Monday, March 31, 2003

Take this quiz and find out your political persuasion. Now, I could do a very long post on why these kind of binary quizzes are essentially meaningless, and how, like many polls, they fail to register the uncertainty and fluidity of the average voter.

In any case, I am a New Prosperity Independent. I have no idea what that means but here is the description:
Pro-business, pro-environment and many are pro-choice. Sympathetic toward immigrants, but not as understanding toward black Americans and the poor. Somewhat critical of government. Tolerant on social issues.

For some reason I find that very amusing. Still more:
Affluent and less religious, this group is basically non-partisan with a slight lean toward the Republican Party. New Prosperity Independents are highly satisfied with the things that are going in the country. A majority approves of Bill Clinton, yet tends to be critical of government. One-third consider themselves Internet enthusiasts. Two-thirds favor having third major political party in addition to the Democrats and Republicans.

Why is Bill Clinton considered some kind of litmus test? What does he really represent in this context? Screw this test, if you pay attention you will find out that most of it is simply asking the same question over and over: do you believe in free will or are you a determinist? I strongly believe that if free will does not exist, we must invent it. It is pragmatically expedient for me to believe that free will exists regardless of whether it actually does. And that's the bottom line.
This makes me incredibly happy!

Saturday, March 29, 2003

I am going to make Democracy in Iran my personal crusade. So please sign your name here in support.
Iraqi civilians feed hungry US Marines

This is simultaneously encouraging and embarassing.
Don't Take My Name In Vain

It's always fascinating to me to see the Left turn against itself. Admittedly, the happens quite frequently, but it is always fun to see people argue over who is more moral. In any case, this article does a good job of poking fun at self-obsessed protesters and celebrities. How dare George Bush bring death and violence into my life! This choice quote sums it up:
What these supreme egotists achieve by putting themselves at the centre of every crisis is to make the Iraqi people effectively disappear. NOT IN MY NAME! is western imperialism of the sneakiest sort, putting our clean hands before the freedom of an enslaved people.

Friday, March 28, 2003

A review of John Gray's Straw Dogs

A good review, and even though I haven't read the book yet (it's in the mail) the review seems to try awfully hard to have a happy ending. At some point in the future I hope to do a post on the "happy ending" or "resolution" in art and its larger philosophical function. Far from being a cop-out as some charge (as if a tragic or inconclusive ending is any less abitrary) the happy ending actually serves a much more important purpose than simply sending the audience home satisfied.

I also found another good Cioran that I couldn't resist posting: "Love's great (and sole) originality is to make happiness indistinct from misery."
Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran

These guys never cease to amaze and inspire me. Notice their press release to the right: they are boycotting the government sponsered anti-war protests.

Heroic Freedom-loving Nation of Iran:

In the hours that the anti-terrorist alliance are at war with the so-called Commander of Ghadesieh behind the fortifications of Basra and in the vicinity of Baghdad, the heads of the illegitimate government of the Islamic Republic, by forgetting the blood-sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of Iranian soldiers and youth who died or became crippled during the eight year war of defending the country, are again trying to display a government made-to-order demonstration in support of Saddam Hossein's regime to prevent his certain overthrow.

The Islamic Republic which has become petrified- on the one hand due to the tightening of the international arena and on the other hand due to the problems associated with the surfacing of its inhumane and illegitimate nature-believes that it has found a good opportunity to take advantage of the humane and peaceful nature of the honorable Iranian nation in order to increase its behind the scenes diplomatic haggling in order to postpone its inevitable destiny of demise by striking a lifesaving deal. The international arena has become more difficult for the regime to traverse following the overthrow of the Taliban religious regime, and the passing, by now, of one week since the beginning of military action against the Baathist regime and thereby its complete surroundedness. Without doubt, the exposure of the illegitimate and inhumane nature of the regime as a result of the widespread relentless struggles of the Iranian nation, which the world witnessed at its peak during the boycott by millions of the staged elections and during the observance of the ancient "Chahar-Shanbe Soori" (Fire Fiest) has forced countries such as America to support the secular liberation movement of the Iranian nation.

Without doubt, pursuant to the dark deeds of the past quarter-century committed by the regime that lays claim to "Ali's Just Governance," the oppressed nation of Iran has well familiar with the fact that this religious ideological-Mafia style regime has never shown mercy to the nation it has oppressed and has strictly abused the calamities of other nations in the region for furthering its backwards political motives in order to add a few days more to its existence.

It is evident that during the very critical hours that the entire region will be undergoing fundamental change at which our Iran is on the path to liberation from the tyranny of a Taliban-likethrough the wise actions of the alert nation who are accomplishing this by only utilizing civil disobedience methods. The "Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran", based upon its historic responsibility and on behalf of the "Third Force" in Iran, calls all fellow countrywomen and countrymen to boycott the false government-sponsored anti-war demonstration and to abstain from showing up in the streets on Friday, March 28, 2003 (Farvardin 8, 1382).

May it be that the boycott of this made-up demonstration at the beginning of the current Iranian New Year will be another milestone in the history-making glorious struggle of the Iranian nation exposing the shaky and collapsing Islamic Republic.


Long Live Freedom!
Established be Secularism!

March 26, 2003 (6 Farvardin 1382)


Can we start a petition to have "Established be Secularism!" put on the dollar? How about right next to "In God We Trust?"
E.M. Cioran again:

"When one has emerged from the circle of errors and illusions within which actions are performed, taking a position is virtually an impossibility. A minimum of silliness is essential for everything, for affirming and even for denying."

"Whatever puts me at odds with the world is consubstantial with myself. How little I have learned from experience. My dissapointments have always preceded me."

"It is not the violent evils that mark us but the secret, insistent, tolerable ones belonging to our daily round and undermining us as conscientiously as Time itself."


Every sentence is a wound. Cioran admitted his greatest failure as a philosopher were these fragments he left behind. He mocks his own pain because he cannot remain silent on it. There is always a subtext: yes, even this is meaningless. A true philosopher, Cioran maintains, would say nothing.

Monday, March 24, 2003

The Command Post

Constant updates on the war.

Saturday, March 22, 2003

I have three words for the administration. The three words are in response to the doubters, to the cynics, to those who think this is about "neo-colonialism", or imperialism, to those who shout "no blood for oil", to those who see this as a war of aggression or arrogance. Those words:

Prove them wrong.

The protests and demonstrations need not be in vain. They can influence the conduct of this war and its aftermath. And those of us who reluctantly support this war in good faith must hold the administration accountable to do the right thing, no matter how difficult.

Thursday, March 20, 2003

An Arab-American on CNN: "Saddam is an agent of the West. It's about time they clean up their mess."

Amen.
The Arrogant Empire

An essential (I mean it!) read from the incredibly intelligent and level headed Fareed Zakaria. This man should be an advisor to the president. (One of the few serious thinkers who is able to write for a broader audience. Just last month he published a piece in the highbrow Foreign Policy magazine.)

