And I spent the final fourth of the novel deeply disappointed.
He has written some near-perfect novels (four out of seven Dark Tower novels, The Eye of the Dragon, It, The Dark Half, Carrie, The Shining, Insomnia, Desperation and The Regulators, and a few others I might be forgetting). But usually he's hit or miss, especially with the ending. Cycle of the Werewolf is meant to be more of a graphic novel than a real novel, so I tried to take this consideration into account while reading, but in the end I felt that good ol' disappointment I feel so often with King.
Werewolf follows the exploits of a werewolf for twelve months, and is broken up into twelve two-or-three page chapters. The longest chapter is maybe five pages. Now you know why I felt this book was a cop-out to begin with. It's enjoyable enough but it isn't scary and it isn't suspenseful. Part of this is because Berni Wrightson's illustrations often ruin the suspense by showing an integral piece of the story too early - but that was a stupid decision on the part of the layout editor, not really on the parts of King or Wrightson. The reveal of who is the werewolf might have been shocking if a full-page color drawing of that person weren't on the previous page (and there is no denying, from hints earlier in the story, that the picture is meant to reveal the werewolf). And then there is the unbelievably dense cops both on the local level and on the state level, the thin characters because we are getting comic-book-sized descriptions of personality without the convenience of a series to slowly add depth, and the conveniently perfect ending.
Hey, I love suspending disbelief. My favorite short story, Light is Like Water by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, is about boys who find a way to swim in light. But in the total five pages of that story, I believe they can swim in light. In the 128 pages of Werewolf, I receive no clue of how the boy hero attained the amazing ability he shows. It makes some of the emotion of the earlier chapters, including the ones where frightened townsfolk classically hunt the werewolf with shotguns and torches (there may not have been torches), seem cheapened. It's a dead ending furthermore because there is no falloff from the climax (important to the story according to Freytag's pyramid).
Anyway, overall grade: C. Entertaining enough to not be put down but not enough to be read again or be recommended. Lacks engaging characters and suspenseful plot but King just can't be boring and has a powerful writing style.
My weekly readings started on January 1, 2010 and therefore I will begin each week on Friday to keep the routine going. This upcoming week will see me reading as such:
Friday: The Mahabharata, ten pages
Saturday: The Koran/Qaran/Qur'an, ten pages
Sunday: The Bible, ten pages
Monday: The Analects of Confucius and Tao Te Ching, ten pages
Tuesday: The White Tiger by Aravind Adiga, ten pages
Wednesday: The Selected Fictions of Jorge Luis Borges, ten pages
Thursday: On the Origin of Stories, by Brian Boyd
Weekly Book: The Narrow House by Evelyn Scott, 32 pages a day to finish in a week
3.5 pages written on a short story
3.5 pages written on novel
Some explaining (this is a very long post, isn't it?), on why I'm reading what I am. First, the religious doctrines - armed with knowledge, you know? And because if I ever chose a religion, it would probably be Taoist. I mean, go appreciate a tree and don't kill anyone. That's a philosophy I can get behind. (That's what my religion professor said on the day we learned about Taoism. Not the "don't kill anyone" part, but it was implied.) The White Tiger because it won the Man Booker Prize 2008 and has been really funny so far. Borges because I've been trying to get through all of his writing for a long, long time. The Origin of Stories because it is really interesting but far too "academic" to read in large portions. The Narrow House because I had to buy it for a class I dropped, it had been out of print for some odd seventy years, was really hard to find, and I bought it for $.03 at Amazon after searching far and wide for it everywhere else on the planet. And its writing style is subject-verb-predicate, over and over repetitively, which is my writing style for fiction and I felt a camaraderie.
The little, tiny amount of writing? Because I'm afraid of writing now thanks to a certain professor who was never my professor but had to be on my thesis committee and implied I was not good enough to be at grad school (actually, she all but said she felt they made a mistake with me). Screw her. I'm going to get back my confidence, in baby steps. I would just like to let everyone know that three of the professors I did have were wonderful and encouraging, but sometimes all it takes is one bad apple as it goes....
