Driving Blind (fragment)

Draco Carsten Muyskens said on the television, he wanted to get the people who did this to him. He didn’t say it, but everyone knew what ‘this’ was. He appeared on The Television, sitting in a wheelchair and wearing an expensive blue suit and a neat white mask that hid his face. When he spoke, you had the impression that it wasn’t really him speaking, but someone else, someone in a sound-room somewhere with a bottle of water sitting next to him while he read from a meticulously crafted script, the finished work of virtuoso speechwriters. But of course you couldn’t prove it; you couldn’t see Draco’s mouth, and the presentation made it impossible to tell if he was the one doing the speaking. By design, of course. Naturally you could tell if it was him if you knew what his voice sounded like (couldn’t you?), but who knew what his voice sounded like? So Draco sat there, in his wheelchair, saying he wanted to get the person, the people, who did this to him. He wanted to make them pay, he said. This is the voice of Draco, he implied.

Revenge boiled in his blood, etc.

He wanted their head(s), etc.

Read the full post »

NEWSFLASH: Video Games Found Violent

Incredible! No, scratch that; it’s more than incredible, it’s brilliant! What geniuses.

A new study finds that Teen-rated video games contain significant amounts of violence and death.

Tetherballs of Bougainville by Mark Leyner (REVIEW)

You can heap praise upon books until you run out of clever adjectives and you’ve used up all the permutations of classic book review phrases you can think of, but the fact remains: when it’s all said and done (and discussed and written about and beat into the ground with a dead horse), there are some books that leave you regretting your decision to read them, and then there are books that, well, don’t. Books that, to put it bluntly, kick ass.

This, I think, fits comfortably in the latter category.

Though I should mention that, in the same way that non-drowsy Dramamine and scrapple and facial tattoos are simply not for some people, this is a book that, quite frankly, is not for some people. This book (ToB) starts off with an execution in New Jersey and proceeds more or less from there with reckless abandon. ML veers off on tangents at an almost imperceptibly-fast rate, writing one moment about a “postmodern sentencing structure” (‘discretionary’ execution where an inmate is released but may be executed at any time [and in any manner], depending on a number of more or less random variables) and the next moment about a locker room painted with bare-breasted Valkyries with laser guns. And I’m not even making that up. The only thing that makes this a ‘novel’ and not a series of loosely intertwined short stories and essays is…

Well, nothing, I guess. But still, it’s billed as a novel, so you’re more or less inclined to read it as such. Part of what makes Leyner’s stuff so brilliantly funny is the fact that it’s simultaneously unbelievably self-assured and fanatically self-deprecating; that it’s both above the reader—prone to spates of almost uninterpretable medical and general technical gibberish—and also below the reader; that it’s dead serious and unnervingly hilarious; that it’s self-referentially painstakingly non-referential. (I don’t even know what half of this means, but rest assured, it’s all true.)

An example might help you get a sense of what I’m talking about. So:

“Let’s not be naive. Kids are going to experiment with drugs and alcohol, vandalism, callous violence, semiautomatic handguns, chemical weapons, and neofascist hate crime—it’s inevitable behavior for adolescents trying to determine what ‘truth’ is in a world torn between the self-replicating apocrypha of the Internet and the info-hegemony of Eisner-Murdoch-Turner.” (p 202-203)

I don’t really know what more I can say. Let’s not mince words. This is a work of superhuman skill. If it were written two centuries earlier (or even one), we’d be teaching it to kids in high school (Assuming, for a moment, that if this were written 2 centuries earlier, most of its brazenly vulgar [yet infinitely comedic] references would be banal enough that they could be taught in HS w/o offending too many people—which I guess begs the question as to whether part of the kick-assedness of this work has to do with just how offensive it manages to be without being too serious.). Anyway, it’s good. It’s amusing, in a way, how a book this witty compels its reviewers to attempt some kind of emulation, albeit vastly inferior, of that dazzle. I’m not saying it’s wrong, I’m just saying it’s kind of funny, you know?

Here’s another good bit, one I’ll leave you to munch on as you decide whether or not to run out and read this book right now. (It’s your decision, after all.)

“Len Gutman was not only considered technically virtuosic in his craft, he was deemed a visionary genius. In the course of his career, he garnered every significant award bestowed by his colleagues, and was ultimately designated a ‘Living National Treasure’ by the American Signage and Display Association (ASDA). His work is so ubiquitous and prototypical that it smacks of the primordial, as if it’s somehow existed always, independent of human artifice.

Use Other Door—one of the very first signs that Gutman wrote as a young man—became an immediate classic. Gutman went on to write a stunning series of signs that fundamentally redefined our sense of public language, including: Out of Service, Visitors Must Sign In, and Push to Start. Then—in what is considered Gutman’s annus mirabilis—an astonishing burst of creativity in which masterpiece followed masterpiece in astonishing succession: Do Not Enclose or Obstruct Access to Meter, Turn Knob to Right Only, Right Lane Must Turn Right, and the sublime Employees Must Wash Hands Before Returning to Work. (That same year, Gutman also wrote We Deliver, Totally Nude, and Void Where Prohibited.)