Wednesday, March 19, 2003

A pressing question: are The Cardigans the best looking band on the planet? What's with these Scandinavians?
Lightning Bolt - "2 Towers" from the album Wonderful Rainbow

If God played bass in a hardcore punk band. I'm not sure Dante could do justice to this "song", so I'm not even going to really try. Someone wrote somewhere that this music is like a colonic for your head. That seems about right, but it's much more. This piece in particular astonished me, and I can't remember the last time music did that. It begins with an immeasurable ferocity and never lets up, not even once, until five minutes later. It's exhausting, it's invigorating, it's as if the sun was a strobe light. Ok, I said I wouldn't try but I can't help myself.

Tuesday, March 18, 2003

The Case for Neo-Colonialism

I have felt for a long time that Bush and Co. are a radical administration (led probably by Paul Wolfowitz). Whether they frighten you or inspire you it is important to try to understand the larger theoretical foundations of their philosophy. This article is a good start I think.

I once read that Neo-conservatism is founded on the notion of the ethical use of power. I must admit I find this to be a far more attractive notion than the typical liberal attitude which shuns power, but both are dangerous when taken to extremes (yay moderates!). The following quote is more easily understood in context of the article:
The foxes of the world include the present governments of Germany, France and once plucky little Belgium, as well as a handful of malcontents including China and Russia (former hedgehogs whose one big thing was proved wrong). The hedgehogs today include the US, Britain, Australia, Canada, Italy, Spain, India, Mexico, Israel and Japan. And it is worth emphasising the central point of Robert Kagan’s new book Of Paradise and Power: that the foxish ideology developed in the UN and the EU can only exist because the hedgehog exists, in the form of the US security guarantee. As Kagan puts it, by "manning the walls of Europe’s post-modern world order ...American power made it possible for Europeans to believe that power was no longer important". American power, not European multilateralism, has kept the peace, and allowed the EU and the UN to survive and prosper to the point where they now pose a challenge of moral leadership to the US itself.

This is an essential point I think.
The Evolution of Punishment

I don't have a lot to say about this article other than Tim sent it to me and said it was very interesting, and boy he was right.
Clinton backs Blair

It is worth remembering that Mr. Clinton also did an honorable thing by ignoring the U.N. when push came to shove. And that is something I am willing to give him a lot of credit for.
The Elementary Particles by Michel Houellebecq

As soon as i heard Houellebecq was on trial in Paris for saying Islam was a "stupid religion" I went out and bought one of his novels as a gesture of support. (I qualify that by adding that he said Islam was the "most stupid" religion and that the bible was so boring it made him want to shit. I think that gives you an idea what kind of guy he is, and if you know me at all you know that I find those types of people endlessly fascinating.)

I was expecting a lot of rage. I was expecting a lot of humor. But I didn't expect to find such compassion and tenderness towards his characters. Like most of my favorite artists, Houellebecq earns his bitterness through deep compassion for humanity, and a willingness to confront things as they actually are. Here is one of my favorite passages from the novel, which I think accurately conveys his style:
Every week, however, his heart in his mouth, he watched The Animal Kingdom. Graceful animals like gazelles and antelopes spent their days in abject terror while lions and panthers lived out their lives in listless imbecility punctuated by explosive bursts of cruelty. They slaughtered weaker animals, dismembered and devoured the sick and the old before falling back into a brutish sleep where the only activity was that of the parasites feeding on them from within. Some of these parasites were hosts to smaller parasites, which in turn were a breeding ground fir viruses. Snakes moved among the trees, their fangs bared, ready to strike at bird or mammal, only to be ripped apart by hawks. The pompous, half-witted voice of Claude Darget, filled with awe and unjustifiable admiration, narrated these atrocities. Michel trembled with indignation. But as he watched, the unshakable conviction grew that nature, taken as a whole, was a repulsive cesspit. All in all, nature deserved to be wiped out in a holocaust--and man's mission on earth was probably to do just that.


Update: Jeff found this article about the trial if you are interested.

Monday, March 17, 2003

Christopher Hitchens says what I attempted to say but is much clearer:
If consequences and consistency are to count in this argument, then they must count both ways. One cannot know the future, but one can make a reasoned judgment about the evident danger and instability of the status quo. Odd that the left should think that the status quo, in this area of all areas, is so worthy of preservation.

Friday, March 14, 2003

An interesting exchange between Christopher Hitchens and Doug Ireland. I have excerpted below the two most interesting comments, but the entire thing is worth reading. The first comment is Hitchens defending his statement that he would vote for Bush if the election were held tomorrow. To see a man that has written in defense of Marxism and only recently given up being a Socialist admit such a thing is kind of shocking.

Hitchens:
I would probably vote to re-elect him [Bush] as president if the election were to be held tomorrow; but that wouldn’t prevent me (now would it?) from voting for all manner of local and congressional progressive and humane and honest and enlightened types lower down on the ticket(s). Except there aren’t any. Worse than this realization is my awareness that many of those who lay claim to be such have also shown a fundamental, nay terminal lack of seriousness about the absolutely salient issue that faces us, which is the defense of pluralist society against both the theocrats and the surviving advocates of the militarist one-party state. This is not a "foreign policy" issue, as our hometown casualties confirm, and doesn’t deserve to be glibly balanced against such "domestic" matters as (oh, take your pick) on which only a fool would have trusted the Democrats in the first place. And you, my dear, have always been among those who warned that such Demoidiocy came from an eternal source of renewable liberal credulity. So don’t try and reinstruct a pupil as willing and eager as myself. Not at this stage, when all your predictions have come true. Where does this leave us? I cringe when I think of one of the few things that I can claim to have learned since the 1990s. This is quite simply that character matters. Why do the Dems now discuss candidates rather than issues? Because it has to be in that order. The "issues" can be spun, as with health care (measurably worse than when Clinton was elected), but the supposedly superficial "personality" cannot. I’ve been in Washington for two decades now, and every time I hear an easy laugh at the expense of Bush’s dimness I wish I could show people the general level of IQ in the Clinton administration, subjected to long division and subtraction for integrity. The collective candlepower of the current bunch, I would say as an objective matter, is noticeably higher. Nor are they as abjectly venal as the previous incumbents. (Difficult, I know, to match the heroine of Waco against the wonder of John Ashcroft. But Karl Rove as against Dick Morris? Colin Powell against Warren Christopher and Ms. Albright?) I have differences with all of the above that are wider and deeper than any quarrel I have with you. Most important to me, though, is a settled resolution to call the new fascism by something like its right name . . . You aren’t going to tell me that you wish Gore and Lieberman had been at the helm all this time. You just aren’t, are you? If not, you might want to see where the logic of this admission will conduct you. I don’t especially like the logic, but I don’t fight it and I don’t remember being offered any respectable alternative.


