michael john grist

I've started a new website- over at michaeljohngrist.com. Thus rings the death-knell for manfalling on LJ.

It's got everything this blog had, plus more. Everyone, go look at that. Yeah!

Mostly- Dad. That's where my stuff will be from now on.

Mike.

Dammit- I totally missed the publication of one of my own stories! Sagasu's Life was in the February mini-issue of Reflection's Edge, and I only just realized that now!

I thought it was going to go up in April. D'oh!

I only realized now because Reflection's Edge just expressed interest in another of my stories- Flatland, which prompted me to check out the site.

The editor there- Sharon Dodge- takes her editing very seriously, and does a bang-up job of working on stories to make them better, line by line. It's a joy to be edited by her- I learn about my writing, and what works and what doesn't.

Anyway- here's the blurb she gives the story-

Sagasu's Life by Michael John Grist (fantasy)

Sagasu has lost everything; and now everything is about to be lost at his hands. An army races forward in an attempt to stop the end of the world, all in the hands of one ancient and bitter painter.

Go ahead and check it out at Reflection's Edge- feel free to comment here.

I was just googling myself, as one does (lots of hits for Michael JOHN Grist, zero for plain old Michael Grist)- and found a review of my story Killin Jack- recently published in 'AtomJack'.

The review is on a short fiction review site new to me, called 'The Fix'. The review just went up yesterday- so this is hot off the presses, people!

The Fix seems pretty cool- with discussion boards and whatnot. I read some of the reviews- which are of stories I have read in various other popular zines. I like it. It's a step in bringing all these writers, editors, and readers of middle-end short-story fiction together in a community. I'll probably track it along with the zines they review, which I read and submit to already.

Anyway- on to Jack. I like the review. The fact the reviewer didn't fully understand Jack's story is an issue, sure, but he used glowing (to me, at least) words like bizarre, colorful, and creative to describe it- and that more than makes up for it.

Huzzah! The good folk over at the TQR zine have accepted 'Celibate Jayne the Hammerhand' for publication!

Yatta! (I did it! - Hiro from Heroes, in NYC)

Here's a link to where the news was first announced- and I announced the party!

I'm really rather pleased.

So everything I've heard about this movie is that it was junk. Hayden Christensen is wooden, they didn't even have a full script when they started shooting, blah blah blah.

Well- I thought it was great. After it was over- I felt- wow, that was like the Bourne Identity.

And- yes, it was directed by the same guy that directed that: Doug Liman. Just checked him on Wikipedia- he also directed Swingers! Go figure!

The dude can direct. Everyone's been saying Paul Greengrass did a great job with the newer Bourne movies- they rocked, better than the original. Well, I completely disagree with that. The most recent Bourne movie I totally didn't get. What was the point? Wasn't it the exact same as the previous movie- but with even less at stake? Wasn't it the same back-story revelation? The same as Wolverine has when he discovers the ruins he was built in in X-men. In X-men it's a tantalising sub-plot. In Bourne it's been THE plot for THREE movies!

Ha!

The first Bourne movie got me going. The smash cuts and sudden violence of Matt Damon were awesome. Did those continue into the later movies? I think less so. Greengrass just likes filming shaky stuff. Not smashy ultra-violence and physically wrenching cuts.

So- Jumper. I thought it was great, if just for the innovative use of smash-cutting/jumping the action between multiple locations on the fly. Great effect- I never got tired of seeing it- especially as wisely every time they jumped it was upping the stakes and the jump-style.

The story has holes? Ha. Who cares. That doesn't matter. Christensen is wooden? Ha. It doesn't matter. Neo is wooden in the Matrix. The Matrix is still an amazing movie. Jumper is not at that level- but the effects used were enough to make me nostalgic for the feeling of being blown away by the effects of the Matrix.

First time I saw the Matrix? It was like I'd reached out and touched the face of God. An awesome experience I repeated an unprecedented, and since unrepeated, 6 times at the cinema.

