Music ties itself to moments in our lives. Each once beloved song carries with it specific memories and emotions of the time when listened to most. Pop music exploits this and, by its ephemeral nature, it creates a collective link to a time. This summer will, for many, be remembered through Adele’s Rolling in the Deep, or Lady Gaga’s Edge of Glory and with those melodies comes a twinge of nostalgia, a memory of heartbreak or a flicker of a smile. For some songs there is only a brief, “Oh yeah, I remember when I listened to this song,” but for others, the connection is a time portal; immediately upon hearing it, consciousness drifts back to a moment in our history, and lost time becomes found again.
The Waldstein sonata by Beethoven has this effect on me more than any other song. It was the first piece of classical music that I ever loved. Probably not the first, but during one of my early listens, the wave of catharsis brought on by the piece was overwhelming. The first movement is frantic and scattered and the brief second movement acts as a moment to catch our breath before launching into the amazing third movement. The third movement is always reaching for the highest high. It’s chasing after something, though it’s never sure what it’s looking for. It, like much of Beethoven, is relentless striving. What always caught me about this piece is that it doesn’t end in success. I always heard it as reaching, but the end is anti climatic. As the piece races towards the end it builds and builds, but can’t provide a satisfying conclusion and at the end of every listen, I always wanted to hear it again and again and again hoping this time that I would hear the conclusion I wanted but couldn’t find.
I was at St. John’s at the time and the search for meaning was paramount. There’s a sort of desperation in most St. John’s students or probably anyone who spends all their time reading philosophy. I loved this piece because it felt as though Beethoven’s as well as my search was marked more for failure than for success. While searching, and like the Waldstein sometimes the thing seems so close, but it is always elusive, tantalizing and always out of reach. It’s tragic, but with the tragedy comes catharsis and the Waldstein came to represent the catharsis of the search. And then, the meaning in the search for meaning sufficed.
It’s been years since St. John’s and the search is of a different kind. It’s become more pragmatic and less frantic. I think more about what I want my life to look like in 2 years, 5 years, 10 years or 50 years and wonder how I can get there then what it all Means. My mind is more set in its ways and revolutions of consciousness happen passively and over long stretches of time rather than zig zagging with every new book. The idea of finding “meaning” is an absurdity to me, until those wonderful, familiar notes come racing and dancing upwards over the speakers, then i'm sitting in my dorm again and laying on my bed. Finding meaning is all that matters. As I listen to the piece crescendo as it hits its highest notes only to retreat back down for to end, I feel unsatisfied and listen to it again.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Science is Optimism
Charles Darwin was always hesitant to apply the theory of evolution to human beings. The Origin of Species ignores humans as a subject, and the Descent of Man takes an absurdly positive view of human nature. He wrote that civilization came to be through the evolutionarily favored empathy and compassion between early man. He suggests that compassion is one of the primary qualities that makes modern man successfully reproduce and believed that the more advanced civilizations were advanced because the compassion of civilized men had a broader reach than those of less advanced people; his argument is "since I loved my universal 'neighbor' as myself, I would be more evolutionarily successful than if I only loved my physical neighbor as myself." Modern biologists take a much more nuanced and realistic approach to the subject and we know that while compassion is important in humans, fouler motives tend to guide most of our behavior. Perhaps he chose this rose-colored view of human evolution because he wanted fame for his discoveries and believed they would be rejected if he brought them to their dark conclusion, or perhaps he was too influenced by his contemporary philosophers, but there is another possible reason: When he lived, the world had become so astonishing due to human ingenuity, it only seemed possible that such a world could come to be by a cooperative group of people working together, and the virtues of compassion and empathy are absolutely necessary to make something so wonderful.
His world was post industrial revolution Englad. We tend to look back on that age and think of huge clouds of smoke covering the cities, the subjugation of the poor and the romantic poets complaining about all of it. That age, however, was the beginning of technology. The arcane sciences, which once only mattered to philosophers, now were changing the face of the planet, and their discoveries started to improve the quality of life drastically. This was the beginning of a trend.
To start at the beginning, for thousands of years, the world was largely the same. Between the Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Chinese and Japanese, each made great discoveries and advanced their civilizations beyond primitive, but as each civilization’s technological prowess grew, they were continually hindered by the gluttony of their monarchs or civil war or religion. Then there was a miracle, the Renaissance. Though the Italian Renaissance was quashed by the Borgias, the greatness of Da Vinci, Dante and Michelango could not be contained by political borders. Soon all of Western Europe began to reinvent itself. Descartes arose as the philosophic voice of the new world as he revolutionized both philosophy and science. Everyone set out to tear down the previously sacred philosophy of Aristotle. Empiricism was popular in England and spread to France. Every man of intellect tried his hand at making the next new scientific discovery. The speed of technology began to speed up. Boyle discovered that gas laws and because of him, the steam engine was invented. Then trains and railways spread all over the world. Similarly, factories were invented and improved the speed of manufacturing a thousand fold. Volta and Galvani learned to control electricity then Tesla and Edison learned how to use it in cities. There was a massive undertaking to build power grids connecting villages, towns and metropolises to generators and illuminating the night sky. Soon we had heated water in our homes. The Great War showed how technology could be used for the rampant destruction of human life, and the Second War showed us the true potential technology has for destruction. It would not have been possible without the work of Einstein. In this new science, theory precedes invention. Behind each advancement in technology is the work of engineers, inventors and a theory, and behind each theory is the work of many scientists.
Science is competitive and people always want to outdo their contemporaries, but as each field has advanced, people more and more are forced to rely on the work of their competitors. While every scientist dreams of uprooting all current theories, most scientists don’t make major breakthroughs. Many, however, make minor ones which don’t overturn theories, but amend them. The big theories are refined by the little and along the way seemingly insignificant discoveries lead to wonderful advancements. The anthropologists studying a tribe in South America discovers the way in which the shaman uses a hallucinogen to ease the mental anguish of a family who had lost its father to war, and that research leads a psychiatrist in America to reevaluate value of hallucinogens in therapy. The zoologist who studies a lizard which exists in only in the Sahara Desert notices that they absorb and recycle water in an extremely efficient way, and a researcher realizes that these techniques could be used to vastly increase the efficiency of water usage in cities. The zoologist and anthropologist are adding bits and pieces to the massive (and I mean extraordinarily massive) body of information we call the theory of evolution and at the same time helping to develop new technologies (I don’t currently have the internet, but I feel like this example could be with a little research). I find it a great comfort to know that there are hundreds of thousands of people working right now on sciencey things that could improve the world in unfathomable ways.
There is a tendency to look back at the past and think that the world was better than. It seems a natural human instinct as even that characters in Homer see their ancestors as better stronger men then they. The reasons why are unnecessary to explain here, but this form of nostalgia is pointless and irrational. When we think about the “good old days” we mythologize them. We don’t think about how the modern wars, which admittedly are horrible, amount to near insignificant death tolls relative to the per capita death tolls in any other part of human history. Over this century, even if you include both world wars, the percentage of people killed by warfare is a small fraction of people killed in previous centuries and a near insignificant figure compared to that of tribal peoples. The figures for infant mortality, rape and murder are the same way. The quality of life for most people has risen exponentially. We tend to fear China as a tyrannical country who will end up ruling the world, but they’ll pass America in civil rights sooner than we think. Their ascension will continue to improve the world’s quality of life statistics. Perhaps their rise will diminish America‘s, but I think that unlikely. Even as our wealth fades, technology will compensate for it. The invention of the internet is underestimated in how much it has improved people’s lives. Too many people still fear it. The approaching environmental crisis will force us to change, but we can and will adapt. I would never bet against the ingenuity of all of the world’s scientists. How could you when they’re the people who turned invented the computer, and landed on the moon and even turned matter into energy. Nothing is impossible (even sending information faster than the speed of light!). And now, we have more scientists and engineers than ever before; Vegas has the odds as dollars to donuts for them.
