Sunday, November 30, 2008
Friday, November 28, 2008
Dear Anti-Abortion Activists and Christian Conservatives
Hi. Um, it's been a while since we talked. Look, I respect your convictions, share your distaste for destroying life, and generally feel like fetuses are kind of getting the raw end of the stick. (D'you ever get the creeping feeling that its not just a women's right to control her body that's at stake but people's right to consequence-free sex?). And hey excuse the digression, but speaking of destroying life, have you noticed what we're doing to a lot of the animal and plant life of this planet? What do you suppose God thinks of that? Anyways, like I said I respect your convictions... I definitely have a real problem with the methods you're using, though. You're really freaking people out and generating a lot of hatred and enmity. I don't feel like Jesus would really be into that. And speaking of that Jesus guy, have you ever noticed how disinterested he (and any of his apostles) was in using politics, laws, or any form of coercion to change the world? (And they lived in a society that did some pretty atrocious things quite regularly and legally).
I have some suggestions for you. Please hear me out, if you would.
If you really think abortion is wrong, a national tragedy, a silent holocaust, or even just kind of too bad, why don't you try to work on creating a society where young women will face no stigma and negligible disadvantage (social, economic etc.) for getting pregnant and choosing to have their child? Wouldn't that be life-affirming? And why don't you do your bit to create a society where every conceived child was effectively guaranteed a good, loving family -- not because some bureaucratic government made grand statements and created ineffective programs, but because people so loved and valued children that they were willing to look after them and raise them regardless of whose genes they shared? In other words, to be really practical, why don't you adopt a child? I mean, at least one. Let me say it one more time... If you actually care about abortion, why don't you adopt a kid?
Because you know, last I heard, even with a hundred of thousands of abortions every year, there are still a lot of kids that never get adopted, and never have a good, loving family. How many 'good Christian families' do you think there are in Canada? (Not enough to actually take care of those kids, apparently -- sorry did I say that out loud?). And hey, don't you just love that part of the Christian story that's all about how God has adopted us into his family, and gave us a home and all the privelege of being his kids? 'Go and do likewise' eh?
You know, I've noticed that it's easy to rant about the sin and failures of others... it's hard to take a look at yourself and find something constructive to do though. I wish you success on your journey towards doing just that, and hope you wish me the same. (As a matter of fact, this letter has actually been part of my attempt to not get caught in the vicious circle of 'criticize but don't do nothin' . I've tried to reign myself in and not be too off-putting, even as I keep in mind that Jesus tended to be pretty blunt and critical of other religious people -- not the 'sinners' and 'heathen' that he so regularly hung out with). Anyways, I'd love to hear from you and talk to you about some of this stuff, if you're up for it.
With love and cautious respect -- and very sincerely,
Tim Kitz.
I have some suggestions for you. Please hear me out, if you would.
If you really think abortion is wrong, a national tragedy, a silent holocaust, or even just kind of too bad, why don't you try to work on creating a society where young women will face no stigma and negligible disadvantage (social, economic etc.) for getting pregnant and choosing to have their child? Wouldn't that be life-affirming? And why don't you do your bit to create a society where every conceived child was effectively guaranteed a good, loving family -- not because some bureaucratic government made grand statements and created ineffective programs, but because people so loved and valued children that they were willing to look after them and raise them regardless of whose genes they shared? In other words, to be really practical, why don't you adopt a child? I mean, at least one. Let me say it one more time... If you actually care about abortion, why don't you adopt a kid?
Because you know, last I heard, even with a hundred of thousands of abortions every year, there are still a lot of kids that never get adopted, and never have a good, loving family. How many 'good Christian families' do you think there are in Canada? (Not enough to actually take care of those kids, apparently -- sorry did I say that out loud?). And hey, don't you just love that part of the Christian story that's all about how God has adopted us into his family, and gave us a home and all the privelege of being his kids? 'Go and do likewise' eh?
You know, I've noticed that it's easy to rant about the sin and failures of others... it's hard to take a look at yourself and find something constructive to do though. I wish you success on your journey towards doing just that, and hope you wish me the same. (As a matter of fact, this letter has actually been part of my attempt to not get caught in the vicious circle of 'criticize but don't do nothin' . I've tried to reign myself in and not be too off-putting, even as I keep in mind that Jesus tended to be pretty blunt and critical of other religious people -- not the 'sinners' and 'heathen' that he so regularly hung out with). Anyways, I'd love to hear from you and talk to you about some of this stuff, if you're up for it.