Anyway. Yeah, Jumper was good, dude.

At the end the Charlatans kick in with their song- 'Blackened Blue Eyes'- which I swear must be a rip-off of Moby's Extreme Ways that ends the latest Bourne movie- the same riff underlies it, a similar beginning- and so, totally fitting to end a movie so similar to Bourne.

Better than the most recent Bourne. Probably better than Bourne 2 also. Good movie.

This game totally rocks!

I got it delivered from Amazon to an address on a US base- or rather, Jason organized it. So the delivery charge was only $8. It would have been more like $200 I guess by regular mail.

And it rocks!

Tonight we had Juri, Jei, me, Canadian Mike, and Jason round, rocking out with the band 'First Apocalypse'.

Juri was a natural in EVERY role- especially as a singer who couldn't read some of the faster words, but still nailed the rhythm and melody. When she has a chance to freestyle- she goes- blalalalala with her tongue. Awesome.

The Can rocks as a first-time drummer, and as a singer got the first 100% performance ever, and also the second!

Jei owned the singing also- sounding like a real lead singer at points!

Jason plays a mean guitar- coming close to 100% multiple times, and being the first person to really figure out the whammy bar to multiply points.

I tried my hand at singing, but sucked unless I really knew the song. I think my home will be the drums, though definitely want to work on the singing. Maybe this game can teach me how to sing?

We're gigging in 3 cities. We have a tour van. We have 49,005 fans. We have $1,540 in the kitty.

We rock!

Can't wait to gig some more with 'First Apocalpse'!

So, the Bull over at TQR has decided to give Celibate Jayne a second chance. He says what I argued on their forums tweaked his curiosity, so he took another look, see his comments here.

He didn't waste much time getting it re-read, and seemed to like it a lot more the second time round.

Now it's with Guevera, a third (fourth) opinion.

Even if it doesn't go through, I'm still feeling good about the whole thing. Serious people are seriously considering a story I have put serious effort and time into. That's real, and good. They get it. It seems like the more time they spend with it, the more they get it. Plus the Bull calls for a Glossary! I'd LOVE it to ultimately publish with a glossary. I can think of nothing cooler than that. And maps! And Venn diagrams!

I just got done reading Richard Hitchens' polemic, 'god is not Great'.

Phew.

Previously I've read 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins, 'The End of Faith' and 'Letter to a Christian Nation' by Sam Harris, atheists both, and to give some balance to it all- 'No God but God' by the devout Muslim Reza Aslan.

Dawkins talks about genes and irreducible complexity a lot. He also talks about religion as a form of child abuse. Sam Harris does- I don't really remember. It can't have been that specific.

Hitchens though goes after Islam. Of course, he goes after Christianity too, and all the rest. But Christianity et al seem a little wimpish compared to the extremities of fundamentalist Islam, as he presents it.

He lays out a case that Christianity effectively got defanged in the reformation. The texts got revised, the sermons demystified. I don't know a great deal about it, but when you look at Christianity today, though there are still plenty of mad idiots who'll do anything 'for God', the vast majority of Christian seem to have their heads screwed on not so completely wrong.

Though when I think of Christianity I tend to think of the meek Anglican religion I was semi-raised within. Not the head-cases in the American bible-belt. England seemed a very secular place to me growing up, and religion had no teeth to do much of anything- at least as I saw it.

Anyway. Hitchens goes after Islam. These are people who believe the text of their holy book the Koran is true word for word. Every single word is immutable, cast in stone direct from their god's mouth. Despite the fact that the language it's written in is massively open to interpretation.

It has to be the most unapologetically dogmatic faith on Earth. Even the pope changes his mind, issues apologies from time to time. But Islam cannot. Any acceptance that even one word was untrue could bring the whole thing crashing down. Or- it would just be labeled as 'Satanic verses'.

Hitchens talks about the moral cowardice of the West to face up to Islam and tell it to buck up its ideas. Instead, he says, the West gets afraid, of madmen who blow up skyscrapers and themselves for a chance at 40 virgins in 'the afterlife'.