Let me begin with the statement that I love Stephen King. He is the author who made me want to be a writer. His prose is extremely concise, poetic, and entertaining all at once. I mean, he's no Vladimir Nabokov when it comes to poetic prose but he does know how to turn a phrase. And boy, does he know how to write a story.
That being said, he does not know how to write an ending. This is his major shortcoming, in my opinion. I read his novel Rose Madder with a reckless need to get to the end and see how the main character, Rose, escaped her abusive husband, Norman. Throughout that novel, Rose was strong and witty and outsmarted Norman at every turn. It was a psychological thriller. But then, about three-fourths of the way into Norman's downfall, the book became supernatural. Now, I saw this coming because there was foreshadowing afoot, and I'm aware it was Stephen King and I shouldn't have suspected any less but...but...it took the story away from Rose as clever heroine and made it into Rose as superhero goddess with magical powers. But...but...she didn't need supernatural help. She was beating (pardon that terrible, terrible pun) Norman at his own game - psychological trickery. And I spent the final fourth of the novel deeply disappointed.
He has written some near-perfect novels (four out of seven Dark Tower novels, The Eye of the Dragon, It, The Dark Half, Carrie, The Shining, Insomnia, Desperation and The Regulators, and a few others I might be forgetting). But usually he's hit or miss, especially with the ending. Cycle of the Werewolf is meant to be more of a graphic novel than a real novel, so I tried to take this consideration into account while reading, but in the end I felt that good ol' disappointment I feel so often with King.
Werewolf follows the exploits of a werewolf for twelve months, and is broken up into twelve two-or-three page chapters. The longest chapter is maybe five pages. Now you know why I felt this book was a cop-out to begin with. It's enjoyable enough but it isn't scary and it isn't suspenseful. Part of this is because Berni Wrightson's illustrations often ruin the suspense by showing an integral piece of the story too early - but that was a stupid decision on the part of the layout editor, not really on the parts of King or Wrightson. The reveal of who is the werewolf might have been shocking if a full-page color drawing of that person weren't on the previous page (and there is no denying, from hints earlier in the story, that the picture is meant to reveal the werewolf). And then there is the unbelievably dense cops both on the local level and on the state level, the thin characters because we are getting comic-book-sized descriptions of personality without the convenience of a series to slowly add depth, and the conveniently perfect ending.
Hey, I love suspending disbelief. My favorite short story, Light is Like Water by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, is about boys who find a way to swim in light. But in the total five pages of that story, I believe they can swim in light. In the 128 pages of Werewolf, I receive no clue of how the boy hero attained the amazing ability he shows. It makes some of the emotion of the earlier chapters, including the ones where frightened townsfolk classically hunt the werewolf with shotguns and torches (there may not have been torches), seem cheapened. It's a dead ending furthermore because there is no falloff from the climax (important to the story according to Freytag's pyramid).
Anyway, overall grade: C. Entertaining enough to not be put down but not enough to be read again or be recommended. Lacks engaging characters and suspenseful plot but King just can't be boring and has a powerful writing style.
My weekly readings started on January 1, 2010 and therefore I will begin each week on Friday to keep the routine going. This upcoming week will see me reading as such:
Friday: The Mahabharata, ten pages
Saturday: The Koran/Qaran/Qur'an, ten pages
Sunday: The Bible, ten pages
Monday: The Analects of Confucius and Tao Te Ching, ten pages
Tuesday: The White Tiger by Aravind Adiga, ten pages
Wednesday: The Selected Fictions of Jorge Luis Borges, ten pages
Thursday: On the Origin of Stories, by Brian Boyd
Weekly Book: The Narrow House by Evelyn Scott, 32 pages a day to finish in a week
3.5 pages written on a short story
3.5 pages written on novel
Some explaining (this is a very long post, isn't it?), on why I'm reading what I am. First, the religious doctrines - armed with knowledge, you know? And because if I ever chose a religion, it would probably be Taoist. I mean, go appreciate a tree and don't kill anyone. That's a philosophy I can get behind. (That's what my religion professor said on the day we learned about Taoism. Not the "don't kill anyone" part, but it was implied.) The White Tiger because it won the Man Booker Prize 2008 and has been really funny so far. Borges because I've been trying to get through all of his writing for a long, long time. The Origin of Stories because it is really interesting but far too "academic" to read in large portions. The Narrow House because I had to buy it for a class I dropped, it had been out of print for some odd seventy years, was really hard to find, and I bought it for $.03 at Amazon after searching far and wide for it everywhere else on the planet. And its writing style is subject-verb-predicate, over and over repetitively, which is my writing style for fiction and I felt a camaraderie.