Ireland:
You know, J.K. Galbraith once joked that, if Marx (your former patron saint) said that government is the executive committee of the ruling class, in Japan it’s really true. We are coming perilously close to replicating that diagnosis here with Bush and his well-oiled cronies. Given your history and life’s work, it’s a grotesque alignment for you to choose. You say that Bush and none other takes terrorism seriously. (Duct tape, anyone?) But if Bush took terrorism seriously he wouldn’t be planning a first strike against Iraq absent an overt hostile action on the part of Saddam — because the mad act of an aggressive U.S. war will play right into the hands of Osama and the fundamentalist mullahs, confirm their most dire preachments to the Islamic world, and guarantee that the terrorists will have incomparably more fertile terrain on which to recruit for generations. I don’t expect an uneducated ignoramus like Bush to get this, but I fail to understand how someone as sophisticated as yourself doesn’t. I still have trouble discerning a coherent politics of a progressive hue behind your support for the re-conduction of Bush in ’04, as you claim. It seems to me that you are in contradiction with yourself. You may well say, with Whitman, So, I contradict myself. But it saddens me to see you put your feet so firmly in the camp of the paleolithic obscurantists who want to finish in a grand sweep the dismantling of the federal government which Reagan began and Clinton continued on a small scale, when this was a course you fervently denounced in previous presidencies. All the more so because, whether the U.S. and your (ex-?) compatriot Tony act alone or whether Dubya eventually succeeds in purchasing a Security Council majority, the coming war will destroy the oh-so-fragile moral authority of international law, toward the rule of which the planet has been making hesitant but positive steps in recent years (viz. the ex-Yugoslavia and Rwanda). And your comparison of terrorism to the fascist menace of five decades ago doesn’t hold water historically: Fascism had captured three world powers of the day — Germany, Italy and Japan; but the terrorists (now that Afghanistan has been bribed — for the moment — out of supporting a Taliban regime) are stateless, which is why conventional warfare won’t work against them.


I notice that Ireland trots out what I consider the most persuasive anti-war argument, which I first noticed from Micheal Walzer here. Essentially the idea is that if we are fighting for international law then we should be willing to follow the rules even when they don't coicide with our interests. That's a sucky summary tho, so just read the Walzer.
Some quotes from E.M. Cioran:

Death poses a problem which replaces all the others. What is deadlier to philosophy, to the naive belief in the hierarchy of perplexities?


Philosophy offers an antidote to melancholy. And many still believe in the depth of philosophy!


The Truth? It is in Shakespeare; -- a philosopher cannot appropriate it without exploding along with his system.


I especially like that last one. That Truth he speaks of is hard to describe, but I believe it is where he says it is. You can only say "it's in Shakespeare." Somewhere in Hamlet, somewhere in Lear.

Thursday, March 13, 2003


To Endure the Timid Sun: Yeats and Aging in The Wild Swans at Coole

Yeats’ attitude towards growing old is clearly one of the major themes of the collection of poems he published in 1919, at the age of 54, entitled The Wild Swans at Coole. Nearly every poem in this collection refers, whether obliquely or directly, to aging as a central concern. It is a tribute to Yeats’ skill as a poet that his feelings about aging in the poems are considerably mixed. Three poems in particular (among others), “The Wild Swans at Coole,” “Men Improve with the Years,” and “Lines Written in Dejection,” deal directly and explicitly with the transience of youthful passion and the weight of time.

The tone of these poems is not hopeful, insofar as the future brings no chance of a revival for the narrator. What is lost cannot be regained, and there is no “something ere the end” as in Tennyson’s “Ulysses.” Yet despite this seeming despair, there is an undercurrent of acceptance, and to an even larger extent a belief in the “eternal verities” that transcend one short life. In these poems Yeats is affirming the passion that makes life worth living and at the same time mourning the necessary transience of those feelings. Perhaps the most moving aspect of these poems is the idea that dreams and passion are not tied to “dying animals,” but that instead they are forces in their own right, which can visit or leave us at their will.

This notion is presented most clearly in “The Wild Swans at Coole," (Yeats 131) the title poem of the volume. The form of the poem is quite unique. The first four lines of each stanza comprise a quatrain ballad stanza. Each stanza, then, begins with iambic tetrameter alternating with iambic trimeter, rhyming abcb. But Yeats adds a concluding couplet to the ballad stanza:
Upon the brimming water among the stones
Are nine-and-fifty swans.

The final two lines interrupt the typical quatrain ballad stanza, and the concluding couplets of each stanza almost serve as a refrain. As we will see, this form is crucial to the meaning of the poem.

According to A. Norman Jeffares, Yeats described the poem “as written in a mood of intense depression” (Jeffares 131). The opening stanza, containing images of a passing beauty, certainly supports that assertion. The opening images in the poem are of the final months of the year. The trees are in their “autumn beauty,” and the lake reflects an “October twilight.” The image of dry woodland paths suggests that there has been no rain for some time, and the still water and sky suggest a chilling emptiness. Even the hour of the day is late. The mood evoked by these images is not so much despair but a mournful knowledge that summer is over, and winter is coming. The autumn months bear traces of the glory of summer, which still lingers on into October. Unlike spring, autumn is associated with the transience of beauty and life, with death not birth.

These images and thoughts are notably interrupted by the first couplet. Fifty nine swans are “Upon the brimming water among the stones.” Significantly, the swans are not included in the initial scene described in the quatrain ballad stanza, but occupy their own space, apart from the traditional form employed at the start of the poem. Swans are a suggestive presence in Yeats’ poetry, and Rachel Billigheimer asserts that, for Yeats, “swans are for the most part associated with sorrow and yearning” (Billigheimer 55).

The second stanza follows an identical pattern as the first. The passage of time is now invoked by an “I,” a narrator who cannot finish counting the swans before they “scatter wheeling in great broken rings.” “Nineteen autumns” have passed since he first counted the swans. Jeffares writes, “Yeats was fifty-one when he wrote the poem, and realized how he had changed since, at the age of thirty-two, he first visited Lady Gregory at Coole Park” (Jeffares 130). This time, the narrator is again bound by the ballad stanza, while the swans fly away in the concluding couplet, and again they break away from the traditional form.

The third stanza finds the narrator again lamenting lost time. He remembers that “I have looked upon those brilliant creatures,” but “now my heart is sore.” Twilight is again invoked as the moment when the narrator first saw the swans take leave of him. The concluding couplet enforces yet again the separateness of the swans and the narrator. The fourth stanza describes the swans as “unwearied,” and notes that “Their hearts have not grown old.” Jeffares believes that at the time of writing “Yeats may have been troubled both by the death of his love for Maud Gonne and by the realization that Iseult Gonne, to whom he proposed marriage in 1916 and 1917, would think of him as an old man” (Jeffares 132). Indeed, the poem acts as a eulogy for a feeling, represented by the swans that Billigheimer refers to as “a symbol of eternal life, of permanent beauty and immutability” (Billigheimer 56). In a sense, the swans represent the permanent expression of a temporary feeling.