With love and cautious respect -- and very sincerely,
Tim Kitz.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Rhetorical Questions from a Language Purist
Does virgin wool come from celibate sheep?
Yep, vigin wool -- as opposed to what?
Promiscuous cotton?
How can food be anything other than organic?
How can food be anything other than organic?
(If it wasn't, how could we eat it?)
Why don't we use 'gruntled' as a synonym for satisfied?
Why don't we use 'gruntled' as a synonym for satisfied?
Why not 'rebuttle' arguments? Or call the socially apt 'outroverts'?
And isn't it about time 'tricknology' was in the dictionary?
On the other hand,
On the other hand,
'de-plane' is not a verb
or even a word.
Do you think incidents of air rage would decrease
if airplane employees stopped constantly using it?
And the only people that refer to Toronto as 'TO'
And the only people that refer to Toronto as 'TO'
are wannabe gangsters,
like the hardcore suburbanites
that do their graffiti in eraseable chalk
(and oh, was it a coincidence you scribbled your promises of eternal devotion in pencil?)
And speaking of which (gangsters not heartbreak),
And speaking of which (gangsters not heartbreak),
what does it say about you
that you think gang-banging is a form of rape?
[Written way back in fall 2004]
[Written way back in fall 2004]
Monday, November 24, 2008
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Deconstructing Religion
I have to admit, one of my main motivations in creating this blog was to provide a host for this, my attempt to deconstruct religion. (And because I refuse to toss around poorly understood and hazily defined words, I feel obliged to tell you that by deconstruction I mostly just mean an attempt to call into question oppositions and rigid distinctions).
Because one of my underlying assumptions is that we use words to separate ourselves from others, and that this 'othering' process helps us construct a secure sense of identity. We define ourselves as different — even the opposite — of a group of people who possess a characteristic that we dislike. Often our characterization is a little suspect, (if not blatantly inaccurate) and it says more about who we would like to be than it does about who they are.
For example, gender identity is almost meaningless without a contrasting, 'opposite sex,' in spite of the fact that every gender sterotype is just that — a stereotype so riddled with 'exceptions' that it's more lie than truth. Similarly, the Canadian colonies confederated largely to prevent themselves from being gobbled up by their neighbour to the south, and 'not-American' has remained the only concrete element of what is a pretty amorphous and elusive identity. (And that's in spite of the fact there's relatively little separating us. To pick on a few things we see as uniquely Canadian, the US prides itself on its multiculturalism these days, generally does a better job of protecting the environment than Canada, and has a government that pays 30% of health care costs -- our 'universal' healthcare system pays 70%).
Meanwhile, religious people often think of nonbelievers as sinful and sex-obsessed. Quite a few atheists seem to think that since religious people believe in things they can't prove, they're all irrational and incapable of thinking independently. But as my favourite dead French Christian anarchist writer (ok, so there's not a lot of them around) once wrote, ""The fact is it is much easier to judge faults according to an established morality [or classificatory scheme] than to view people as living wholes and to understand why they act as they do." (Jacques Ellul, Christianity and Anarchy, p.7)
Everyone wants to think that they're totally unique and different, (un-labell-able, if you will, even as we're constantly labelling others for convenience sake). A lot of it is our unhealthy cult of the individual, but there is something natural and understandable about this impulse. As William James said, "Probably a crab would be filled with a sense of personal outrage if it could hear us class it without ado or apology as a crustacean, and thus dispose of it. 'I am no such thing,' it would say, 'I am myself, myself alone." (Way back in the 1929 Modern Library edition of The Varieties of Religious Experience, p.10).
All religions are not one, and neither are all humans. What I've written isn't an attempt to wish away real difference, just an invitation to realize that we may have more in common than we originally thought. (This has got to be one of the great challenges we presently face — how to acknowledge and make room for difference without letting the poison of 'othering', denigration, factionalism, and conflict seep in. 'Tolerance' might be a good, but 'understanding' and 'respecting' is better. And one of my assumptions — and deeply held beliefs — is that if we truly understand something or someone, respect will automatically flow out from that. I think one of the simplest ways this works is that as we begin to understand others, we actually start realizing they aren't quite as different as we originally thought. It's not just about 'doing unto others,' it's about 'seeing ourselves in others,' and vice versa.)
It's also an attempt to think about a very charged word that we toss around all the time. Surely, 'religion' is a very important word, denoting a very important 'thing,' but after all what is religion? What does it mean to be a religious person in a secular society? A spiritual person in a world that doesn't believe in spirit? Why should a secular world care about this weird little thing called 'religion', about these fantasies of some sort of 'spirit?'