I‘m not necessarily suggesting that humankind is progressing and will soon reach some perfectly happy state of being. Science in inherently incomplete and flawed. It will never be perfect. Even if it was, human beings sometimes harm each other out of boredom as often as pain and those tendencies are a part of our race. Suffering and tragedy are in our DNA (bleh), but as technology and science advance, some of the needless pains that we suffer through disappear. When Montaigne wrote about his kidney stones, he said the treatments in the 1500s tended not to work and would require drastic shifts in his lifestyle. He decided that he would rather continue to enjoy his way of life and deal with the pain of his stones. He was choosing to accept some of life‘s pains to keep his more valuable pleasures. In modern days we can break stones down instantly and, though I‘m told passing them is still a bear, we are freed from the pain without changing our lives. The modern kidney stones might be migraines or some other ailment, but there will always be some pains that cause us trouble, but the more of them we eliminate, the rarer they become.
As we eliminate the problems of humanity, it’s hard not to look at the modern world and be amazed. Sure people are still assholes sometimes and sometimes life is tough, but as I walk through my city and look around to see all the building and the millions of people who coexist without feces on the streets or suffering from bubonic plague, it strikes me as wonderful. The only reason that this marvel is possible is because of the single largest collaborative undertaking in human history: the advancement of science. The world as it is has not come about because of the greatness of a few men, but through the greatness of many who are willing to share what they've discovered with the world. Science is not an occult teaching designed only for the few, but everything that people know is available to anyone who would learn it.
One could say I have faith in science, but it’s not really faith. Even as I sit here and type I know that technology has made my life easier at least, and I’d argue for better as well; statistics are on my side. Who needs faith when I’m surrounded by proof of the wonders of science. The scientists out there trying to tackle some problem, or cure some disease must be thinking the same thing (at least every once in a while because, let’s face it, the progress of individual researchers tends to be oh so slow). They’re working to improve the world in a tangible way and its comforting to think that the people who follow us will have even more wonderful lives because of it. This isn’t the kind of optimism where the glass is half full or empty, because science is a pitcher of water filling the glass all the time. We’ve no idea how full the glass is, but we’re certain it’s getting fuller all the time.
His world was post industrial revolution Englad. We tend to look back on that age and think of huge clouds of smoke covering the cities, the subjugation of the poor and the romantic poets complaining about all of it. That age, however, was the beginning of technology. The arcane sciences, which once only mattered to philosophers, now were changing the face of the planet, and their discoveries started to improve the quality of life drastically. This was the beginning of a trend.
To start at the beginning, for thousands of years, the world was largely the same. Between the Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Chinese and Japanese, each made great discoveries and advanced their civilizations beyond primitive, but as each civilization’s technological prowess grew, they were continually hindered by the gluttony of their monarchs or civil war or religion. Then there was a miracle, the Renaissance. Though the Italian Renaissance was quashed by the Borgias, the greatness of Da Vinci, Dante and Michelango could not be contained by political borders. Soon all of Western Europe began to reinvent itself. Descartes arose as the philosophic voice of the new world as he revolutionized both philosophy and science. Everyone set out to tear down the previously sacred philosophy of Aristotle. Empiricism was popular in England and spread to France. Every man of intellect tried his hand at making the next new scientific discovery. The speed of technology began to speed up. Boyle discovered that gas laws and because of him, the steam engine was invented. Then trains and railways spread all over the world. Similarly, factories were invented and improved the speed of manufacturing a thousand fold. Volta and Galvani learned to control electricity then Tesla and Edison learned how to use it in cities. There was a massive undertaking to build power grids connecting villages, towns and metropolises to generators and illuminating the night sky. Soon we had heated water in our homes. The Great War showed how technology could be used for the rampant destruction of human life, and the Second War showed us the true potential technology has for destruction. It would not have been possible without the work of Einstein. In this new science, theory precedes invention. Behind each advancement in technology is the work of engineers, inventors and a theory, and behind each theory is the work of many scientists.
Science is competitive and people always want to outdo their contemporaries, but as each field has advanced, people more and more are forced to rely on the work of their competitors. While every scientist dreams of uprooting all current theories, most scientists don’t make major breakthroughs. Many, however, make minor ones which don’t overturn theories, but amend them. The big theories are refined by the little and along the way seemingly insignificant discoveries lead to wonderful advancements. The anthropologists studying a tribe in South America discovers the way in which the shaman uses a hallucinogen to ease the mental anguish of a family who had lost its father to war, and that research leads a psychiatrist in America to reevaluate value of hallucinogens in therapy. The zoologist who studies a lizard which exists in only in the Sahara Desert notices that they absorb and recycle water in an extremely efficient way, and a researcher realizes that these techniques could be used to vastly increase the efficiency of water usage in cities. The zoologist and anthropologist are adding bits and pieces to the massive (and I mean extraordinarily massive) body of information we call the theory of evolution and at the same time helping to develop new technologies (I don’t currently have the internet, but I feel like this example could be with a little research). I find it a great comfort to know that there are hundreds of thousands of people working right now on sciencey things that could improve the world in unfathomable ways.
There is a tendency to look back at the past and think that the world was better than. It seems a natural human instinct as even that characters in Homer see their ancestors as better stronger men then they. The reasons why are unnecessary to explain here, but this form of nostalgia is pointless and irrational. When we think about the “good old days” we mythologize them. We don’t think about how the modern wars, which admittedly are horrible, amount to near insignificant death tolls relative to the per capita death tolls in any other part of human history. Over this century, even if you include both world wars, the percentage of people killed by warfare is a small fraction of people killed in previous centuries and a near insignificant figure compared to that of tribal peoples. The figures for infant mortality, rape and murder are the same way. The quality of life for most people has risen exponentially. We tend to fear China as a tyrannical country who will end up ruling the world, but they’ll pass America in civil rights sooner than we think. Their ascension will continue to improve the world’s quality of life statistics. Perhaps their rise will diminish America‘s, but I think that unlikely. Even as our wealth fades, technology will compensate for it. The invention of the internet is underestimated in how much it has improved people’s lives. Too many people still fear it. The approaching environmental crisis will force us to change, but we can and will adapt. I would never bet against the ingenuity of all of the world’s scientists. How could you when they’re the people who turned invented the computer, and landed on the moon and even turned matter into energy. Nothing is impossible (even sending information faster than the speed of light!). And now, we have more scientists and engineers than ever before; Vegas has the odds as dollars to donuts for them.
I‘m not necessarily suggesting that humankind is progressing and will soon reach some perfectly happy state of being. Science in inherently incomplete and flawed. It will never be perfect. Even if it was, human beings sometimes harm each other out of boredom as often as pain and those tendencies are a part of our race. Suffering and tragedy are in our DNA (bleh), but as technology and science advance, some of the needless pains that we suffer through disappear. When Montaigne wrote about his kidney stones, he said the treatments in the 1500s tended not to work and would require drastic shifts in his lifestyle. He decided that he would rather continue to enjoy his way of life and deal with the pain of his stones. He was choosing to accept some of life‘s pains to keep his more valuable pleasures. In modern days we can break stones down instantly and, though I‘m told passing them is still a bear, we are freed from the pain without changing our lives. The modern kidney stones might be migraines or some other ailment, but there will always be some pains that cause us trouble, but the more of them we eliminate, the rarer they become.