Even in the fourth stanza, which is entirely about the swans and not the narrator, Yeats uses the added couplet to stress the theme of the poem:
Passion or conquest, wander where they will,
Attend upon them still.

These lines identify passion and conquest with the swans, and they also stress that these ideas will not leave the swans, “wander where they will.” It is unclear whether the “they” of the couplet refers to the swans or passion and conquest, but in either case the meaning is the same. And again the separateness is stressed by the added couplet. Passion and conquest, whether symbolized by the swans or merely associated with them, are independent forces, and even though the ballad stanza contains words and images that depict the swans’ un-aging hearts, as noted above, they only serve to unite the swans with the passion represented by the added couplet.

The fifth and final stanza finds that the swans have not yet taken their final leave of the narrator. The first line, “But now they drift on still water,” returns us to the present moment, rather than speculating on the future or mourning the past, as the earlier stanzas do. Aging, then, not old age, is the subject of this poem. An increasing awareness of mortality weighs upon the narrator, and in the poem he begins to mourn a past that is gone and even a present that is not yet past. But in the final stanza he entertains a sentiment of amazing generosity:
Among what rushes will they build,
By what lake’s edge or pool
Delight men’s eyes when I awake some day
To find they have flown away?

In these lines the aging narrator of the autumn months looks forward to a spring that will not be his. He finds consolation in the fact that the passion represented by the swans will not die with him. They will fly away to delight another, and they will continue to inspire the young. And so “The Wild Swans at Coole” is at the same time a eulogy for youthful passion and also an acceptance of mortality. As Billigheimer writes, “Here the poet is expressing regret at his increasing age, but his ‘awakening’ paradoxically refers to his own death, since it is he who has departed from the world of the imperishable dream” (Billigheimer 57).

“Men improve with the Years” (Yeats 136) is an eighteen line poem that begins and ends with the same nearly identical three lines:
I am worn out with dreams;
A weather-worn, marble triton
Among the streams;

The poem ends with the last two lines exactly the same and the first changed to “But I grow old among dreams.” The rhyme scheme of the poem performs an interesting function. The beginning three lines rhyme aba but each proceeding group of four lines moves on from the rhyme of the last so that lines 3-7 rhyme cdcd and lines 8-12 rhyme efef , and so on until the end, when the rhyme finds itself, with a “But” negating all that has gone before, ending where it started: abc. The rhyme, just like the poem itself, documents a near escape from the sentiments of the first three lines. The poem is circular, ending exactly where it began, while it shows the attempt of the narrator to make peace with aging. The first line stands in direct contrast to the possibly self-mocking title. It is a powerful and moving line, but its meaning is ambiguous until the poem depicts yet another wearying dream.

“Men improve with the Years” is a devastating critique of the dreams we live by, the hopes and fantasies that protect us from the harsh logic of life and old age. The narrator is “worn out” and finds difficulty maintaining the illusion. He begins the poem as a “weather-worn, marble triton,” which Jeffares describes as “a statue of a Greek sea deity, usually represented with the upper parts of a man and a fish tail, holding a trumpet made from a conch shell” (Jeffares 139). The image is an interesting one, but difficult to interpret. Obviously, “streams” suggest the passage of time, and “weather-worn” suggests the slow erosion which only time and pressure can bring about. The function of the “marble triton,” certainly ambiguous, could perhaps be to represent the nature of the poet as a bulwark of those lofty ideals that everyday life has no time for. Like a marble statue, the poet stands amid the streams of time and proclaims these truths. Yet this statue is worn down by time, and the opening lines suggest, as does the entire poem, a disillusion with writing poetry.

These opening images may recall an aging wearied poet, but they are soon contrasted with the image of a beautiful young woman. The narrator admires the woman “As though I had found in a book a pictured beauty.” Interestingly, she is portrayed as an object to the narrator, something to be admired and contemplated. She serves this purpose for the narrator, who is “Delighted to be but wise” as he is able to entertain such lofty pleasures in his old age, “For men improve with the years.”
This sentiment is then interrupted:
And yet, and yet,
Is this my dream, or the truth?

The repetition movingly chronicles the demoralization that the narrator again begins to feel. He is happy to be free from the corporeal passions of youth, and yet he wonders if he is not kidding himself. The question is immediately answered with the following two lines:
O would that we had met
When I had my burning youth!

Passion erupts in these lines, which affirm that it is indeed a dream. Wisdom is now subordinated to physical passion, and the narrator rages against his impotence. At this point, with a “But,” the poem ends right back where it began: “A weather-worn, marble triton among the streams.” The narrator resigns to “grow old among dreams,” and this seems a poor consolation. The circular nature of the poem emphasizes the surge of feeling that it depicts. The subsequent retreat of the emotions into resignation is demonstrated by the repeated images of the opening three lines. The overall impact of the poem is to suggest the irreversible character of aging. More importantly, it depicts Yeats’ inability to embrace dreams at the expense of harsh reality. He is “worn out,” tired, and resigned to the bitter truth.

The title of “Lines written in Dejection” (Yeats 145) promises to offer more of the general depression and resignation found in the previous two poems. And indeed it delivers on that promise by finally crystallizing the experience of growing old with a powerful image of despair. Like the previous two poems, “Lines written in Dejection” creates a dichotomy between the barrenness and impotence of old age and the “passion and conquest” of youth, this time represented, respectively, as the sun and the moon. The poem is eleven lines long and follows no recognizable rhyme scheme. Rather than using form to stress his theme Yeats employs a complex array of symbols. Chief among these are the oppositional sun and moon, and all of the vivid imagery of the poem can be separated into one of these two categories. In his book, W.B. Yeats, The Later Poetry, Thomas Parkinson identifies the sun and moon as among Yeats’ chief symbols. Parkinson creates a table with the separate associations of both the moon and the sun. Under “sun,” Parkinson includes words such as male, civilization, artificial, elaborate, rational, and objective. Under “moon,” he includes female, culture, natural, simple, emotional, and subjective (Parkinson 156).

The poem opens with the narrator attempting to recall the last time he saw “the dark leopards of the moon.” He finds that “all the wild witches” are gone. These are clearly images associated with the moon. The “wavering bodies” of the leopards suggests a feline (and feminine) beauty, and the witches evoke the occult with its attendant passion, emotion, and sensuality. The narrator also proclaims that “the holy centaurs of the hill are vanished.” Parkinson writes, “the centaurs as composite beings imply a possible resolution—more desirable than that of the conclusion—of the problem posed as the primary cause of dejection. They represent a desired transcendent unity of temporarily discordant and incompatible entities” (Parkinson 151).