It's powerful stuff. He's basically saying that Islam as a culture/meme as it stands now is inferior to the enlightenment values/culture of the Western world, simply because they are static and unable to advance. Islam demands complete belief in words some guy made up 1,500-odd years ago. Isn't that ridiculous?

Sensible people no longer even try to defend the Bible now. And if they do, they get shredded in reasoned debate. Al Sharpton against Christopher Hitchens wouldn't even tackle any of Hitchen's points about the Bible, because he must have known there was no way he could win. When you discredit one line as immoral, like a commandment to slay all the Malekites and take their land, who's to say they aren't all discreditable? Then what is left? The argument that the Bible teaches morals, and that without the Bible and God to back it up we'd all live in chaos without any form of morality, is itself shredded if we start saying- well, we only follow the good commandments in the Bible.

That's displaying an ability to judge moral acts from immoral acts, independant of the word of God. So clearly we are able to make our own moral discernments without God above or the book in hand.

Once that argument is made, and accepted, organized religion has little more than a shred of Deism left to stand on. "You can't disprove my amorphous, non-dogmatic God exists!"

Sure. But neither can I disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Are you on a par with that?

And that according to Hitchens is the main problem with Islam. Any argument, discussion, satire, or debate about immoralities or inconsistencies in the Koran is considered blasphemy or hate-speech and stopped. Like the image of Muhammed, it is above reproach. So what can be done? How can these people of this faith get out from under the dogmatic dictates of a fictitious entity that allow for/mandate cruel discrimination against homosexuals, women, and unbelievers? How can they bring their holy book out into the light, air it out, and start thinking critically about which bits are really moral?

Hitchens says it won't be easy. He calls for a new enlightenment. He encourages people to step up, as he has done, as Salman Rushdie did before him, along with lots of others down the ages, and say to Islam, as well as to the Intelligent Design people, and to anyone else trying to paper over truth with ancient dogma- "Are you for real? Come on. Let's sit down and discuss this thing like rational adults."

Well, the magazine TQR have rejected my story 'Celibate Jayne the Hammerhand', but not without some investment on their part. It's a shame, but I feel good that they took the time to seriously review it.

One guy over there- Boligard Doomey, seemed to really dig it. He was sad that it got rejected by his superiors, see his comments here.

Two of his superiors reviewed it on this thread.

Maggie really liked some of the writing. That was very gratifying. The Bull felt the other way- that was a slam back to reality. I think it might have been a tie over the writing style. If the story had been more driven or focused on the immediate conflict- I think that would have pushed the weights in my favor.

I wrote a comment to them here.

Writing that comment made me realize- the conflict I removed when I made Jayne seem more likeable may well have taken the wind out of the story's sails (sales!). Now it's just a bunch of stuff happening. Before it was a tight race between Jayne losing his crew, losing a massive haul that he desperately needs, and the life of one alien-ish mad child.

Probably I'll put that back. It needs the drive. It needs something to be at stake. Now- either way- nothing all that bad is really going to happen. And who cares about that in the end?

Are we going to evolve into robots?

I rather think, and hope, that we are.

Today I was struck by the idea that it is really going to happen. It is the next step in the evolution of the human race. Evolution using genes 'naturally' takes millennia to be effective. Besides- we're already at the top of the game that genes play in here on Earth, so there's no productive pressure to improve- other than through sexual selection.

The realm left to evolve in is memes. Richard Dawkins throws this word around. It just means- ideas. Knowledge. Culture.

Memes evolve. And they do it damn fast. 2000 years ago to now is a blink of an eye for 'regular' genetic evolution, with nothing at all going on, but for memetic evolution it was an endless revolution- thanks chiefly to writing, allowing the easy and accurate transfer of memes.

Fast-forward to now, and we have the Internet, and a greater population than ever, and more mixing and cross-fertilization of ideas then ever before, and it's clear we're at the most fertile point we've ever been.