As we eliminate the problems of humanity, it’s hard not to look at the modern world and be amazed. Sure people are still assholes sometimes and sometimes life is tough, but as I walk through my city and look around to see all the building and the millions of people who coexist without feces on the streets or suffering from bubonic plague, it strikes me as wonderful. The only reason that this marvel is possible is because of the single largest collaborative undertaking in human history: the advancement of science. The world as it is has not come about because of the greatness of a few men, but through the greatness of many who are willing to share what they've discovered with the world. Science is not an occult teaching designed only for the few, but everything that people know is available to anyone who would learn it.
One could say I have faith in science, but it’s not really faith. Even as I sit here and type I know that technology has made my life easier at least, and I’d argue for better as well; statistics are on my side. Who needs faith when I’m surrounded by proof of the wonders of science. The scientists out there trying to tackle some problem, or cure some disease must be thinking the same thing (at least every once in a while because, let’s face it, the progress of individual researchers tends to be oh so slow). They’re working to improve the world in a tangible way and its comforting to think that the people who follow us will have even more wonderful lives because of it. This isn’t the kind of optimism where the glass is half full or empty, because science is a pitcher of water filling the glass all the time. We’ve no idea how full the glass is, but we’re certain it’s getting fuller all the time.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Apology for Inception
You can find in a text whatever you bring, if you will stand between it
and the mirror of your imagination. You may not see your ears, but they
will be there. -Mark Twain, A Fable
Christopher Nolan is one of the most interesting directors working today. He's managed to make tons of money for studios while filling his movies with his own obsessions and insights. It's on the heels of the Academy again deciding to recognize other films over Nolan's that I write this. At this point I've thought entirely too much about this movie which I think is really good but not nearly as good as many I've watched halfway through, or with one eye, but I'd better write this so I can be done with it Here goes:
Inception is not about dreams. Any criticism levied against it for portraying dreams as structured, mechanistic things isn't relevant because Nolan never wanted it to be about dreams. Nolan's making a movie about making movies. Throughout the film, while describing the dream state,the character's words could also be used to describe a movie. Take for instance:
Cobb: You create the world of the dream. We bring the subject into that dream and fill it with their subconscious.
Ariadne: How could I ever acquire enough detail to make them think that it's reality?
Cobb: Our dreams, they feel real while we're in them right? Its only when we wake up then we realize that something was actually strange.
Creating the world of the dream is creating a world in which the viewer can be immersed, but the viewer always brings his subconscious, i.e. his experiences, biases and expectations of the film. In Inception the subject (viewer), literally populates the dream world with his 'projections.' Nolan's characters in this movies are all familiar types who behave exactly as we'd expect them too in any heist film. The typical characters are an effort to keep the audience immersed, that is, to keep us believing in the reality of the film. Characters acting in ridiculous ways or Deus Ex Machinas are ways that this reality is shattered. Keeping the world consistent and making it feel greater than what you've so far seen make the world immersive.
Immediately after the above quotes, "Let me ask you a question, you, you never really remember the beginning of a dream do you? You always wind up right in the middle of what's going on." This conversation follows a jump cut to Ariadne and Cobb eating in a coffee shop. Stories tend to drop us in the middle and let us figure it out as we go along, the director parceling out information to suit his purposes. This is one instance of a filmmaker's tricks being revealed.
Which brings us to the biggest trick in the filmmakers book: The process of bringing the viewer to a cathartic moment. The 'heist' in the film is to implant an idea in Robert Fischer's mind which will make him dismantle the empire he recently inherited from a father who hated him. While deciding whether to do this through anger or love, Cobb says, "We all crave reconciliation - we're catharsis. We need Robert Fischer to have a positive emotional reaction to all this." This is why people go to movies. This is why the sports movies almost always have happy endings and romantic comedies too. People go to movies to feel catharsis if just for a moment. The best of movies make that feeling overwhelming, the trite are like cigarettes, momentarily satisfying. Not all movies are after this goal, but most are, and that word is openly used several times in Inception.
The plot follows a twisting path which eventually leads us to the moment where Fischer confronts his father. Exhilarated and stressed out, Fischer meets his father and, in a powerful moment, is told that his father never wanted him to follow his path and was disappointed he did. Here's where I think a lot of people stopped liking the movie, because if this moment doesn't effect the viewer, he'll be far more likely to disregard the film. It's a strange moment. We know that the moment is manufactured by characters in the movie. Nolan's telling us it's fake. Still somehow it manages to be a moving moment. A boy, detested by his deceased father, meets him in his dreams and for him, it is a life changing moment. It's a moment divorced from reality, sure, but the catharsis craving audience still is moved.
Cobb's story mirrors this in that he is also in need of a cathartic experience, namely that of seeing the faces of his children again. He refuses to do it in dream land and insists he only wants to see their faces in real world. When he finally sees them, however, doubt is cast on his 'real' catharsis. The final shot being the top spinning and refusing to fall. It does have a more noticeable wobble than in deeper dream land, but this shot is Nolan's last little joke for the audience. More so than for Fischer, we're supposed to deeply care about Cobb's redemption and therefore the catharsis is greater for his moment of triumph. The last shot I think is a reminder to us that the emotions we've been through are as fake as those of Fischer. In his made up story, Nolan takes us through an emotional journey and at the end he's asking us whether those emotions are somehow invalidated by the possibility that they're not 'real.' For Fischer, presumably, those fake emotions drastically change his life. Many novels and movies have affected me enough that they've changed my behaviors or my thinking. Sometimes it's a subtle change and sometimes more drastic. Does it matter that those feelings were based on someone else's dream, or that they don't have any stake in the real world?
Inception is a movie that explores the meaning of catharsis brought on by art, and while it's biggest weakness is that the movie itself fails to produce that emotion in me as strongly even as another of his films about making movies, The Prestige, it's still an entertaining action/blockbuster that works harder to explore a subject than countless other 'prestige' films adored by the Academy and such.
Oh! And what does that quote have to do with anything? Nothing but that I'm not sure if I can even see this film objectively anymore because I've defended it too many times.
and the mirror of your imagination. You may not see your ears, but they
will be there. -Mark Twain, A Fable
Christopher Nolan is one of the most interesting directors working today. He's managed to make tons of money for studios while filling his movies with his own obsessions and insights. It's on the heels of the Academy again deciding to recognize other films over Nolan's that I write this. At this point I've thought entirely too much about this movie which I think is really good but not nearly as good as many I've watched halfway through, or with one eye, but I'd better write this so I can be done with it Here goes:
Inception is not about dreams. Any criticism levied against it for portraying dreams as structured, mechanistic things isn't relevant because Nolan never wanted it to be about dreams. Nolan's making a movie about making movies. Throughout the film, while describing the dream state,the character's words could also be used to describe a movie. Take for instance:
Cobb: You create the world of the dream. We bring the subject into that dream and fill it with their subconscious.
Ariadne: How could I ever acquire enough detail to make them think that it's reality?
Cobb: Our dreams, they feel real while we're in them right? Its only when we wake up then we realize that something was actually strange.