If the centaur represents a balance between the elements of the moon and the sun then the poem speaks to an imbalance of those elements. Just as the rising sun chases away the creatures of the night, the sun in this poem chases away imagination and emotion. The narrator says, “I have nothing but the embittered sun.” The sun, a symbol of rationalism and objectivity, is “embittered” by the desolation it has wrought. The poem makes its subject clear with the penultimate line: “And now that I have come to fifty years.” Yeats represents the process of aging as the slow banishment of the moon by the sun. All the magic and wonder associated with the moon is replaced by the rational light of the sun. Because Yeats depicts the moon as lost, and not the sun, he makes a critical distinction. Rather than celebrating the bright light of the sun that makes it possible to see things clearly, Yeats mourns the night, which hides objects in shadows, and allows for imagination. The reason of old age, then, chases away the passion of youth.

By associating the moon with creatures such as leopards, (surely not present in Ireland) witches, and centaurs (surely not present anywhere) Yeats highlights the fact that the sun represents truth and objectivity. These qualities, however, are not celebrated in the poem. Indeed, Yeats calls the sun “timid” and “embittered.” These words suggest that reason is a poor consolation for growing old, and much like “Men Improve with the Years” the benefits of aging are thrown into serious doubt. The poem reflects the heartbreaking impossibility of illusion for its author. The man who wrote “The Stolen Child” can no longer follow his own advice and escape in fantasy. He resolves to “endure” but it is hard to read the final line of the poem as hopeful determination. Instead, it is a sigh of resignation, and so the poem joins “The Wild Swans at Coole” and “Men Improve with the Years” as an expression of the diminishing satisfaction of being alive.

The three poems discussed here offer, on the surface, a disconsolate attitude towards aging. It is important to recognize this quality, and to face up to the disillusion represented in the poems. Yeats half-heartedly admits the gains acquired by old age: reason, objectivity, the calm comfort of a lack of passion. These are poor consolation, however, compared to the dreams of youth. They are to be endured, not celebrated. Parkinson refers to The Wild Swans at Coole as “dead ends to a barren passion” (Parkinson 45). But, for Yeats, one is not left with nothing. While all three poems suggest that the passions of youth cannot return, all three also suggest the beautiful idea that these passions are forces in their own right. There is a belief in the necessary transience of these feelings represented by the resolve to endure. Parkinson remarks that the poems in The Wild Swans at Coole are “ungrudging acts of generosity that form necessary elements in a design that has to be brought to term and fullness” (Parkinson 45). There is an unavoidable sense that this is the way things must be, and it is good and right, if painful.

Perhaps the most remarkable quality of these poems is Yeats unflinching portrayal of aging. He offers no false consolations to the reader or himself. Instead, in a poem entitled “Broken Dreams,” he proclaims that all we have are “Vague memories, nothing but memories.” And that is certainly something. But above all the poems stand as an expression of feelings associated with the autumn months of our life, and while they movingly grapple with mortality, they also paradoxically celebrate the “passion and conquest” of youth. Wisdom tells us that all things must pass, but our hearts refuse to forget. The poet has the ability to make feelings and moments immortal through verse, and so he eases the sad burden of a long life with beauty and remembrance.

Wednesday, March 12, 2003


Calculon
Anti-War is not Pro-Peace

The "peace" movement is a misnomer. What is often overlooked in the heat of debate, where things are often either boiled down to their essentials (a good thing) or over-simplified (a bad thing), is that "peace" is a purely relative term. There is no absolute peace, it only exists insofar as there is no conflict. Claiming to be for "peace," then, can mean a multitude of things. So many things, in fact, that the claim is almost meaningless unless it is accompanied by some more specific plan of action.

The annoyingly simplistic argument that doing nothing will constitute "peace," or even the idea that continued inspections equates to "peace" merely makes the erroneous claim that no war = peace, when in fact no war only = no war.

Saturday, March 08, 2003

As promised, here is the multimedia near-final draft of my paper:

“The Fine Good Place to Be”: Eden, the Other, and Illusion in the American Western


25th Hour

At the end of Spike Lee’s 2002 film 25th Hour, a convicted drug dealer named Monty (Edward Norton) is in a car with his father (Brian Cox) behind the wheel. They are on the freeway, heading towards prison so that Monty can begin his seven year sentence. Monty’s father suggests that they could take a different route, and head west instead. At this point Monty’s father begins an extraordinary narration, outlining in detail how Monty can start his life again and regain his lost innocence. Lee visually accompanies this narration with a literalism that only the movies can offer, and he makes this dream a reality by showing it to us, by giving it life on the screen. “This is a beautiful country,” Cox intones. The images Lee offers depict a West that is thoroughly conquered and domesticated. Lee goes for the iconic: white picket fences, friendly small town bars. He pushes this dream to the edge of absurdity, while underlining both its beauty and impossibility. Charles Taylor writes that the film “climaxes with a dream that has so much emotional conviction, so much faith in the possibility of still being able to live a good life in America, that you’d have to be a complete cynic to think he’s putting one over on us. The movie is both a lament for the chances at a good life that we—individually and as a nation—have let slide and a profession of thanks for the chances that still exist” (Taylor 1). 25th Hour engages with the American Myth of conquest in these final scenes, but the West that Lee depicts is one with a clean slate. It is a place that is willing to forget history, and it is a place that is outside time, in the hour of the film’s title. It offers salvation, a utopia that erases the scars and reckonings of the past.

The typical Hollywood Western narrates the creation of this new Eden. The visual motifs of the Western (arid empty deserts, virgin plains, wide open spaces) present an environment that is unblemished by civilization. In these films the American West is presented as an exception to the fallen world. So where, then, is the Indian? He is absent, mostly. The concept of the West as virgin territory clashes with the knowledge that the Indian was there for thousands of years. This paradox is not resolved in the Hollywood Western, but even so it informs the Western’s foundational ideologies.

I wish to argue that one role of the Indian in the Hollywood Western is that of history. Among other things, the desperate fight to eliminate the Indian dramatizes the desire of white settlers to escape from history into a utopia characterized most often by domestic bliss. There is no place for the Indian in the New World, precisely because for him it is the Old World. As the horrifying justification for this genocide goes, “the Indian hindered progress.”
Historically, even before Hegel, utopia has been associated with the end of history. It has always existed outside of time. In most modern utopian (or, for that matter, dystopian) fiction, history must be disposed of, or escaped from, in order to arrive at utopia, which is at the end of history, and therefore outside of time. Apart from typical utopian narratives, the Western does not present a society already outside of time (although many begin with a depiction of a domestic utopia before the conflict with history begins), but instead it narrates the elimination of history in the form of the Indian. And while the Western may present a fallen world, a world caught in history, the happy ending dictated by the studios always results in a restored Eden, with history thoroughly disposed of. Armando Prats writes, “Closure, the canonical Western would have it, implies the closing of the frontier and the concomitant opening of the Edenic gates” (221).