The little, tiny amount of writing? Because I'm afraid of writing now thanks to a certain professor who was never my professor but had to be on my thesis committee and implied I was not good enough to be at grad school (actually, she all but said she felt they made a mistake with me). Screw her. I'm going to get back my confidence, in baby steps. I would just like to let everyone know that three of the professors I did have were wonderful and encouraging, but sometimes all it takes is one bad apple as it goes....
January 5, 2010
Discipline!
So, this is my general blog. I have a New Year's resolution to, starting in 2010, read one full book each week along with parts of other books each week. In 2011, my plan is to increase to two books each week, then three-a-week in 2012, etc. The first book I read was a bit of a cop-out, Stephen King's Cycle of the Werewolf, because it was quick and I knew it would give me a boost of confidence if I started with a book I knew I could finish. It took about two hours, which were broken up into a few fifteen - thirty minute chunks. In my next post I'll give it a review, and I'm thinking that I'll make some smaller posts on the ten pages I'll be reading of the other books each day. I know that for someone who loves reading, which I am, that seems like not very much reading at all, but I'm finding myself getting a little depressed with my life and it makes me not want to do anything, even things I love. Therefore, I need to get into a routine that will help me regain a little light somewhere.
You might say, "LDJ, how is it that forcing yourself into routine will make your life better? Isn't it getting out of routines that usually helps depression?"
Well, my reply is, "There is no routine in my life. The job I have is rather random and unstable and money is unpredictable and you know what? Routine is a welcome change. It's something I need."
"Fair enough," you should say back.
I'll begin the week by writing something like (and I'm just thinking out loud here, folks):
Sunday: 10 pages in the Bible
Monday: 10 pages in the Mahabharata
Tuesday: 10 pages in the Koran and its various spellings
Wednesday: 10 pages in the Analects of Confucius/Tao Te Ching
Thursday: 10 pages in Random Non-Fiction Book
Friday: 10 pages in Random Other Book
Saturday: 10 pages in Random Other Book
Weekly Book: Cycle of the Werewolf by Stephen King, at least "x" pages each day to reach goal
And we'll see day-by-day how I do. Well, I've made the weekly goal, but I'll have to do some catch up and decision making with the rest of the list, so I had better get on it, eh?
You might say, "LDJ, how is it that forcing yourself into routine will make your life better? Isn't it getting out of routines that usually helps depression?"
Well, my reply is, "There is no routine in my life. The job I have is rather random and unstable and money is unpredictable and you know what? Routine is a welcome change. It's something I need."
"Fair enough," you should say back.
I'll begin the week by writing something like (and I'm just thinking out loud here, folks):
Sunday: 10 pages in the Bible
Monday: 10 pages in the Mahabharata
Tuesday: 10 pages in the Koran and its various spellings
Wednesday: 10 pages in the Analects of Confucius/Tao Te Ching
Thursday: 10 pages in Random Non-Fiction Book
Friday: 10 pages in Random Other Book
Saturday: 10 pages in Random Other Book
Weekly Book: Cycle of the Werewolf by Stephen King, at least "x" pages each day to reach goal
And we'll see day-by-day how I do. Well, I've made the weekly goal, but I'll have to do some catch up and decision making with the rest of the list, so I had better get on it, eh?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