Creating the world of the dream is creating a world in which the viewer can be immersed, but the viewer always brings his subconscious, i.e. his experiences, biases and expectations of the film. In Inception the subject (viewer), literally populates the dream world with his 'projections.' Nolan's characters in this movies are all familiar types who behave exactly as we'd expect them too in any heist film. The typical characters are an effort to keep the audience immersed, that is, to keep us believing in the reality of the film. Characters acting in ridiculous ways or Deus Ex Machinas are ways that this reality is shattered. Keeping the world consistent and making it feel greater than what you've so far seen make the world immersive.
Immediately after the above quotes, "Let me ask you a question, you, you never really remember the beginning of a dream do you? You always wind up right in the middle of what's going on." This conversation follows a jump cut to Ariadne and Cobb eating in a coffee shop. Stories tend to drop us in the middle and let us figure it out as we go along, the director parceling out information to suit his purposes. This is one instance of a filmmaker's tricks being revealed.
Which brings us to the biggest trick in the filmmakers book: The process of bringing the viewer to a cathartic moment. The 'heist' in the film is to implant an idea in Robert Fischer's mind which will make him dismantle the empire he recently inherited from a father who hated him. While deciding whether to do this through anger or love, Cobb says, "We all crave reconciliation - we're catharsis. We need Robert Fischer to have a positive emotional reaction to all this." This is why people go to movies. This is why the sports movies almost always have happy endings and romantic comedies too. People go to movies to feel catharsis if just for a moment. The best of movies make that feeling overwhelming, the trite are like cigarettes, momentarily satisfying. Not all movies are after this goal, but most are, and that word is openly used several times in Inception.
The plot follows a twisting path which eventually leads us to the moment where Fischer confronts his father. Exhilarated and stressed out, Fischer meets his father and, in a powerful moment, is told that his father never wanted him to follow his path and was disappointed he did. Here's where I think a lot of people stopped liking the movie, because if this moment doesn't effect the viewer, he'll be far more likely to disregard the film. It's a strange moment. We know that the moment is manufactured by characters in the movie. Nolan's telling us it's fake. Still somehow it manages to be a moving moment. A boy, detested by his deceased father, meets him in his dreams and for him, it is a life changing moment. It's a moment divorced from reality, sure, but the catharsis craving audience still is moved.
Cobb's story mirrors this in that he is also in need of a cathartic experience, namely that of seeing the faces of his children again. He refuses to do it in dream land and insists he only wants to see their faces in real world. When he finally sees them, however, doubt is cast on his 'real' catharsis. The final shot being the top spinning and refusing to fall. It does have a more noticeable wobble than in deeper dream land, but this shot is Nolan's last little joke for the audience. More so than for Fischer, we're supposed to deeply care about Cobb's redemption and therefore the catharsis is greater for his moment of triumph. The last shot I think is a reminder to us that the emotions we've been through are as fake as those of Fischer. In his made up story, Nolan takes us through an emotional journey and at the end he's asking us whether those emotions are somehow invalidated by the possibility that they're not 'real.' For Fischer, presumably, those fake emotions drastically change his life. Many novels and movies have affected me enough that they've changed my behaviors or my thinking. Sometimes it's a subtle change and sometimes more drastic. Does it matter that those feelings were based on someone else's dream, or that they don't have any stake in the real world?
Inception is a movie that explores the meaning of catharsis brought on by art, and while it's biggest weakness is that the movie itself fails to produce that emotion in me as strongly even as another of his films about making movies, The Prestige, it's still an entertaining action/blockbuster that works harder to explore a subject than countless other 'prestige' films adored by the Academy and such.
Oh! And what does that quote have to do with anything? Nothing but that I'm not sure if I can even see this film objectively anymore because I've defended it too many times.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Global Warming and the Liberal Bias
People usually think they’re right. Whenever someone has developed an opinion about something, they usually will cling to that opinion longer than it makes any sense. The less information a person has, often, the stronger his dearly held opinion. Modern economics is the perfect example. People want to “fix” the economy. Republicans say that “government regulation” and taxes are the problems. Democrats say it’s “corporate greed” and there needs to be more consumer protection i.e. “bigger government.” The quotation marks are there for two reasons 1.) I don’t have a clear idea of what they mean 2.) I’m not sure anybody does. Yet people, even usually rational ones, are furious at people who hold different opinions. Even students of economics probably don’t know whether it’s more practical to move to a socialistic form of government or more towards free markets, so how can work-a-day six-pack Joe be expected to have any rational opinion about complex economic systems. This habit of clinging to opinions about which we know nothing is evil but ingrained and lives in both the educated and the stupid. It’s unfortunate that this trait is so happily exploited by political parties, but I have the sense that it’s not a new phenomenon. The drunken worker in the whiskey republic probably didn’t understand the finer points of taxation without representation. Canada and Australia have been fine under the tyrannical British rule. “Don’t Tread On Me” is exploitative and vague yet probably did far more to stir up revolt than saying, “we want a representational democracy under the rule of law.” This isn’t new. Swaying people to a specific action i.e. revolt (or more modernly, voting) is called manipulation. If, however, we go through a nuanced explanation of empirical facts leading to a near inevitable conclusion it’s called education. The latter is more difficult and can’t be done in a 30 second ad spot, if at all.
One of the current memes that is spouted by democrats is the insistence that global warming is caused by man. Like all scientific beliefs, it’s curious to cling to the tenants of global warming like it’s gospel. I heard a curious story on the radio the other day that cited concerns over the science program NOVA and the fact that it’s main supporter is Coca-Cola. Concerns arose when at the end of an episode about global warming when the narrator suggested that humans were better adapted for warmer temperatures. This seemingly innocuous (and certainly true) statement made many people concerned that the show was presenting biased information at the request of their sponsor. Most people who are convinced global warming exists, probably have no idea why they’re convinced. Scientists say so. Scientists also say Pluto isn’t a planet. They’re probably wrong. It’s not that I’m accusing scientists of fraud, but the mean temperature and the weather systems on this planet are ludicrously complicated. A record that goes back 200,000 years doesn’t actually tell us much of anything. It’s a short time geologically and evolutionarily. There is a credible theory and some supportive evidence for manmade climate change, but there is also the fact that the weather is extraordinarily complicated. I’m not interested in whether or not climatologists are right or wrong, but I am concerned with how the supposed “educated” side of the debate behaves, because they ironically treat the subject unscientifically. The whole argument is unscientific. People no longer listen to both arguments. If someone writes a book on global warming he’s chastised or applauded, but his work is only known by a few. There is also the ludicrous statement that “over 90% of scientists believe in manmade climate change,” which is truth by democracy or, if you prefer, untruth.
There are scientific debates which are resolved, like Einstein over Newton and Evolution over Intelligent Design (which isn’t a theory that needs more work, but one that is inherently unscientific because it attempts to introduce a supernatural cause into science. Science is (paraphrasing Newton), the explanation of the world by natural laws admitting no supernatural or ‘other’ cause). Global warming isn’t one of these. It’s a nascent theory that is almost certainly wildly inaccurate, and possibly wholly wrong.
It doesn’t bother me as much when non-scientific people are irrational. They don’t claim to even like science and often argue against it in principle. That is an argument for a different time. But I find it unsettling that people who argue for the proliferation of science think of science as something dogmatic and inherently true. It’s not.
What I think is most disturbing about these people is that they’re not stupid, and their unknowing hypocrisy is nearly unavoidable. It’s something everyone does. We all have so many beliefs that we cling to, some of them are beliefs we used to have real reasons for believing, but have forgotten those reason, others are completely irrational. These beliefs are necessary to function, but even though it’s hard, many of the violent disagreements we might have, can appear much differently after the process of really breaking down an opinion to see if there’s any facts to support it. It’s an easy thing to do, but difficult because when it’s most important tends to be when aggression and anger is at its peak. Uncovering all of our irrationality is futile, but people who attempt it are far more pleasant to spend time with.