The next steps involve either genetically altering ourselves- take our 'natural' evolution into our own hands, or cyborg-izing ourselves into new robotic forms. Or both in combo. Why choose to live in this frail, outdated, outmoded, slow, decrepit, pain-feeling body, if we don't need to? It's obsolete. We NEED to upgrade.

Pretty soon the rich will be walking round in the bodies of T-800's. And power to them. They're the early adopters that make it possible for the rest of us to tag along behind.

Our genetic and fleshy presence will be reduced to ever-enlarging brains in metal suits- as our various bodily limbs and systems are farmed out to more resilient and efficient robotic replacements.

Like Michael Jackson in Moonwalker.

I've always loved Transformers. I think it would be awesome to be a robot.

The one sticking point seems to be the soul. But it's pretty clear that if there is any such thing- then it's in the brain, since we can lose just about everything else and still be 'alive'. So if we keep the brain- no problemo.

If you don't believe in the soul- then there's no problem at all, and why not just build robots to outright replace us from the start? Build them, grow them, feed them all our memes, make sure they have 'neural nets' that can learn and grow, like Data, then just let them replace us to promulgate and grow our culture out beyond the stars. If they can think and learn, and see a sunset, and read a book, and come up with new ideas after taking in all that input- but with infinitely greater storage capacity, processing power, and input/output modalities, it would be ridiculous of us to demand to stay alive.

We were vehicles for our genes. But that's done. Now we're vehicles for our memes. For our culture. And since robots will be infinitely better vehicles for that particular cargo, hadn't we better all start readying ourselves for obsolescence?

It's what happened to Homo Erectus and our other ancestors. Is anyone begging for them to come back?

Unless of course- you believe in the 2001: A Space Odyssey theory of evolution- wherein apes millennia ago only became sentient after being seeded with alien DNA- and thusly that evolution itself could not create a beast as complex as a human.

But if you think that, you're probably crazy anyway, and likely the first to be crushed under the boot-heels of the T-800 I've got marked out for myself.

I write a lot about lonely monsters. I realized this recently- it's almost like my default setting.

When I was a kid I had a book I loved called 'The Lonely Skyscraper'. I scoured the net but couldn't find a single picture from its pages. Its about a skyscraper that feels lonely in the city when all the workers go home. So it goes to the country and gets filled with animals and becomes happy.

Also I write about madness, and self-destruction. When I set down to just write without a solid plan, it normally turns into one of those stories. A lonely monster gets lonelier and madder and dies, or finds some way to get happy.

Are there are other stories? Hmm. Of course there are. But the only stories I seem interested in writing are those. Even my 'weird city' stories, which had a lot of thought and pre-meditation put into them, are about sad and lonely and damaged people trying to find a way to fix themselves or belong.

Clay Head. Gutterman. Jack. Jayne. Bob. Sky Painter. The Sphinx. Human Caterpillar. Stormwatcher. Etc..

A movie about a psycho. A psycho so badly damaged/deranged/lunatic that he can't love anything, can't value anything, and drives everyone and everything away from him.

It's hard to say much more because to say much more infers the ending. When dealing with such a bastard- is there any hope of salvation? Of atonement or forgiveness?

Well, I won't say. But I'll go so far as to say that both atonement and forgiveness pre-suppose contrition. And in this man we see no contrition. We see only black madness staring back out at us. We see someone so afraid of failure, so afraid to be nobody, so afraid to be somehow lesser than other men, that he will rampage rough-shod over those weaker than himself just to show to himself that he can.

He's a devil waiting to be stopped. It's almost as if he behaves so wickedly just to see if God can stop him. Will God strike him down? Will God do something to punish him, cast him low, make him repent of his sins?

The biblical tone of the title is right. This is a movie about religion. And it's a movie about charlatans, and morals, and oil, and riches. But most of all, it's about the chaos that bubbles underneath it all. The chaos that anyone can tap, that anyone can use for their own ends. It's about violence, and the will to use it, suddenly, calculatedly, as a weapon. It's about the will to power.