The Stalking Moon

Robert Mulligan’s The Stalking Moon (1969) presents in stark terms the formation of the new Eden and the flight from history. Eva Marie Saint plays Sarah Carver, a blonde captive of Indians who is suddenly free at the start of the film. (Often in parallel to the restoration of Eden, a fallen woman is redeemed.) Her English is minimal, and she has a young Indian son. The boy’s father, named Salvaje, is still alive and she knows he will come to claim his son. She begs Sam Varner (Gregory Peck) to take her and the boy with him so that she may escape. Varner takes her and the boy to his home in New Mexico, and here begins their confrontation with history.

It is up to Varner to redeem Sarah and the boy. Salvaje, which, significantly, means “savage” in Spanish, soon arrives to terrorize the newly formed nuclear family. It is most interesting that it is the boy who is the object of this conflict. He is the object of conflicting claims of the past and the utopian future. In some ways, Salvaje’s claim on the boy represents a personal claim on the future, but in the context of the Western his claim becomes one of history. The future, inevitably, belongs to Sam and Sarah, and Salvaje’s persistence in attempting to regain the boy represents the stubborn hold of history on the couple. The boy, then, is the conflicted figure, the only character (other than perhaps the “half-breed” Nick) who is stuck between these competing claims. The boy has little agency, however, and Sam and Salvaje attempt to make the decision for him. Significantly, Sam must venture outside of his domestic fortress in order to confront Salvjaje. By doing so he enacts yet another standard Western motif: the hero who confronts history in order to destroy it. When Varner finally kills Salvaje, a man given almost metaphysical presence and power in the film, he finally makes possible utopia. The claim of history on the boy is destroyed.

The fact that the conflicted figure, the figure caught between history and utopia, is half Indian in The Stalking Moon is not an anomaly. The racially mixed identity provides the internal conflict of which the Western makes its true subject. The wholly white figures are always on the side of utopia, and the wholly Indian figures that of history. The character of mixed identity personifies the utopian struggle of the Western. Two other films, John Ford’s The Searchers and the The Unforgiven, are concerned with racially mixed individuals and the claim of the past. But it is, of course, The Searchers which engages this idea with the most complexity.


The Searchers

For the sake of space, an analysis of The Searchers in this context must be restricted to the suggestive and complex final scenes. The film tells the story of Ethan Edwards (John Wayne). Ethan is a man ‘caught between,’ and the script details his possessions as a Confederate overcoat, Yankee cavalry trousers, and a Mexican saddle (6). He is obviously a man of conflicted identities, and therefore he is a man that is preeminently American. He is significantly the most “Indian” of Hollywood Western heroes. He knows them, their language, and their customs as well as they do. This is demonstrated when Ethan shoots out the eyes of a dead Indian, forcing his spirit to “wander forever between the winds.” The depth of his knowledge is show to be a reflection of the depth of his hate.

Like many Westerns, the opening scenes of The Searchers present a domestic utopia, eerily placed in the middle of nowhere. This doesn’t last, however, and the restoration plot is set in motion when the Edward’s place is attacked by Indians while Ethan is away. Ethan’s brother and his entire family is killed, except the little girl, Debbie. Ethan vows to bring her back, and he is assisted by Martin Pauley, who is one eighth Indian. The search takes many years, however, and Ethan’s intentions regarding Debbie become increasingly suspect. When he finally encounters her, in the Indian chief Scar’s tent, she is presenting a row of scalps, the symbol of Indian savagery. He attempts to kill her but Martin prevents him.

This relatively simple plot climaxes in scenes of such complexity and emotional power that they are unmatched in American film. Ethan’s final confrontation with Debbie, with all the attendant complexities and ambiguities, has more to say about America’s identity and destiny than perhaps any other work of art made in this century, and the film’s ability to resist definitive interpretation is an important part of this quality. That being said, the final scenes must be understood through Ethan’s earlier thwarted attempt to kill Debbie, who he believes has turned irretrievably Indian. In the final confrontation, in that moment of indecision, when Ethan lifts Debbie into the air, rests the heart of the film, and in some ways it stays there. When Ethan finally brings her down, a gesture signifying his decision to bring her home, he has not changed his mind about her being “Comanche,” and there is no evidence to suggest that she turns white at that moment either.

So why, then, does he not kill her? Far more than an audience satisfying happy ending, it is moving reckoning with the American dream as imagined by the Western, and in some ways a eulogy for it. Ethan’s gesture operates, at the same time, as both a redemption for the fallen women and an acceptance that utopia is impossible. To explain: Debbie’s capture represents the Fall in the sense that the domestic utopia presented at the start of the film is destroyed, and the search undertaken to find her is an attempt to restore what is left of that utopia. In this sense, the title refers to a search for salvation as much as a search for a missing girl. Debbie, like the boy in The Stalking Moon, becomes, over time, the conflicted figure. She is between cultures, and so she represents the conflict between the dream of utopia and history. Furthermore, Ethan’s declaration that she has turned “Indian” is to be trusted, the film and Ethan both make that clear. History has won the conflict in Debbie, and so Ethan determines that she must be destroyed because utopia must exist outside history. It is also significant that Debbie, a child at the start of the film, has grown to be a young woman by the end, further demonstrating the death of possibility that Ethan sees in her.

Yet, instead of destroying her, Ethan “redeems” her and returns her to the Jorgenson family. This can only be interpreted as an act of resignation. Ethan gives up on utopia when he decides to spare Debbie’s life. The final scenes at the Jorgenson place reflect this: The admission of Debbie (who says not a word) into the home is for Ethan an admission of failure. The family seems ready to forget the truth of what Debbie represents, but the audience must ask themselves: what is being created here? I believe it is a false utopia. It is one not unlike the dream proposed by Monty’s father in 25th Hour, one which, precisely because of its denial of history, is impossible. The famous and moving final scene, which depicts Ethan alone, locked out from this seeming domestic paradise, comes to represent the death of the true possibility of utopia while at the same time representing how that dream continues to flourish. There is no place for Ethan in the home because of his demand for purity. His distrust of the one-eighth Indian Martin stresses this. Ethan, then, banished and alone, is the utopian dream fully represented in its fanaticism and determination. His role in the West, the construction of utopia, is a relic of a dream that has died in Debbie. The true utopia has passed away in her, and all that is left is the illusion embraced by the Jorgensens. In this way the film operates as a eulogy for an impossible dream. And it is to the film’s credit that the utopian dream is represented honestly as hateful and destructive, yet it is still mourned. Like perhaps no other film, The Searcher is a reckoning with the deepest character of America.