Part 1 - The Sacred (AKA Understanding Religion -- The Divine Play)
Part 2 - The Spiritual (AKA Holy Holism, Batman! The Breath of Spirit)
Part 3 - The Secular (AKA Now Where Did We Go Wrong? A Geneology of the Super-Natural)
A Personal Note (To be read before or after the other parts -- or not at all)
An Attempt at a Summary (ditto)
Because one of my underlying assumptions is that we use words to separate ourselves from others, and that this 'othering' process helps us construct a secure sense of identity. We define ourselves as different — even the opposite — of a group of people who possess a characteristic that we dislike. Often our characterization is a little suspect, (if not blatantly inaccurate) and it says more about who we would like to be than it does about who they are.
For example, gender identity is almost meaningless without a contrasting, 'opposite sex,' in spite of the fact that every gender sterotype is just that — a stereotype so riddled with 'exceptions' that it's more lie than truth. Similarly, the Canadian colonies confederated largely to prevent themselves from being gobbled up by their neighbour to the south, and 'not-American' has remained the only concrete element of what is a pretty amorphous and elusive identity. (And that's in spite of the fact there's relatively little separating us. To pick on a few things we see as uniquely Canadian, the US prides itself on its multiculturalism these days, generally does a better job of protecting the environment than Canada, and has a government that pays 30% of health care costs -- our 'universal' healthcare system pays 70%).
Meanwhile, religious people often think of nonbelievers as sinful and sex-obsessed. Quite a few atheists seem to think that since religious people believe in things they can't prove, they're all irrational and incapable of thinking independently. But as my favourite dead French Christian anarchist writer (ok, so there's not a lot of them around) once wrote, ""The fact is it is much easier to judge faults according to an established morality [or classificatory scheme] than to view people as living wholes and to understand why they act as they do." (Jacques Ellul, Christianity and Anarchy, p.7)
Everyone wants to think that they're totally unique and different, (un-labell-able, if you will, even as we're constantly labelling others for convenience sake). A lot of it is our unhealthy cult of the individual, but there is something natural and understandable about this impulse. As William James said, "Probably a crab would be filled with a sense of personal outrage if it could hear us class it without ado or apology as a crustacean, and thus dispose of it. 'I am no such thing,' it would say, 'I am myself, myself alone." (Way back in the 1929 Modern Library edition of The Varieties of Religious Experience, p.10).
All religions are not one, and neither are all humans. What I've written isn't an attempt to wish away real difference, just an invitation to realize that we may have more in common than we originally thought. (This has got to be one of the great challenges we presently face — how to acknowledge and make room for difference without letting the poison of 'othering', denigration, factionalism, and conflict seep in. 'Tolerance' might be a good, but 'understanding' and 'respecting' is better. And one of my assumptions — and deeply held beliefs — is that if we truly understand something or someone, respect will automatically flow out from that. I think one of the simplest ways this works is that as we begin to understand others, we actually start realizing they aren't quite as different as we originally thought. It's not just about 'doing unto others,' it's about 'seeing ourselves in others,' and vice versa.)
It's also an attempt to think about a very charged word that we toss around all the time. Surely, 'religion' is a very important word, denoting a very important 'thing,' but after all what is religion? What does it mean to be a religious person in a secular society? A spiritual person in a world that doesn't believe in spirit? Why should a secular world care about this weird little thing called 'religion', about these fantasies of some sort of 'spirit?'
Part 1 - The Sacred (AKA Understanding Religion -- The Divine Play)
Part 2 - The Spiritual (AKA Holy Holism, Batman! The Breath of Spirit)
Part 3 - The Secular (AKA Now Where Did We Go Wrong? A Geneology of the Super-Natural)
A Personal Note (To be read before or after the other parts -- or not at all)
An Attempt at a Summary (ditto)
Revolution Music and Over-the-counterculture
Further to that last post, I feel like the transformative impact of music (and art) is seriously overstated. The 'establishment' isn't living in fear of rock, it's busy studying its success at business school.
Beware of people praising to the skies a particular thing, when they they just so happen to make their living creating that thing. That goes for musicians and artists (and the academics) just as well as it does for vacuum-cleaner salesmen. Music (or art) is wonderful -- my life basically revolves around it. But it isn't the end-all and be-all of life -- just one of many worthwhile interesting aspects of life, no better than any other.