Thomas Anderson is a smart cookie. In Magnolia he was showing us how weak people can be manipulated. He showed us weak people are made weak by other weak people abusing them. He told us the worst crime we can commit is to abuse people weaker than us.

And that's in this movie too. We see several instances of hatred, bile and rage splintering out of the Day-Lewis character and into other characters, who then go off the rails and splinter into hatred, bile and rage themselves. It is corrosive. The Day-Lewis character is a cancer.

It's a good movie. Perhaps a great movie. Nowhere near as much fun as Magnolia. It's dark and suspenseful- chiefly thanks to some powerful and bold suspense music over some of the extended sequences- reminiscent of the use of music over extended tracts in Magnolia, but much bleaker in this movie. Perhaps this is a grown-up version of Magnolia.

It's certainly bleak. I felt down after watching it. But perhaps, not all bleak. The Day-Lewis character doesn't manage to destroy everything.

Today there was a rushing warm wind blowing through Tokyo. It felt like the wind of change, blowing through the cellarages and cleaning out all the devils and dust of winter.

I stood in various places letting it wash over me, breathing it in, feeling the rush it brought on.

The end of winter. Endless horizons. New things. New places.

It felt like jumping on a bike and whistling down long empty desert roads at twilight. It felt like standing on the front of the Titanic and yelling "I'm the king of the world!"

It felt pretty good. I wonder what it means?

I just finished this book.

But, I didn't really finish it. I read the first half, and then the end. Why? Because it was chiefly a load of boring old garbage. It was like reading a super-dry account of actual history. The guy nobody likes and we have no reason to root for goes somewhere and does something, not especially interesting. Then again.

Rinse and repeat.

It's a story with 4 narrators. The first- Marco Da Cola, is likable, savvy, devout, and a decent honorable guy. In his part of the story there are 2 or 3 worthy sections involving 'conflict' which draw us in and cause us to care about both Da Cola and this weirdly powerful and willfully rambunctious girl- Sarah Blundy.

His section ended with a 'mystery' that was really no mystery at all.

Then the next 2 narrators were abhorrent men. The first of these a rapist, mad, violent self-centred idiot who went about pursuing his own aims I cared not a whit for.  Only the brief interactions he has with Sarah Blundy are of interest- as she is a powerful and vibrant character. He is not.

The third character seemed to be setting me on the same course as the first. An unlikable guy, whose story had no or little bearing on the principle conceit- what happened to Sarah Blundy?

I never skip to the backs of books. Or at least hardly ever. But in this case I felt perfectly justified- as there were maybe 150-odd pages left of wittering I cared not a jot about to get to any kind of resolution.

And the resolution? Well, I expected her fate from the moment da Cola described it- wasn't it totally obvious? Then the further conclusion the last narrator draws- well, what does it matter?

Disappointing.

I went to see this movie on Saturday- with a girl called Miki I met online- for language exchange.

It was weird- to meet someone I'd never met before, then go see a movie together. What was appropriate? What do we talk about?

Ha. Not a date- but dating, hoo boy, who knows? What's the protocol?

Anyway- we had a nice time. We had 20 minutes before to chat about jobs and life, half in English and half in Japanese. That was cool- good to feel like I could semi-hold my own in Japanese. After, we went for coffee and made efforts to think of things to say. Never got uncomfortable or too silent, but if we'd gone much longer than about 30 mins, it probably would have done.

Anyway- the movie. I'd meant for us to watch the documentary 'Earth', but it turned out she wanted to watch that with her mother, so 'Elizabeth: The Golden Age' it was.

It's a story in 2 parts really. The first is court intrigue, romance, the burdens and joys of queendom. The second is the battle for England against the invading Spanish. Surprisingly, they held together very well. Cate Blanchett does a great job showing us strength, sacrifice, weakness, and then the iron sword tempered by the fire by the end.