It should be pointed out that I do think greenhouse gases are responsible, at least in part, for the warming of the planet, but I'm certainly not qualified to make a definitive statement.
One of the current memes that is spouted by democrats is the insistence that global warming is caused by man. Like all scientific beliefs, it’s curious to cling to the tenants of global warming like it’s gospel. I heard a curious story on the radio the other day that cited concerns over the science program NOVA and the fact that it’s main supporter is Coca-Cola. Concerns arose when at the end of an episode about global warming when the narrator suggested that humans were better adapted for warmer temperatures. This seemingly innocuous (and certainly true) statement made many people concerned that the show was presenting biased information at the request of their sponsor. Most people who are convinced global warming exists, probably have no idea why they’re convinced. Scientists say so. Scientists also say Pluto isn’t a planet. They’re probably wrong. It’s not that I’m accusing scientists of fraud, but the mean temperature and the weather systems on this planet are ludicrously complicated. A record that goes back 200,000 years doesn’t actually tell us much of anything. It’s a short time geologically and evolutionarily. There is a credible theory and some supportive evidence for manmade climate change, but there is also the fact that the weather is extraordinarily complicated. I’m not interested in whether or not climatologists are right or wrong, but I am concerned with how the supposed “educated” side of the debate behaves, because they ironically treat the subject unscientifically. The whole argument is unscientific. People no longer listen to both arguments. If someone writes a book on global warming he’s chastised or applauded, but his work is only known by a few. There is also the ludicrous statement that “over 90% of scientists believe in manmade climate change,” which is truth by democracy or, if you prefer, untruth.
There are scientific debates which are resolved, like Einstein over Newton and Evolution over Intelligent Design (which isn’t a theory that needs more work, but one that is inherently unscientific because it attempts to introduce a supernatural cause into science. Science is (paraphrasing Newton), the explanation of the world by natural laws admitting no supernatural or ‘other’ cause). Global warming isn’t one of these. It’s a nascent theory that is almost certainly wildly inaccurate, and possibly wholly wrong.
It doesn’t bother me as much when non-scientific people are irrational. They don’t claim to even like science and often argue against it in principle. That is an argument for a different time. But I find it unsettling that people who argue for the proliferation of science think of science as something dogmatic and inherently true. It’s not.
What I think is most disturbing about these people is that they’re not stupid, and their unknowing hypocrisy is nearly unavoidable. It’s something everyone does. We all have so many beliefs that we cling to, some of them are beliefs we used to have real reasons for believing, but have forgotten those reason, others are completely irrational. These beliefs are necessary to function, but even though it’s hard, many of the violent disagreements we might have, can appear much differently after the process of really breaking down an opinion to see if there’s any facts to support it. It’s an easy thing to do, but difficult because when it’s most important tends to be when aggression and anger is at its peak. Uncovering all of our irrationality is futile, but people who attempt it are far more pleasant to spend time with.
It should be pointed out that I do think greenhouse gases are responsible, at least in part, for the warming of the planet, but I'm certainly not qualified to make a definitive statement.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
The Internet and the Generational Divide
In the past fifty years, or perhaps always, or perhaps only in America the youth dismiss the old. The 60’s were full of people who rejected the beliefs of their parents and wanted to remake the world. They succeeded in advancing social rights, but failed to fundamentally change the world. They wanted to move humanity towards a Marxist ideal; to love each other and the Earth. The 70’s were a rejection of the 60’s. Fueled by cocaine and nihilism, they saw the birth of the pornography industry and a return to materialism in the lower classes. The cultural see-saw is a part of modern American history, but over the past decade, we’ve taken a bigger turn. We’ve changed the world and the ways we interact with each other faster than ever before. Perhaps, it’s such a big step that the see-saw has broken in half. The rise of the internet and social networking is so effects who we are as people and who are friends are that’s it’s easy to think that other invention of the 20th century, from the airplane to the tv, even compare. With anything new, however, it has created something in the older generations that resembles fear, distrust and, at times, hatred.
Much of the 20th century saw the change from people going out to do things, to people watching other people do things. This happened mostly because of the radio and TV. Without instant communication, following a sports team is difficult. With the invention of the radio and TV it became easier. You could even follow your team if you lived outside of the area. These revolution forms of media were the primers for what was to come. The birth of industrial farming fundamentally changed the way we shopped and ate. Instead of craving for mama’s famous lasagna we wanted a Big Mac with cheese (available in all 50 states!). Instead of shopping at local markets, we started buying the same products, from the same manufacturers all over the world. Industrial farming, for all of its evils, let strangers enter supermarkets in cities they’d never been before and discover an array of food just like wherever they came from. The Wright brothers invented human flight. A feat so astonishing it still captivates the imagination. People could quickly travel across the globe and visit relatives in foreign countries. The world was getting closer and more connected. Then in the 90’s PC’s became popular, and shortly after the internet came. Innocuous at first, it seemed like a way to communicate letters more rapidly than the postal service. By the turning of the century, however, it was on its way to being the most revolutionary form of communication since the printing press. The advancements of the 20th century which made people more connected than ever before have been put to shame by the simple, powerful tool that is the internet (yes I’m being a bit hyperbolic, but it’s the internet and I’m allowed to).
Anything as shockingly new as the internet will have its critics. There is a strong moral argument against it in part because of moments like me tonight. I am sitting in my kitchen by myself on a Saturday night. I’ve turned down offers to go out tonight. Instead I’m tweeting quotes from some pretentious drunk guy outside (yes I see the irony of called him pretentious), checking out my friends on Facebook, writing an essay for my blog and vaguely still trying to do research for my Immunology class. Doing all this I have in front of me a drink and a computer. Two word files are open, one with a collection of notes and the other with this essay. 10 years ago this would be considered anti-social and perhaps depressing behavior. I might have to go get checked for mental deficiencies. Now, even for the young and adventurous these nights are normal. The highlights of the parties are going to be on Facebook tomorrow and I can look at them and joke with my other friends. Maybe I’ll write on some people’s walls tonight just to see how they’re doing. I’m not alone am I? I’ll check my igoogle page and see if anyone’s on and wants to IM. I went out and saw a movie at the theater today. It cost 10 dollars and I could’ve just watched Netflix instant watch instead. Or torrented whatever I wanted. It would’ve been easier and cheaper. If I played an MMORPG I could log on at any time and find internet acquaintances or friends to hang out with. Maybe, if I get really drunk and bored I’ll do some online shopping or renew my expiring license plates.
It’s easy to see why the internet can scare people. The industrial revolution first introduced us to man working in close proximity with machinery. Since that time people have always been wary of technology. William Blake and the Transcendentalists tried to get away from it, movies like the Matrix, and Minority Report exploit those same fears. Technology is, however, so incredibly useful that it stays around despite its critics. The more the internet enables us to stay connected to people, the more we find ourselves connected to our technology. With cell phones becoming increasingly internet capable, and with our Bluetooths (Blueteeth?) always in our ear, there is no doubt that Generation Y, or whatever we’re called, is going to have more interaction with machines than any other generation ever.