That said, these two things are awesome. They've gone a long way to dissolving my cynicism about art these past few months. It really is possible to make art that challenges 'the powers that be' in electrifying ways...
This is CocoRosie's subversive cover of Akon's misygonistic tune, where they give a voice to the pole dancer he's busy objectifying in the original. (If you're as cut off from mainstream culture as I am -- an edited version of this songs was a #1 hit but I didn't come across it until CocoRosie -- you can watch the original here. You'll get the idea after the first minute or so -- I know I haven't managed to sit through the whole thing, so don't feel obliged to).
CocoRosie - lyrics to You Wanna Fuck Me
Now this is Sinead O'Connor a week after she tore up a photo of the pope on live national tv, as a way of protesting then fresh revelations about sexual abuse within the Catholic Church, and the way the hierarchy systematically protected offenders. (She was abused as a child herself).
Is anybody else amazed at the irony of trying to boo a performer off the stage at a tribute to Bob Dylan? (And what she did was quite a bit more gutsy than just plugging in an electric guitar...)
Beware of people praising to the skies a particular thing, when they they just so happen to make their living creating that thing. That goes for musicians and artists (and the academics) just as well as it does for vacuum-cleaner salesmen. Music (or art) is wonderful -- my life basically revolves around it. But it isn't the end-all and be-all of life -- just one of many worthwhile interesting aspects of life, no better than any other.
That said, these two things are awesome. They've gone a long way to dissolving my cynicism about art these past few months. It really is possible to make art that challenges 'the powers that be' in electrifying ways...
This is CocoRosie's subversive cover of Akon's misygonistic tune, where they give a voice to the pole dancer he's busy objectifying in the original. (If you're as cut off from mainstream culture as I am -- an edited version of this songs was a #1 hit but I didn't come across it until CocoRosie -- you can watch the original here. You'll get the idea after the first minute or so -- I know I haven't managed to sit through the whole thing, so don't feel obliged to).
CocoRosie - lyrics to You Wanna Fuck Me
Now this is Sinead O'Connor a week after she tore up a photo of the pope on live national tv, as a way of protesting then fresh revelations about sexual abuse within the Catholic Church, and the way the hierarchy systematically protected offenders. (She was abused as a child herself).
Is anybody else amazed at the irony of trying to boo a performer off the stage at a tribute to Bob Dylan? (And what she did was quite a bit more gutsy than just plugging in an electric guitar...)
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Ursula LeGuin's translation of Book 1, chapter 11 of the Tao Te Ching
The Use Of Not
Thirty spokes
meet in the hub.
Where the wheel isn't
is where it's useful.
Hollowed out,
clay makes a pot.
Where the pot's not
is where it's useful.
Cut doors and windows
to make a room.
Where the room isn't,
there's room for you.
So the profit in what is
is in the use of what isn't.
Thirty spokes
meet in the hub.
Where the wheel isn't
is where it's useful.
Hollowed out,
clay makes a pot.
Where the pot's not
is where it's useful.
Cut doors and windows
to make a room.
Where the room isn't,
there's room for you.
So the profit in what is
is in the use of what isn't.
Art's Overrated (Dismantling the Cult of the Artist)
That's right. I think our idea of 'art' is very artifical, finding its basis in more general principles of specialization that have a really corrosive effect on our lives. Think of a carpenter and a composer (or painter) living in the Baroque or medieval period, for example. There actually wasn't a whole lot of difference between what these two craftsmen (craftspeople) did. In their work, they exercised creativity, autonomy, self-expression and skill. They planned the work out from beginning to end, performed just about all of it themselves, and did their best to make sure it was the highest quality they could produce, learning and gaining skill with everything they made -- all in all, they investing a little bit of themselves in everything they produced. But at some point art separated completely from craft, ordinary work, and ordinary life, and we evacuated all of the creativity and spirit out of the ordinary things we do, leaving art as some sort of sacred, magical thing that only 5% of the population ('artists') get to do, or that the rest of us get to do it with 5% of our time (a 'hobby')... the rest of the time our work and what we do leaves us no space for creativity, autonomy, self-expression, etc. Lame.
What I'm trying to say is that the way you made music and made a chair was basically the same before the Industrial Revolution (which relied on an extreme division of labour) ... the maker would get to exercise quite a bit of bit of creativity, autonomy, and skill. Today, most chairs are made by factory workers who are left bereft of such things. Their work is repetitive, boring, uncreative, fragmentary (a worker contributes only one tiny action to the creation of a chair), and entirely determined by others above them. The ideal worker is a pre-programmed drone.