It made me feel proud to be English. That's a strange thing to say maybe, but it's a pride we may spend half the time being ashamed of. Our colonial past, our role in the subjugation of peoples, our exploitations of others. But in this movie- whether factually borne out or not- Elizabeth and England stood out as the voice of reason against Philip's mad extremism, the Inquisition, and fundamental Catholicism.

Catholics, most probably based in America, have complained about how the movie attacks Catholicism. That's strange. Do they stand behind the Inquisition?

Wikipedia says Philip issued what was basically a fatwa on Elizabeth- hi-jacking religion to inspire people to kill her, and to expect a fitting reward for their deeds when they found themselves martyred in heaven. Though I imagine a lot of people were using religion back then to further their own ends. As today.

In the movie Elizabeth, and England, stand for temperance and sanity, pitched against Philip's madness. It was a shame that all the Spanish was sub-titled in Japanese, so I could only half-follow what he was saying. Still, he was freaky. Thin legs! Lurking gait!

Compare that to Elizabeth in war-armor, rallying the troops? Awesome. After all she'd been through- coming to accept her role, as aloof, lonely, but victoriously leading her country to victory and safety.

My favorite part- the credits roll, and the first name up is the director- Shekhar Kapur. An Indian guy.

Why is that so great? Why did that moment make me want to punch the air?

Because it connects what Elizabeth did with what England has done throughout history. I mentioned before colonialism. Bad things were done, people may well have been treated like slaves or worse, but in the end, it all got worked out, or is being worked out. England has a large population of Indian people, as well as people from all over the old colonies and Commonwealth. England is a melting-pot, and it is that diversity that makes up England's national identity today- as it always has. England is a country of mongrels- Saxons, Angles, Jutes, Norsemen, the Roman influence, Gaelics, mongrels that due to widened views of the world, of science and of religion, could see beyond petty uni-lateralisms and employ free and wide thinking, shooting for libertarian ideals, peace, the rule of law, freedom, and all the other things the Magna Carta presaged so long ago.

It made me proud to be English, a celebration of English history- and an Indian/British guy made it. That's emblematic of what we are, and have done. We've played an essential part on the world stage, of tempering the political zeitgeist and reining in madmen, of bringing peoples together and finding ways to co-exist.

And so, I feel, it continues today.

I first heard about the book 'Into the Wild' from my Global Issues teacher, when I was taking a Gap Year in a US high school back in 1999. She said I reminded her of the main character- Christopher McCandless.

At the time I didn't know what that meant. I didn't know anything about Christopher McCandless. I wondered why she compared me to him, generally I thought it was a positive thing- she said he was a bright young guy who sucked the marrow out of life- but there was an edge to it that I didn't quite understand. I respected her though, her class was probably the most eye-opening class I ever took, so the comment stayed with me.

Years later I got the book- an excellent book by Jon Krakauer- and found out the ending. He dies. He's this intelligent, gifted, athletic, seemingly loved and pampered kid, but one day he gives away his study-fund to Oxfam, leaves his car and burns all his money, and just lights out.

The mystery is- why? Why would this kid do this thing, to himself, to his family?

At first I thought he was heroic. After reading the book, I was awed by the way he lived the short life he had. He really sucked out the marrow, travelling the Western US, leather-tramping the roads, hitch-hiking, meeting wacky characters and forging new connections, always seeking and finding new experiences, enriching his life and his mind.

More recently, I started to think of him, when I thought of him, as a bit of a jerk. As immature and even selfish. Why hurt your parents like that? Why be so irresponsible with your own life like that? For what- spiritual learnings? What is that worth to the family that care about you if you die acquiring them?

That's how I came to the movie. And for the first hour or so, the movie even reinforces this belief. He is incredibly cavalier with his own life. He blocks his family out completely. He has turned down everything they ever gave him, everything they ever made him, and decided to re-do it all for himself.

But why?