The internet and texting have gone hand in hand in making our communication more verbal and less vocal, but what I think critics are afraid of, aside from the cliché that they fear what they don’t understand, is that we’re losing our abilities to communicate face to face. Tools often take more control of our lives than we mean for them to, and it may be that the future will have more written language than spoken. I doubt, however, that the internet can fill our need for human contact. Much of its function so far has been in increasing our social interactions. People who struggle with day to day interactions have new pathways to find similar people who also struggle dealing with ‘neurotypicals’ as one blogger with Aspergers calls others. Those who have what used to be crippling sexual fetishes can now find other of similar taste simply by typing a few words into a search box. The internet doesn’t hinder social well being, but rather allows for people who used to be outsiders, to find a way in. What the internet has done, more than anything else in the history of humankind, is it allows people to find their niche. It provides easy way for people to interact with minorities without embarrassment and anonymously, and it allows people to explore options they never thought they had.
Another complaint against the internet is that over the past five years, privacy no longer exists. Our personal moments are less personal because all of it is recorded somewhere online. Our past will follow us on facebook. Even deleted photos will remain. It will be interesting when all of our politicians will have pictures of them doing illicit drugs and drinking heavily floating around the internet. Rumors of Presidents and bad behavior will become proof. For myself, however, I feel as though people who grew up without the internet overvalue privacy. I don’t really care that google and facebook sell my information to advertisers. While I can appreciate the fears my Dad has about it, I can’t relate to the emotions behind it.
As with every technological advancement there will be people who’ll claim that it’s the end of the world. That humanity is lost and that the soul is being destroyed by these inventions. It’s been happening for a while now, and it seems as though the people are all right. The internet might have a few drawbacks, and it might change the world, but it won’t make it so different that humanity will be unrecognizable in fifty years. The fears that humanity will be isolated by the internet seem to be the opposite of true. Through it we can be more connected to people rather than less, but sometimes that connection just looks a little different. The point is that it’s not something to be feared, but better to understand it and see how it can improve your life.
Much of the 20th century saw the change from people going out to do things, to people watching other people do things. This happened mostly because of the radio and TV. Without instant communication, following a sports team is difficult. With the invention of the radio and TV it became easier. You could even follow your team if you lived outside of the area. These revolution forms of media were the primers for what was to come. The birth of industrial farming fundamentally changed the way we shopped and ate. Instead of craving for mama’s famous lasagna we wanted a Big Mac with cheese (available in all 50 states!). Instead of shopping at local markets, we started buying the same products, from the same manufacturers all over the world. Industrial farming, for all of its evils, let strangers enter supermarkets in cities they’d never been before and discover an array of food just like wherever they came from. The Wright brothers invented human flight. A feat so astonishing it still captivates the imagination. People could quickly travel across the globe and visit relatives in foreign countries. The world was getting closer and more connected. Then in the 90’s PC’s became popular, and shortly after the internet came. Innocuous at first, it seemed like a way to communicate letters more rapidly than the postal service. By the turning of the century, however, it was on its way to being the most revolutionary form of communication since the printing press. The advancements of the 20th century which made people more connected than ever before have been put to shame by the simple, powerful tool that is the internet (yes I’m being a bit hyperbolic, but it’s the internet and I’m allowed to).
Anything as shockingly new as the internet will have its critics. There is a strong moral argument against it in part because of moments like me tonight. I am sitting in my kitchen by myself on a Saturday night. I’ve turned down offers to go out tonight. Instead I’m tweeting quotes from some pretentious drunk guy outside (yes I see the irony of called him pretentious), checking out my friends on Facebook, writing an essay for my blog and vaguely still trying to do research for my Immunology class. Doing all this I have in front of me a drink and a computer. Two word files are open, one with a collection of notes and the other with this essay. 10 years ago this would be considered anti-social and perhaps depressing behavior. I might have to go get checked for mental deficiencies. Now, even for the young and adventurous these nights are normal. The highlights of the parties are going to be on Facebook tomorrow and I can look at them and joke with my other friends. Maybe I’ll write on some people’s walls tonight just to see how they’re doing. I’m not alone am I? I’ll check my igoogle page and see if anyone’s on and wants to IM. I went out and saw a movie at the theater today. It cost 10 dollars and I could’ve just watched Netflix instant watch instead. Or torrented whatever I wanted. It would’ve been easier and cheaper. If I played an MMORPG I could log on at any time and find internet acquaintances or friends to hang out with. Maybe, if I get really drunk and bored I’ll do some online shopping or renew my expiring license plates.
It’s easy to see why the internet can scare people. The industrial revolution first introduced us to man working in close proximity with machinery. Since that time people have always been wary of technology. William Blake and the Transcendentalists tried to get away from it, movies like the Matrix, and Minority Report exploit those same fears. Technology is, however, so incredibly useful that it stays around despite its critics. The more the internet enables us to stay connected to people, the more we find ourselves connected to our technology. With cell phones becoming increasingly internet capable, and with our Bluetooths (Blueteeth?) always in our ear, there is no doubt that Generation Y, or whatever we’re called, is going to have more interaction with machines than any other generation ever.
The internet and texting have gone hand in hand in making our communication more verbal and less vocal, but what I think critics are afraid of, aside from the cliché that they fear what they don’t understand, is that we’re losing our abilities to communicate face to face. Tools often take more control of our lives than we mean for them to, and it may be that the future will have more written language than spoken. I doubt, however, that the internet can fill our need for human contact. Much of its function so far has been in increasing our social interactions. People who struggle with day to day interactions have new pathways to find similar people who also struggle dealing with ‘neurotypicals’ as one blogger with Aspergers calls others. Those who have what used to be crippling sexual fetishes can now find other of similar taste simply by typing a few words into a search box. The internet doesn’t hinder social well being, but rather allows for people who used to be outsiders, to find a way in. What the internet has done, more than anything else in the history of humankind, is it allows people to find their niche. It provides easy way for people to interact with minorities without embarrassment and anonymously, and it allows people to explore options they never thought they had.
Another complaint against the internet is that over the past five years, privacy no longer exists. Our personal moments are less personal because all of it is recorded somewhere online. Our past will follow us on facebook. Even deleted photos will remain. It will be interesting when all of our politicians will have pictures of them doing illicit drugs and drinking heavily floating around the internet. Rumors of Presidents and bad behavior will become proof. For myself, however, I feel as though people who grew up without the internet overvalue privacy. I don’t really care that google and facebook sell my information to advertisers. While I can appreciate the fears my Dad has about it, I can’t relate to the emotions behind it.
As with every technological advancement there will be people who’ll claim that it’s the end of the world. That humanity is lost and that the soul is being destroyed by these inventions. It’s been happening for a while now, and it seems as though the people are all right. The internet might have a few drawbacks, and it might change the world, but it won’t make it so different that humanity will be unrecognizable in fifty years. The fears that humanity will be isolated by the internet seem to be the opposite of true. Through it we can be more connected to people rather than less, but sometimes that connection just looks a little different. The point is that it’s not something to be feared, but better to understand it and see how it can improve your life.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Characters and People
Ron D. Moore, creator of BSG and long time Star Trek writer came onto the Voyager writing crew shortly after turning DS9 from a boring, mediocre show and making it’s final 3 or 4 seasons into some of the most consistent, entertaining and insightful episodes of Star Trek ever made. On one of his first days, as he tells the story, he was working with the other writers trying to figure out who the main characters are on the show. He asked the writers about B’leanna wondering who she is and why she behaves the way she does. She’s a conflicted character because of her half-klingon half-human genetic structure, but Moore was curious as to how she felt about he genes, and how it affected her psychology. He put up the question, “If she was in such and such situation, how would she behave.” Allegedly his fellow writers said (I’m paraphrashing) “We don’t really know. She usually behaves how we need her to for the story.” The talented Moore was unsurprisingly frustrated working for that show and left quickly to showrun BSG (this story may be apocryphal because I can’t find it, but it stuck with me because it makes so much sense).