The racially conflicted character and history surface again in John Huston’s The Unforgiven. The religious character of the title appropriately suggests a failure to attain salvation, and it stresses the impossibility of an escape from history. The story is essentially a reverse captivity narrative, and it offers an interesting appendix to The Searchers if one wonders what will become of Debbie and the Jorgensens. Rachel (played, tellingly, by white-as-can-be Audrey Hepburn) is an Indian who believes she is white. She has been raised by a white family, the Zacharys, who have never revealed the truth to her. Much like the boy in The Stalking Moon, much like Debbie in The Searchers, her Indianness must be erased or ignored in order for the family to escape from history and establish utopia. And much like The Stalking Moon, the defense of utopia against history, rather than the (failed) restoration of a lost utopia in The Searchers, forms the narrative.


The Unforgiven

History itself takes physical form in Abe Kelsey, “the Texas Tiresias doubling as Aeschylean Fury,” (Prats 111) who brings the past back to the Zacharys. Because of him, Rachel is found out. The mother figure, played by none other than Lillian Gish, has known all along, but, like the Jorgensens, she prefers to maintain the illusion because Rachel serves as a replacement for a lost child. After further plot developments, and after Rachel begins to question her own identity by marking herself like an Indian (a scarlet letter of sorts—the mark of a fallen woman) history comes to claim Rachel. After a protracted battle, Rachel confronts her past in the form of her Indian brother. This extraordinary scene ends with Rachel denying her past by shooting her brother. While the title may refer to the Zachary’s permanent ontological state, Rachel shows the determination they bring to maintaining the illusion of a domestic tranquility that is outside history.

25th Hour opens with several shots of the ghostly lights that replaced the Twin Towers for a time, about six months after they were destroyed. The astounding power of this scene derives not simply from the still fresh emotions associated with those events, but with the feeling that, in the context of the film, those lights represent both a presence and an absence. While the lights beam up infinitely into the universe, they lack substance, and, while beautiful, they can’t replace the real thing. Like the Westerns discussed here, those lights represent the enduring power of the myth of the American dream. And like all art, they represent a mournful reckoning with a fallen world through illusion.

Friday, March 07, 2003

Can we sleep less?

This is a great article. I often wish I didn't have to sleep at all. The obvious problem, though, would be boredom. Without sleep, perhaps we would all become like the immortals in Gulliver's Travels--people completely embittered and sick of life. I like to think that Swift's point was that dying wasn't the central problem so much as the imperfections (to put it mildly) of life. Being awake all the time might lead to similar epiphanies.

Wednesday, March 05, 2003

Tuesday, March 04, 2003

Hitchens on Turkey: Who needs 'em?

It's kind of odd the space Hitchens seems to be currently carving out for himself. Now, I am no fan of Turkey per se, but I think even anti-war folks would want the US to win easily with few casualties on both sides. Or am I naive? In any case, closing off a front certainly helps Saddam, and the extent to which he is able to put up a defense is equal to the degree of unecessary suffering that will occur due to Turkey's decision. I think it's important to realize Hitchens' loathing of Kissinger, and his insistence on policies of impossibly pure moral righteousness seem as much as a personal reaction to Kissinger as a truly rational assesment of US goals in the region.
NME's top 100 Albums Ever

What in the hell is going on? In any case, I must concur with the inclusion of Blondie's Parallel Lines. Of course they also forgot to include every other Blondie album. Especially this one:
I just looked at my post on The Searchers and realized it doesn't really make much sense! I excerpted it from a paper I have been writing about the role of the Indian in the classic Hollywood westerns. The thesis is basically that one aspect of the the Indian's function in the western is that of history. The Indian, as a personification of history, represents an impediment to Utopia, which must be outside history. I think that should be enough to make sense of it. I will probably post the entire paper when it is finished.
Top 50 Science Fiction and Fantasy Books

It's amazing how many of these are popular because they were turned into movies. It's also not a bad list at all. I am especially happy about number 12: A Canticle for Leibowitz. It's an astonishing view of the apocalypse, and it fits my possible thesis idea perfectly. The final page, describing the hungry shark in the ocean, is permanently stuck in my mind. Only complaint: no Solaris!

Monday, March 03, 2003

How screwed are the Kurds?

I am going to say "very." Why don't we just form a new nation for them with completely abitrary borders surrounded by nations that despise them and then fund their military so that they become an international nuclear power? Oh wait...nevermind.


The Searchers

Again we have a captive child, and again the child represents a claim on the future, and again this future is denied the Indian by the white hero in the name of a domestic Utopia. Edwards (John Wayne), significantly the most “Indian” of canonical Western heroes, sets out to retrieve the daughter of his dead brother. The initial raid on the home is a destruction of the domestic Utopia, and the rest of the film represents an almost spiritual quest to retrieve the girl, who comes to represent much more than just a lost family member. Debbie, all that is left of the former Utopia, is a captive of history. Her eventual retrieval will dehistoricize her, and so Ethan attempts to make possible a new Utopia. Ethan’s considerable worries that she might “turn Comanche” are justified in this context.

The final scenes in The Searchers are almost unmatched for complexity and emotional power in American film. Ethan’s final confrontation with Debbie, with all its complexities and ambiguities, has more to say about America’s identity and destiny than perhaps any other work of art made in this century, and the film’s ability to resist definitive interpretation is an important part of this quality. That being said, the final scenes must be understood through Ethan’s earlier attempt to kill Debbie, who he believes has turned Indian. In the final confrontation, in that moment of indecision, when Ethan lifts Debbie into the air, rests the heart of the film, and there it stays. When Ethan brings her down, with a gesture signifying his decision to bring her home, he has not changed his mind about her being “Comanche,” and there is no evidence given in the film to suggest she turns white at that moment either. Ethan’s gesture is not only one of acceptance, but also resignation. Debbie, who represents what’s left of Utopian possibility in America, is lost to Ethan from the moment she presents the scalps in Scar’s teepee. So when Ethan declines to kill Debbie he does so because he cannot let the dream of Utopia, the dream he knows is dead in Debbie, die for the family that awaits her return.

The final scenes at home, when interpreted in this context, are more ambiguous than might be initially perceived. The introduction of Debbie into the household is for Ethan an admission of failure, but the family seems blind to that aspect. They welcome Debbie back home with open arms as Ethan stands alone, outside, and unable to enter into the home. Not only is Ethan’s inability to enter into this apparent paradise a result of his knowledge of the Indian and as a representative of history, but also of his refusal to compromise on Utopia, and perhaps even his inability to believe in it. He cannot enter because he admits to the truth of what Debbie now represents. For Ethan his acceptance of Debbie was a resignation, but for the family it was a denial of the truth. They take her back as white, and so erase her history. Through Ethan, the film acknowledges the dream of the American Utopia, but, as in 25th Hour, that Utopia is presented as a dream, a construct of the imagination. Moreover, and adding to the complexity, Ethan’s final acceptance of Debbie acts as a self-sacrifice in the name of that dream. He gives up his place to make one for her, and in doing so he performs a historical baptism on Debbie. His exclusion creates her “innocence.” The film makes explicit the lie that is at the heart of the American Utopian ideal, the denial of history, yet it also serves as a poetic invocation of that very same dream. In this way the film operates as a eulogy for the American dream as imagined by the Western.
David Edelstein on The Life of David Gale:

And I was depressed to realize, once again, that the greatest danger to liberalism isn't the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Andrew Sullivan, but blowhards like Alan Parker and Michael Moore - the thugs of humanism.