In a lot of ways, the modern divinization of art is an attempt to retreat and escape from the effects of industrialism, but paradoxically, all it does is support the dehumanization of work by saying that creativity, independence, and self-expression is reserved for 'artistic' activities. The pursuit of 'pure art,' 'art for art's sake,' often involving an indifference bordering on antagonism to any potential audience ('I don't write/paint/create for people, it's just for me, and the more people I offend the better' -- the cult of the maverick, revolutionary artist) seeks to remove these values even farther -- as far as possible -- from ordinary life.
(And for the record, there is no such thing as 'pure' art. All art is functional. Even the most abstract art of art serves the function of reinforcing certain values, and delineating social groupings -- at the very least, between those who 'get it' and those who don't. 'Coincidentally' those who 'get it' tend to be the economically priveledged and well-educated).
What I'm trying to say is that the way you made music and made a chair was basically the same before the Industrial Revolution (which relied on an extreme division of labour) ... the maker would get to exercise quite a bit of bit of creativity, autonomy, and skill. Today, most chairs are made by factory workers who are left bereft of such things. Their work is repetitive, boring, uncreative, fragmentary (a worker contributes only one tiny action to the creation of a chair), and entirely determined by others above them. The ideal worker is a pre-programmed drone.
In a lot of ways, the modern divinization of art is an attempt to retreat and escape from the effects of industrialism, but paradoxically, all it does is support the dehumanization of work by saying that creativity, independence, and self-expression is reserved for 'artistic' activities. The pursuit of 'pure art,' 'art for art's sake,' often involving an indifference bordering on antagonism to any potential audience ('I don't write/paint/create for people, it's just for me, and the more people I offend the better' -- the cult of the maverick, revolutionary artist) seeks to remove these values even farther -- as far as possible -- from ordinary life.
(And for the record, there is no such thing as 'pure' art. All art is functional. Even the most abstract art of art serves the function of reinforcing certain values, and delineating social groupings -- at the very least, between those who 'get it' and those who don't. 'Coincidentally' those who 'get it' tend to be the economically priveledged and well-educated).
Friday, November 14, 2008
Why Punk and Drunk Just Don't Go Together
Went to a punk show last night. Cool to see a Canadian hardcore legend (that'd be DOA), almost as old as the Sex Pistols, contemporaries with Black Flag and Bad Brains, and still going strong. Johnny Shithead (the only remaining original member) managed to be really fun (mock guitar-hero pyrotechnics) and really serious (political) at the same time. Hmmm. Somehow, too much modern punk seems to have lost that wonderful combination.
Probably would have enjoyed it more if me and my friend weren't both a little sick. It also would've helped if there wouldn't have been beer spilled all over the moshpit area.
(God, I'm getting too old).
Hello, kids, please listen to Grandpa Tim's advice here: if you want to mosh, don't bring your beer bottle in with you. I know you like pretending to be all rebellious and stuff, but you're crossing the line from rebellious to just plain stupid here. It will spill, and besides the dangerous hazard this will create for everyone else, you'll be out some beer. (And that's the best case scenario -- you could lose the entire beer, and the floor could just end up littered with glass -- never fun to land on). Believe it or not, punk is also supposed to be about taking care of each other (that'd be why we instantly pick each other up when we fall).
One more reason all punk shows should just be all-age shows.
Probably would have enjoyed it more if me and my friend weren't both a little sick. It also would've helped if there wouldn't have been beer spilled all over the moshpit area.
(God, I'm getting too old).
Hello, kids, please listen to Grandpa Tim's advice here: if you want to mosh, don't bring your beer bottle in with you. I know you like pretending to be all rebellious and stuff, but you're crossing the line from rebellious to just plain stupid here. It will spill, and besides the dangerous hazard this will create for everyone else, you'll be out some beer. (And that's the best case scenario -- you could lose the entire beer, and the floor could just end up littered with glass -- never fun to land on). Believe it or not, punk is also supposed to be about taking care of each other (that'd be why we instantly pick each other up when we fall).
One more reason all punk shows should just be all-age shows.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
In Honour of DIS
Three kids are playing on the playground, and one turns to the others and says "Are they making us go to school or are we learning for the sake of beauty?"
-Jack White
"An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field."
-Neils Bohr
"Public education: The bureaucratic process of replacing an empty mind with a closed one."