The best tv shows are driven by strong characters. In sitcoms these characters tend to be groups of people who make us want to spend time with them. Good ensemble sitcoms make us want to hang with the group at Central Perk, drink with Norm at Cheers, work under Michael Scott at Dunder Mifflin, or hit on girls with Barney at Maclarens. TV dramas rely on their characters too. What would House be without Hugh Lauries titular character? Mad Men has a host of characters that, over time, viewers have become fascinated by. Lost spent 3 seasons developing their characters through flashback. People come back week after week to see the enrichment of these characters, and to understand who they are. Serialized entertainment nearly requires interesting characters because it’s longevity makes even the most interesting jobs of being doctors or ad execs or living on a paranormal island grow wearisome. Even in serialized literature, War & Peace uses the backdrop of the war as a playground for its ever memorable characters, and Dickens’ work is similar. Movies and shorter pieces do not require them to be compelling. Tolstoy’s Kreutzer Sonata and The Death of Ivan Ilych have forgettable characters yet both are great books. Movies sometimes use leads like those in Rear Window or Synecdoche NY, where the cast is used as mirrors for the viewer to observe himself.
Good serialized entertainment eventually gets comfortable with its premise, and relies on what remains interesting: the people it has created. This isn’t a criticism. The marathon that is TV makes it possible to have long emotional arcs ending in overwhelmingly cathartic moments. Spending so much time with these people allows us to know them more intimately than many friends because we see them in their weakest moments. We see the sides of themselves they try to hide, and knowing them so well makes these characters mostly predictable. Sometimes they defy expectation, but they surprise themselves in doing so.
Real people too, are mostly predictable. The reason we become comfortable around people is because we rely on them to react to jokes or conversational topics in expected ways. Good characters, tv or otherwise, are the same. Predictability is often thought of as boring, or a path to dystopian futures, but in reality, it adds to our enjoyment of life rather than taking away from it. People complain about their marriages and work life as routine and plain, but there are plenty of other options available to them. Divorce or new career paths are commonplace and socially acceptable today, but many stay on a particular path because their other choice is unpredictability, which is stressful and frightening. Conversations with strangers, while engaging, lack the heights of banter between two people who know the rhythms and cadences of their interlocutor. Much like sex, a good conversation starts out slowly and gains both volume and speed until a final big moment (often a laugh) is reached followed by an awkward pause for the people to catch their breath. Yep… It’s knowing people, and knowing what you expect of them that makes good conversation/sex possible.
Being predictable isn’t bad. People strive for it. The fact that people love TV so much is proof. Tv is stable for the most part. If we want unpredictable things we can watch movies which are capable of shaking us up and making us feel uncomfortable (Many movies are predictable, especially Action movies and Rom-Coms, which often follow the same rigid plot points and are populated by cliché fictional characters like Jennifer Aniston). Serialized entertainment survives by being mostly predictable, but all of the best shows offer us interesting characters who we can fall in love with because even if they are predictable in many ways, their personae remain interesting enough for us to come back to over and over again. Even when routines get dull and tired, the people who we let live in our lives, fictional or not, keep it interesting.
The best tv shows are driven by strong characters. In sitcoms these characters tend to be groups of people who make us want to spend time with them. Good ensemble sitcoms make us want to hang with the group at Central Perk, drink with Norm at Cheers, work under Michael Scott at Dunder Mifflin, or hit on girls with Barney at Maclarens. TV dramas rely on their characters too. What would House be without Hugh Lauries titular character? Mad Men has a host of characters that, over time, viewers have become fascinated by. Lost spent 3 seasons developing their characters through flashback. People come back week after week to see the enrichment of these characters, and to understand who they are. Serialized entertainment nearly requires interesting characters because it’s longevity makes even the most interesting jobs of being doctors or ad execs or living on a paranormal island grow wearisome. Even in serialized literature, War & Peace uses the backdrop of the war as a playground for its ever memorable characters, and Dickens’ work is similar. Movies and shorter pieces do not require them to be compelling. Tolstoy’s Kreutzer Sonata and The Death of Ivan Ilych have forgettable characters yet both are great books. Movies sometimes use leads like those in Rear Window or Synecdoche NY, where the cast is used as mirrors for the viewer to observe himself.
Good serialized entertainment eventually gets comfortable with its premise, and relies on what remains interesting: the people it has created. This isn’t a criticism. The marathon that is TV makes it possible to have long emotional arcs ending in overwhelmingly cathartic moments. Spending so much time with these people allows us to know them more intimately than many friends because we see them in their weakest moments. We see the sides of themselves they try to hide, and knowing them so well makes these characters mostly predictable. Sometimes they defy expectation, but they surprise themselves in doing so.
Real people too, are mostly predictable. The reason we become comfortable around people is because we rely on them to react to jokes or conversational topics in expected ways. Good characters, tv or otherwise, are the same. Predictability is often thought of as boring, or a path to dystopian futures, but in reality, it adds to our enjoyment of life rather than taking away from it. People complain about their marriages and work life as routine and plain, but there are plenty of other options available to them. Divorce or new career paths are commonplace and socially acceptable today, but many stay on a particular path because their other choice is unpredictability, which is stressful and frightening. Conversations with strangers, while engaging, lack the heights of banter between two people who know the rhythms and cadences of their interlocutor. Much like sex, a good conversation starts out slowly and gains both volume and speed until a final big moment (often a laugh) is reached followed by an awkward pause for the people to catch their breath. Yep… It’s knowing people, and knowing what you expect of them that makes good conversation/sex possible.
Being predictable isn’t bad. People strive for it. The fact that people love TV so much is proof. Tv is stable for the most part. If we want unpredictable things we can watch movies which are capable of shaking us up and making us feel uncomfortable (Many movies are predictable, especially Action movies and Rom-Coms, which often follow the same rigid plot points and are populated by cliché fictional characters like Jennifer Aniston). Serialized entertainment survives by being mostly predictable, but all of the best shows offer us interesting characters who we can fall in love with because even if they are predictable in many ways, their personae remain interesting enough for us to come back to over and over again. Even when routines get dull and tired, the people who we let live in our lives, fictional or not, keep it interesting.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Community & Writing
(This essay should be filled with examples, but most of the examples I would use are in George Orwell’s essay “Politics and the English Language. I don’t have internet or any books while writing this. I have become frustrated with this essay, having intermittently been working on it for a few days now, and so I’m wrapping it up before I should because writing about writing sucks).
One of the great new shows of the past TV season was NBC’s Community. In it’s second half it managed to consistently find pathos by exploiting sitcom clichés and became sincere and funny even in its weakest episodes. What makes Community succeed is that the writers look at the sitcom stories tv watchers have grown so accustomed to (one of the strengths and weaknesses of sitcoms is that most are so predictable that from the introduction of any given plot line, the average viewer could spell out in detail the rest of the plot). Community uses these tropes, but plays with them by changing or contradicting them. The show breaks down clichés and attempts to show the emotion that first caused them to become clichés. The same stories, and the same words are revitalized by presenting them in a simple and unusual way.