There’s an austere beauty to much of his work, pared down to its irreducible essence. In a famous television interview with Gutman late in his life, a critic is standing with him in front of a restaurant’s lavatories, admiring what is indisputably Gutman’s most popular, and arguably his finest, sign: Men.

They then move over to the distaff door.

‘You didn’t write Women?’ asks the critic.

‘No, I wish I had,’ Gutman smiles wistfully.” (p 84-85)

Dead actors and living scripts

A theatre group in Britain is putting together a play in which the star role will be played by a dead body.

Not an actor portraying a dead body, but an actual, real dead body.

It sounds wicked brilliant.

The play is called “Dead: You Will Be” and is looking to examine society’s attitudes towards death; and despite the fact that the theatre group doesn’t plan on having actors actually touch the body during the show, and that the group (for obvious reasons) is seeking a consenting donor, I’m betting this is something that will stir up some people’s indignation.

Company director Jo Dagless:

“The use of a body in this piece is integral to the direct confrontation of the issues that 1157 [the theatre group] want to encourage in the audience and the company and will, we hope, reawaken a collective response to our inevitable fates.”

It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

(via The Guardian: “Would you be seen dead in this show? Now’s your chance…” by Vanessa Thorpe (March 21, 2004))

Quotes in the news

Noam Chomsky, MIT Linguist and Anarchist:

“Kerry is sometimes described as ‘Bush-lite’, which is not inaccurate. But despite the limited differences both domestically and internationally, there are differences. In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes.” (The Guardian, March 20)

Mel Gibson, on George Bush:

“I am having my doubts, of late. It mainly has to do with the weapons (of mass destruction) we can’t seem to find (in Iraq).” (NBC6.net, March 16)

(so I realize two items isn’t a great list, but it’s all I have for now)

Gee That’s A Large Beetle I Wonder If It’s Poisonous…

…and many other weird and often irreverently profane band names, found on the The Canonical List of Weird Band Names. Which, yes, restricts the list to actual band names. Skimming the list, I recognized maybe 11 or 12 names, but I’m not too sure whether that’s a particularly good thing. It might be, it might not.

The list includes such beauties as the following:

The Band Formerly Known As Sausage
Biff Hitler and the Violent Mood Swings
Big Fat Pet Clams From Outer Space
Bobby Joe Ebola and the Children MacNuggits
Cream of Whoop-Ass Soup
Freud Chicken
He’s Dead Jim
Jim Jones and the Kool Aid Kids
Mate/Spawn/Kill
Not With My Camel
Rats of Unusual Size

And also includes such sage advice as:

Goldfish Don’t Bounce

(found via diepunyhumans)

A Fish Story


According to none other than the US Tuna Foundation, the recent advisory issued by the FDA and EPA “Affirms That Tuna Remains a Safe and Healthy Food Choice.” The USTF’s objective and forthright press release goes on to note that the FDA/EPA release will now help to assure women that it “is safe to eat canned tuna weekly during pregnancy.”

Which is fortunate, because previously there was that grim spectre of mercury-laden tuna that frightened away prospective mothers, mothers who wanted to gain the benefits from eating seafood while eschewing the dangers of methylmercury poisoning. Now, at least, people can know that what they’re eating is safe. Somewhat. Maybe. Well, at any rate, they can know it’s not as dangerous as what they might be doing absent any kind of guidlines.

(From the FDA & EPA’s press release: “[A]s a matter of prudence, women might wish to modify the amount and type of fish they consume if they are planning to become pregnant, pregnant, nursing, or feeding a young child.”)

There’s something to be said for acknowledging that nothing is perfectly, 100% safe; for acknowledging that women should maybe take extra caution when their food’s going to someone else. But when guidelines for fish that pregnant/soon-to-be-pregnant/nursing women provide explicit (“Do not eat” is not exactly ambiguous) advice against eating Shark, Swordfish, King Mackerel, or Tilefish “because they contain high levels of mercury,” you’re driven to wonder: and these fish are safe for the rest of us why?1

But anyway, it’s good to know that the FDA/EPA are strictly set on the cautionary principle. Except that they’re not.

Sez the FDA/EPA, in recommendation #3:

“Check local advisories about the safety of fish caught by family and friends in your local lakes, rivers and coastal areas. If no advice is available, eat up to six ounces (one average meal) per week of fish you catch from local waters, but don’t consume any other fish during that week.” (emphasis added)

Oh, and the recommended fish noshing—i.e., a pregnant woman eating the maximum fish allowed—would actually possibly push the mercury levels in the consumer’s bloodstream above what the EPA says is risk-free. But at least they’re still not in real danger as far as the FDA is concerned; FDA officials pointed out that women are unlikely to really see any problems until the mercury levels in their bloodstream exceed the risk-free level by 10 times.

Which isn’t to say that this new advisory isn’t some kind of improvement, however slight: previous advisories, apparently, didn’t include any mention of tuna. Chalk one up to the vast wheels of social progress.

