The final third of my interview with Kyle Ellis posted on Monday. You can read it here:
Part 3
9.4.08
goth and politics - a survey
Goth has never been an especially political culture (or subculture, as some quarters put it), given its focus on music, fashion, and art. But I've always wondered; what kind of politics do goths have, if any? Is there a link between a certain political outlooks and being goth?
To answer the question in anticipation of a feature I'll write for Morbid Outlook, I've begun a survey that will hopefully offer a meaningful snapshot of how goths and politics intersect. If you or any you know a) self-identified with goth/industrial/related communities b) are above 13 years of age and c) are a US resident, please take a moment to fill out the survey here.
To answer the question in anticipation of a feature I'll write for Morbid Outlook, I've begun a survey that will hopefully offer a meaningful snapshot of how goths and politics intersect. If you or any you know a) self-identified with goth/industrial/related communities b) are above 13 years of age and c) are a US resident, please take a moment to fill out the survey here.
7.4.08
free the bear: the california secessionist movement
I recently had the opportunity to have a discussion with Kyle Ellis, a co-founder of the California secessionist group Californians for Independence. Beyond the fact that I'm enjoying my eMail interview format - it saves me the trouble of transcribing recordings and creates a more co-operative discussion instead of an interrogation - the interview succeeded in uncovering some of the hints and allegations that have been percolating in my column. You can read parts 1 and 2 here:
Part 1
Part 2
The third and last part will post next Monday.
ASs it happens, I was mentioning the interview to my good buddy Bill Jaeger who mentioned a rather interesting event going on - but is it an event when nobody pays attention to it? Apparently, the Lakotah People who live in an area spanning Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska, and the Dakotas, have unilaterally withdrawn from all treaties and agreements with the United States of America. Bill posted about it, reference links included, at the UTMC's forum.
It would seem that independence is on a lot of people's minds, something that reinforces my view that countries like the US are simply too big for their own good and unable to create a stable trans-identity without being oppressive. Maybe it's time the dust off Lysander Spooner's No Treason. It could make for a rather peppery column.
Part 1
Part 2
The third and last part will post next Monday.
ASs it happens, I was mentioning the interview to my good buddy Bill Jaeger who mentioned a rather interesting event going on - but is it an event when nobody pays attention to it? Apparently, the Lakotah People who live in an area spanning Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska, and the Dakotas, have unilaterally withdrawn from all treaties and agreements with the United States of America. Bill posted about it, reference links included, at the UTMC's forum.
It would seem that independence is on a lot of people's minds, something that reinforces my view that countries like the US are simply too big for their own good and unable to create a stable trans-identity without being oppressive. Maybe it's time the dust off Lysander Spooner's No Treason. It could make for a rather peppery column.
28.3.08
from hell: movie vs book - part 3
As I wrap up my discussion on From Hell, I’ll turn to the movie, which stars Johnny Depp as Inspector Abberline. Unlike the book, in which the good Inspector is a proletarian street-saavy copper, the film version is an intuitive savant driven by opium-fueled visions. He is the main focus of the story, as he develops a romance with Mary Kelly, one of the prostitutes targeted by Jack the Ripper. Interestingly, the romance and its denouement have an equivalent in the book, but the movie is notable for a surprising, even bold choice that. Mary Kelly survives Jack through a case of mistaken identity, but in order to protect knowledge of her survival, the movie’s Abberline chooses to commit suicide rather than leave open the possibility that the Jack/Masonic conspiracy would use him to get to her. In the book, Abberline is left little more than a sad goodbye note as Mary Kelly escapes Whitechapel.
It’s actually quite fascinating to see how the book and the movie correlate with one another, how the same essential events take on different forms. But what I’m getting at is the fundamental difference between movie and book: Abberline is the film’s central character, whereas he is co-protagonist with Jack in the novel. And as the central character – an inspector investigating a crime – the film is structured as a whodunit in which the killer’s identity is only revealed at the end. The novel isn’t concerned with suspense as it is with philosophy.
You can see where I’m going, even if I don’t dissect all the differences between the movie and the book: structure is everything. The movie loses out on fleshing out Jack the Ripper as a character because, at least until the end, our encounters with him consist of his murders. Of course, to spend too much time on the killer without knowing his identity would also rob the film of its suspense, although the movie solves this to some extent by having us get to know Jack through his reluctant accomplice, a coachman.
So we have the same story, but told in structurally different ways – fascinating stuff for writers. But of course, the next question is, which structure is better at conveying the story? While I was pleasantly surprised by how much I liked the movie, I’ll have to go with the book. However interesting it is to know how a character does something, it’s the why that offers the most rewarding drama and psychological insight. All too often, stories get caught up in the thrill of action and forget the quiet, but vital, joys of introspection.
It’s actually quite fascinating to see how the book and the movie correlate with one another, how the same essential events take on different forms. But what I’m getting at is the fundamental difference between movie and book: Abberline is the film’s central character, whereas he is co-protagonist with Jack in the novel. And as the central character – an inspector investigating a crime – the film is structured as a whodunit in which the killer’s identity is only revealed at the end. The novel isn’t concerned with suspense as it is with philosophy.
You can see where I’m going, even if I don’t dissect all the differences between the movie and the book: structure is everything. The movie loses out on fleshing out Jack the Ripper as a character because, at least until the end, our encounters with him consist of his murders. Of course, to spend too much time on the killer without knowing his identity would also rob the film of its suspense, although the movie solves this to some extent by having us get to know Jack through his reluctant accomplice, a coachman.
So we have the same story, but told in structurally different ways – fascinating stuff for writers. But of course, the next question is, which structure is better at conveying the story? While I was pleasantly surprised by how much I liked the movie, I’ll have to go with the book. However interesting it is to know how a character does something, it’s the why that offers the most rewarding drama and psychological insight. All too often, stories get caught up in the thrill of action and forget the quiet, but vital, joys of introspection.
6.3.08
about new amsterdam and a mea culpa
Okay, okay. I haven't posted in a long time. My excuse is I've been writing, working, with a dash of surgery thrown in for good measure. But I should be back in a reasonable state of sanity, which means more blogety goodness. Pending my wrapping up that discussion on From Hell, here's a quick question regarding the new TV series New Amsterdam.
What on earth made the show's creators think it's a good idea to have the main character's immortality be caused by a Native American blessing/curse, breakable only by finding that one true love? It's just a silly thing to do in an otherwise well-conceived show. The drama inherent in an immortal character who is not a vampire is very compelling, and the production values are unimpeachable. But the magic fluff is just undignified.
What on earth made the show's creators think it's a good idea to have the main character's immortality be caused by a Native American blessing/curse, breakable only by finding that one true love? It's just a silly thing to do in an otherwise well-conceived show. The drama inherent in an immortal character who is not a vampire is very compelling, and the production values are unimpeachable. But the magic fluff is just undignified.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)