The phrases and words people use in speaking or writing are often unconscious. In speech we tend to use ready-made phrases stored in our brains to gain time to gather our thoughts. They start out as filler, but often whole phrases and sentences become nothing but strings of prepackaged ideas. Similarly, many sitcoms (According to Jim, Big Bang Theory, Two and a Half Men etc…) are happy to follow established plots and jokes to entertain. Reality tv, perhaps the worst offender, is usually a string of easily repeatable words and the ‘reality’ part is contorted into an easy to follow story. Many people, however, demand more from entertainment than worn out plots, and are looking in tv shows or books or movies for honest emotion. The kind that brings them to the verge of tears or lets them smile for days, or rethink their behavior. Well thought out art tries to invoke these passions in its consumers, and great art succeeds.
These powerful sentiments are powerful because they’re unusual, while tired sentiments are tired because they‘re over-felt. There was a man who taught a course at Yale on Romeo and Juliet. He tells his students every year that he’s spent his whole life trying to recapture the feeling of reading the play for the first time again. He still loves reading the play, but what the play stirred in him can’t be felt as deeply ever again. The goal of a writer, from playwright to movie director to casual essayist is trying to inspire in people a feeling like that of the professor reading Romeo and Juliet
There are many ways which passion is aroused, but the first step is finding a new way to describe a familiar feeling. Hitchcock didn’t invent the feeling of suspense but he always managed to find new ways to make the viewer feel it. He did so with a master’s control of the camera and his shots. The playwright does it with his characters and dialogue. The essayist, especially the casual essayist, tend to do so with anecdotes and words. Often “hooks” are stories that seem, at first, unrelated to the essay, but as the essay develops, the reader understands both the purpose of the writer, and the anecdote in a new, clearer way. Sometimes that anecdote can be a story that’s been told many times, but through reading a good essay, that story evolves in the readers mind he is able to look at the story anew.
The stories and the purpose of writing is usually easy to arrive at. Vague ideas for essays arise throughout any given day, but it much harder to sit down and try to put those ideas into a coherent article. Well written essays always show that the writer cares about what he is writing by making the reader care about it too. The best writing can make people care about issues they cared about before. Making people care, however, is difficult because to do so the writer must avoid sounding pretentious, be clear and use phrases that are still able to affect the reader. Good writing is the hopeless endeavor to remove boring phrases and ideas from the mind and the page (with any inspection, this essay will cause the reader to laugh at this criticism which describes itself more than much writing). Amateur writing is made even more difficult because there are already so many wonderful essays written in English.
Writing is often painful and difficult. Rereading each paragraph almost brings pain because each time I go through them I see how much better they could be. Each sentence struggles and some flounder. I began this essay thinking it would be something else but, as usual, it became something different. I wanted to say one thing, and ended up saying, perhaps, nothing. This essay has caused me no end of agony and still is. Maybe soon I’ll come back to it and revise it. Make it better. But while writing it I’ve been forced to look at my writing, and the process of writing, and why I like to write. Because while attempting to clean out all the fluff on the page, I start to think a little clearer. While trying to figure out what to say, I always end up looking at my topic in different ways. Sometimes a brilliant thought looks idiotic when written down, and then that thought gets broken down and rebuilt and then thrown out and brought back in until, sometimes, it becomes brilliant again. Sometimes I’ll look at a daily activity and while writing it, something mundane becomes meaningful again and, for a while, the world becomes a place full of wonder. As a mediocre, novice writer, I may not have to skill to bring the reader along with me, but as a writer for myself it’s the process of writing that renews my world and keeps it an interesting place.
One of the great new shows of the past TV season was NBC’s Community. In it’s second half it managed to consistently find pathos by exploiting sitcom clichés and became sincere and funny even in its weakest episodes. What makes Community succeed is that the writers look at the sitcom stories tv watchers have grown so accustomed to (one of the strengths and weaknesses of sitcoms is that most are so predictable that from the introduction of any given plot line, the average viewer could spell out in detail the rest of the plot). Community uses these tropes, but plays with them by changing or contradicting them. The show breaks down clichés and attempts to show the emotion that first caused them to become clichés. The same stories, and the same words are revitalized by presenting them in a simple and unusual way.
The phrases and words people use in speaking or writing are often unconscious. In speech we tend to use ready-made phrases stored in our brains to gain time to gather our thoughts. They start out as filler, but often whole phrases and sentences become nothing but strings of prepackaged ideas. Similarly, many sitcoms (According to Jim, Big Bang Theory, Two and a Half Men etc…) are happy to follow established plots and jokes to entertain. Reality tv, perhaps the worst offender, is usually a string of easily repeatable words and the ‘reality’ part is contorted into an easy to follow story. Many people, however, demand more from entertainment than worn out plots, and are looking in tv shows or books or movies for honest emotion. The kind that brings them to the verge of tears or lets them smile for days, or rethink their behavior. Well thought out art tries to invoke these passions in its consumers, and great art succeeds.
These powerful sentiments are powerful because they’re unusual, while tired sentiments are tired because they‘re over-felt. There was a man who taught a course at Yale on Romeo and Juliet. He tells his students every year that he’s spent his whole life trying to recapture the feeling of reading the play for the first time again. He still loves reading the play, but what the play stirred in him can’t be felt as deeply ever again. The goal of a writer, from playwright to movie director to casual essayist is trying to inspire in people a feeling like that of the professor reading Romeo and Juliet
There are many ways which passion is aroused, but the first step is finding a new way to describe a familiar feeling. Hitchcock didn’t invent the feeling of suspense but he always managed to find new ways to make the viewer feel it. He did so with a master’s control of the camera and his shots. The playwright does it with his characters and dialogue. The essayist, especially the casual essayist, tend to do so with anecdotes and words. Often “hooks” are stories that seem, at first, unrelated to the essay, but as the essay develops, the reader understands both the purpose of the writer, and the anecdote in a new, clearer way. Sometimes that anecdote can be a story that’s been told many times, but through reading a good essay, that story evolves in the readers mind he is able to look at the story anew.
The stories and the purpose of writing is usually easy to arrive at. Vague ideas for essays arise throughout any given day, but it much harder to sit down and try to put those ideas into a coherent article. Well written essays always show that the writer cares about what he is writing by making the reader care about it too. The best writing can make people care about issues they cared about before. Making people care, however, is difficult because to do so the writer must avoid sounding pretentious, be clear and use phrases that are still able to affect the reader. Good writing is the hopeless endeavor to remove boring phrases and ideas from the mind and the page (with any inspection, this essay will cause the reader to laugh at this criticism which describes itself more than much writing). Amateur writing is made even more difficult because there are already so many wonderful essays written in English.
Writing is often painful and difficult. Rereading each paragraph almost brings pain because each time I go through them I see how much better they could be. Each sentence struggles and some flounder. I began this essay thinking it would be something else but, as usual, it became something different. I wanted to say one thing, and ended up saying, perhaps, nothing. This essay has caused me no end of agony and still is. Maybe soon I’ll come back to it and revise it. Make it better. But while writing it I’ve been forced to look at my writing, and the process of writing, and why I like to write. Because while attempting to clean out all the fluff on the page, I start to think a little clearer. While trying to figure out what to say, I always end up looking at my topic in different ways. Sometimes a brilliant thought looks idiotic when written down, and then that thought gets broken down and rebuilt and then thrown out and brought back in until, sometimes, it becomes brilliant again. Sometimes I’ll look at a daily activity and while writing it, something mundane becomes meaningful again and, for a while, the world becomes a place full of wonder. As a mediocre, novice writer, I may not have to skill to bring the reader along with me, but as a writer for myself it’s the process of writing that renews my world and keeps it an interesting place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)