Ha.


Touch of Evil

It was difficult to find a suitable picture for this movie. No still frame could really hope to convey the sheer seediness of the visuals. Things have to move and slither for that.

What's most interesting in the pictures I did find was that Orson Welles overwhelms every shot he is in. His enormous, corpulent physique is probably the most memorable aspect of the film.

It's the opening shot, where Heston and his blonde girlfriend cross over into Mexico, into lawlessness as the film would have it, that sets the tone. That and the car bomb.

Sunday, March 02, 2003



Beau Travail

Perhaps this is just film as artifact. It's beautiful like a vase is beautiful. The title, incidentally, means "beautiful work." It's hard to tell what the point of the whole thing is. And does it really need one? Like its source, Melville's Billy Budd, perhaps it is less concerned with making a specific point than with generating a light show of conflicting desires. The "murky rainbow" as Melville calls it. It's hard to miss the emphasis on the body in this film. Art is often presented as concerned with ideas. Here we are reminded that perhaps the realm of the coporeal is where we truly belong.


In The Mood For Love

They aren't constrained by society. Don't be fooled. Those bars are self imposed. The restrictive clothing is dictated by society but even then it doesn't inhibit actions so much as serve as armor to protect them. I'm trying to remember if they ever make prolonged eye contact in the film. I don't think so. They are always looking and talking to an absence.
Beck - Sea Change

I listened to this last night for the first time since I bought it back in the fall. Much better than I remember. Why did I like it this time? I listened to it over and over when I first got, expecting the slow songs to grow on me. They never did. But now, after 3 or 4 months of not listening to it at all, I feel much more comfortable with it. It sounds exactly the way it needs to. Does time play a role in these things?

Part of the problem was obviously the Serge Gainsbourg comparisons. I was all for someone making a modern Melody Nelson but that's not what I got.

Saturday, March 01, 2003

The Oscars

Every year this thing gets worse and worse. Maybe I am too young to realize that it has always sucked.

Chicago
The obvious frontrunner I suppose. I liked it, although it is already overrated. The editing is the biggest problem. Do we really need to be constantly reminded that, for these characters, life = showbiz? Who cares? A far more interesting proposition would be to eliminate the cross-cutting. If the singing and dancing took place on the same level of "reality" as the rest of the story, then the implication would be that there isn't a difference.

The Pianist
The ads make this look like an uplifting affirmation of the human spirit. And maybe on some level it is. But what sticks with me is the insistence on making the entire narrative take place at arm's length. This film will not embrace you, and it remains aloof right through to the strangely muted ending. The best film nominated.

The Hours
I haven't seen this on account of my boycott of Miramax films I wasn't going to see anway.

Gangs of New York
See above.

The Two Towers
I already written and said too much about this movie.

My prediction: Chicago will win, and six months later everyone will wonder why. Just like the last two winners.
When I heard about this I imagined something much grander. In my mind it was a horizontal great white behemoth, like Moby Dick surfacing from the deep. I must say this image didn't quite measure up to the picture in my mind.
Last semester I took a class on Utopian and Dytopian fiction. While discussing 1984 the prof passed around an old daily calender he had picked up in 1984. Everyday the calendar would describe one way in which modern life was becoming more like the novel. When I saw that it was written by Nat Hentoff I almost burst out laughing. I think he almost wants it to happen by now.
The Fred and Ginger Building

Was Stalin killed by his own men in order to prevent World War III?
The Slow Rush To War
This article in the Atlantic is really funny. Especially if you are an introvert and you have had people actually say to you "Why don't you talk?" One day I will respond with "Why don't you shut up?"


Stalker

I don't have a lot to say about this movie (right now). I just think that's a really cool picture! That damn dog follows the protagonists around the whole time without explanation. This being Tarkovsky, I am tempted to say it is God, or whatever. But then again Tarkovsky isn't too keen on symbolism or allegory.

I don't ever cry, at anything, but this movie, at 4+ hours and very little dialogue or character, almost had me in tears at the end. I don't want to ruin it for you brave souls who may see it someday, but I can say that it uses Beethoven's Ode to Joy and it seems totally appropriate.


The Umbrellas of Cherbourg

I have only seen two Jacques Demy movies and I loved both of them. Here is the art of someone who is determined to find beauty in life even if he has to create it himself. His characters are rewarded for having dreams of a better life.

Umbrellas is, as far as I can tell, the only real tragedy he made. And it is significant that it is the tragedy of the mundane. The lovers in the picture above are not victims of a malignant universe, but instead of the simple transience of feelings. They fall out of love, it's as simple as that. Demy doesn't let it stand though, and in the final scene, as the ex-lovers walk away from each other forever with muted feelings, the beautiful score by Micheal Legrand plays on as if they were locked in a passionate embrace of eternal love. Demy believes in true love even if his characters don't, and the film, like all art, stands as the permanent expression of a temporary feeling.
I read this a few days ago and I thought it was fascinating. It's about the Communist Party in Iraq. I wonder if they will emerge as an organized force after Saddam is gone?
If you are wondering what the name of this blog refers to: The Tragic Sense of Life

It's not nearly as depressing as the title makes it sound, and Unamuno is actually quite funny at times. This book probably comes to the closest to expressing my own personal philosophy, and it's more eloquent than I will ever be.
THEME POST: LEDA AND THE SWAN

A sudden blow: the great wings beating still
Above the staggering girl, her thighs caressed
By his dark webs, her nape caught in his bill,
He holds her helpless breast upon his breast.

How can those terrified vague fingers push
The feathered glory from her loosening thighs?
How can anybody, laid in that white rush,
But feel the strange heart beating where it lies?

A shudder in the loins, engenders there
The broken wall, the burning roof and tower
And Agamemnon dead.
Being so caught up,
So mastered by the brute blood of the air,
Did she put on his knowledge with his power
Before the indifferent beak could let her drop?

By William Butler Yeats



By Michelangelo



By Bjork
Hopefully this blog will work as an outlet for my random thoughts and writings. There won't be any need to harass my friends and family with email after email about things which they don't care about.
Things will be necessarily a little screwy until I figure all this out.
Is anybody out there?