(via FDA/EPA Press Release: “FDA and EPA Announce the Revised Consumer Advisory on Methylmercury in Fish” (March 19, 2004); USTF Press Release: “Government Advisory Provides Clear Guidance to Pregnant and Nursing Women about the Importance of Canned Tuna in Their Diets” (March 19, 2004); BoGlo: “2 agencies urge limit on eating tuna,” by Alice Dembner (March 20, 2004); Mercury Policy Project: Exposure To Mercury)

Note
1 So, technically speaking, the kind of mercury found in fish is typically eliminated from an adult’s body fairly easily. But—insofar as I understand it—the elimination is a gradual process, and pretty obviously can’t be independent of the amounts of mercury being ingested; there have to be levels at which mercury can’t be safetly eliminated from a healthy adult’s body (gradual reduction in the amount of mercury in your body relies on you not constantly eating Hg-containing fish). Yet the FDA does not regularly test for mercury in fish, so the safety of mercury in fish for adults is mostly by assumption. Which, in short, seems like it’s not exactly the most brilliant policy ever devised.

The Noble Car

Fact: Every day, more people die from road traffic accidents than from drugs, war, and violence, combined.

(via World Health Report 2002; comparisons based on estimates from 2001: daily deaths = 3200 road traffic, 1300 violence, 630 war, 186 drugs)

Adaptation

(2002) directed by Spike Jonze, starring Nicolas Cage, Nicolas Cage, Meryl Streep, Chris Cooper, and a few people as themselves, etc.

Synopsis: A nontraditional, nested story (set of stories, actually) about a screen-writer, writer, etc. Promising, but.

Review: Probably the worst well-done movie I’ve ever seen. The acting, for what it’s worth, is extremely on-target. Functionally, the script may work. But on the whole, this is a movie that is painfully, gruesomely awful. Some movies have redemptive qualities. Some movies, however terrible, at least give you something to enjoy. Some movies reward you for what you’ve endured. This is not one of those movies. It is different, yes. It is creative in a ‘different’ way, yes. But this is not a clever movie. The phrase “pretentiously self-aware” comes to mind. (For the record, I didn’t care much for Being John Malkovich [also by Spike Jonze], either, though that film at least had some enjoyable parts.) The more I think about it, the less I like Adaptation. So it gets just one star (or pip, or whatever you want to call it). Out of five. Terrible. Unfortunate. Abysmal.

Rating: [•] out of [•••••]

Etc.: US Gross $22,498,520; imdb info; allmovie info

Reframing an old story

I’ve heard the story of Easter Island used many times as a cautionary tale. Recently, I’ve heard it used in a slightly different, and immensely thought-provoking, incarnation.

Here’s the story, more or less:

the people of Easter Island, quite obviously, were not born there but arrived there on boats. Liking what they saw—and being able to go no further—they stayed. They built up a society that could be considered, by many different standards, quite complex. Social order, advanced living structures with all the (then) possible creature comforts, art, domestication of animals and cultivation of crops, boat-making (they made large, sophisticated canoes for fishing) and religion. A religion that, for whatever reason, caused them to cart giant stone heads large distances (relatively speaking) across the island. What task they couldn’t accomplish from sheer manpower, and certainly not from any ‘beasts of burden’ (the largest animals on the island, other than humans, were pigs); moving the stone heads, then required logs. Lots and lots of logs. Fortunately the island was fairly well-equipped with trees. This religion didn’t require moving one stone head, though; it required the moving of many, many stone heads. Many trees were cut down. More were cut down. In fact, all the trees, eventually, were cut down.

So somebody must have realized, cutting down the last tree: this is the last tree. The island was not insurmountably gigantic. It would have been difficult to trick yourself into thinking that there were more trees. But the last tree was cut down, despite trees’ vital role to the society.

And what happened?

Society collapsed. Regressed. Population crashed. It became a feudal-warlike society of primitive tribes. Language crumbled. People moved from living in huts and other structures to living in caves, eking out a very borderline existence.

The cautionary tale usually pulled out of all this is, use your resources wisely, because they’re so important to the functions of society.

Recently, however, I’ve heard it put in a different light. “Consider it,” the person said (I’m paraphrasing here), “a case study of a worse-case outcome for society continuing to use resources unsustainably.”

Okay, nothing so surprising so far.

“An important thing to note, though, is that the people did not disappear. They didn’t die off. When explorers came to the island, they found a group of people vastly more primitive than the original Easter Islanders would have been; but they didn’t find an empty island. Their society survived, even if the culture suffered greatly.”

Lesson: if society continues to use resources irresponsibly, until it’s too late, humans won’t die off. They’ll pay a very dear price, but they won’t become extinct.

Which simultaneously says something about human adaptability and human stupidity. It seems a pretty logical conclusion to draw, but it’s not really one I considered before, not really. I’d always considered a more binary “people will survive in their current form or die off”. Which is monstrously simplistic, but somehow believable.

But this re-framing of Easter Island makes me think.

Read the full post »