-Brooke McEldowney
"It's only work if somebody makes you do it."
-Calvin (from Calivin and Hobbes, as written by Bill Watterson)
-Jack White
"An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field."
-Neils Bohr
"Public education: The bureaucratic process of replacing an empty mind with a closed one."
-Brooke McEldowney
"It's only work if somebody makes you do it."
-Calvin (from Calivin and Hobbes, as written by Bill Watterson)
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Christian death metal (and other oxymorons)
So this year I'm going to be trying to write an honours essay (like a thesis, but for undergrads) on Christian Death Metal. And yes, such a thing really does exist, and some such bands that play it are even quite good and fairly popular in the world of metal. Zao and As I Lay Dying, for instance. Stop rolling your eyes!
Anyways, the main theoretical issue I think I'm going to be grappling with is whether there's something inherent in the music that lends itself to a certain feel/message, or whether the relation between the music and the message is arbitray, so you can just just graft any discourse onto it willy-nilly.
If you're strange like me, and something in the above paragraphs pique your interest, you may want to look at what I have so far, (god knows I'll take all the feedback and help I can get!):
Rough Outline
[A far from static plan, with links to sectional drafts, thoughts, and annotated bibliographies].
As I go, I'm planning to post as much of my writing as I have, probably linked into the Rough Outline, though I may also add fresh links direct into this post. And of course, the nice thing about google documents is they automatically update, so if you're really crazy you can follow my thought and writing process all the way through to what will hopefully be the final product. Or just jump in at some random point and never look back!
If you want to witness the glory that is Christian death metal, you could do worse than to try:
Mortification - Scrolls of the Megilloth video and lyrics
Zao - Savannah live video, and lyrics
Incidentally, John Coltrane is awesome my friends, and on Blue Train he has a seriously wonderful trombonist (among others) playing alongside him. (Listening to it right now). Definitely worth checking out.
Anyways, the main theoretical issue I think I'm going to be grappling with is whether there's something inherent in the music that lends itself to a certain feel/message, or whether the relation between the music and the message is arbitray, so you can just just graft any discourse onto it willy-nilly.
If you're strange like me, and something in the above paragraphs pique your interest, you may want to look at what I have so far, (god knows I'll take all the feedback and help I can get!):
Rough Outline
[A far from static plan, with links to sectional drafts, thoughts, and annotated bibliographies].
As I go, I'm planning to post as much of my writing as I have, probably linked into the Rough Outline, though I may also add fresh links direct into this post. And of course, the nice thing about google documents is they automatically update, so if you're really crazy you can follow my thought and writing process all the way through to what will hopefully be the final product. Or just jump in at some random point and never look back!
If you want to witness the glory that is Christian death metal, you could do worse than to try:
Mortification - Scrolls of the Megilloth video and lyrics
Zao - Savannah live video, and lyrics
Incidentally, John Coltrane is awesome my friends, and on Blue Train he has a seriously wonderful trombonist (among others) playing alongside him. (Listening to it right now). Definitely worth checking out.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
300
"In which a small band of racially-pure Europeans save democracy and freedom from the mixed Asian hordes of an androgynous despot. They are betrayed by a cripple who should have been killed for his deformity, and who was seduced by the sexual lasciousviousness said despot was able to offer. Fortunately, good still triumphs over evil."
[For anyone who doesn't know, the movie is a shot-for-shot remake of Frank Miller's graphic novel].
Frank Miller used to be one my of my favourite comic book authors. As far as I'm concerned The Dark Knight Returns is just about the best superhero comic ever written, and though it took a while to grow on me, the long-awaited sequel The Dark Knight Strikes Again is at least as brilliant. But it's hard to have much respect for him these days. 300 is a good story, and I enjoyed it as such when I finally watched the movie version this summer with a friend. But as soon the movie was over, and we started talking about what the movie seemed to saying... things start getting a little creepy. Then I read Edward Said's Orientalism for a class this fall, and had to do a presentation on it, which really opened my eyes to all that's wrong with this movie.
Those behind the movie/book will (and do) say "relax, it's just a story" and "it has no meaning in (or relation to) the real world." But as Said argues, we in the West have a long history (going back at least as far as Homer's Illiad, and Herodotus' Histories) of portraying 'the East' as both dangerous and decadent. Not only have such attitudes and discourses -- often unconscious -- justified imperialism, they sure become convenient when marshalling support for the latest military adventure out in the Eastern world. Thumbs down, Frank Miller.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