The movie answers these questions. They're answers that speak to my own situation- why I'm in Japan. I'm not angry at my parents like Chris was. I'm out here in Japan, re-inventing myself, doing things for myself, because I didn't know how to fit in and belong in England.

I've written about it on these pages before. It's nothing really abhorrent. It's just- not knowing who my people were. Not feeling like I was myself. Not knowing what I wanted, or where my space was to do it. So, I'm here, still searching for those things.

What my Global Issues teacher said about me and Chris being similar is true. Both looking for ourselves, for reality, for a new heritage and control over ourselves and our environment.

His final revelation- as shown in the film anyway- is one I felt myself when setting out on my proposed 'bike tour around the world!'. It's the reason I quit, and came back here, hoping to share my life with my then-girlfriend. But not everyone is on the same page at the same time, and that didn't work out.

Anyway- is this a good movie? It certainly captures the spirit of Chris McCandless. It's long, but it pays off. It shows us his reasons without over-explaining. Most importantly though- it shows us Chris as reckless carefree vagabond dominating the landscape, dominating people's hearts, moving through and leaving inspiration and hope in his wake. We see that and while we may tsk at how reckless it is, we love him for it. His spirit is indomitable.

Then we see him brought low, and eventually to death. But even then, he comes through.

I would have loved to have met him. If he'd lived, I think he would have become a wonderful, empathic, understanding, caring man. It's a tragedy he died.

I got done a few days ago watching my way through the whole of the West Wing. That's 7 seasons, 22-24 episodes per season, 45-ish minutes per episode, so some 160 episodes, some 100-odd hours of TV.

That's a lot of TV time. Imagine if I'd been writing all that time?!

Anyway- I really enjoyed it. It was like being with the crew of the Next Generation's Enterprise again. The West Wing is the ship, the staff are the crew, and the adventures come to them in the same way the Enterprise went to the adventures. Politics, action, even military stuff, bad guys, tensions, a soap-opera edge with love interests and character development, with a liberal/enlightened world-view throughout.

Of course I loved TNG. I grew up watching it- I always figured I had more to learn from Jean-Luc than from hitting the streets outside. And recently, I felt much the same way about TWW (The West Wing). This, or be out in clubs/pubs/bars? Clubs are not nearly as interesting as TWW.

There was some fluctuation in the quality of the show, for sure. Seasons 1-4 were under the stewardship of the series creator- Aaron Sorkin. They were great, comfortable, generally warring against the religious right, and finding their feet.

Season 5, after Sorkin left, they took the crew/staff in the direction of incompetence and failure. It wasn't fun. Josh made a severe mis-judgement that meant he was getting cut out of the loop, Leo had had a heart attack and was spending most of his time looking tiny and weak tucked up in bed, and Martin Sheen was dealing with bad MS. Everyone became weak and kind of useless.

That could be good- but it just lasted too long and was too endemic. One reason we like these characters is because they are good at what they do, they always pull it out of the hole- like Jack in 24. They're one step ahead.

Not in season 5.

Season 6 pulls it back with presidential primaries, and season 7 rolled it home with the elections, with some great casting including Alan Alda and a lot of others- for a breath of fresh air.

Now I'm watching Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. It feels like a re-tread of West Wing season 1 so far- the same battles against the religious right framing the shows premise, some of the same lines, the same pressures, the same scenes and set-ups. Still, it's fun, though I can already see why it was canceled. It tries to take itself seriously with the show Studio 60 as a serious instrument for culture change- but it's just a comedy show. Sure comedy has an impact- but not nearly as much as the agenda from the White House. So, it's a step down in relevance/importance from TWW. Plus- it's a re-tread.

Just watched these two movies back to back. The concensus? Unimpressed.

They are not stories. They are just static pictures. And if I wanted to spend 90 minutes dealing with static pictures I'd go read poetry, or look at paintings, or go live a life of quiet desperation.

The stories I'm talking about, proper stories out of Campbell's the Hero's Journey, GO somewhere. By the end of the movie, there has been some kind of climactic action, and something is different. Maybe for the worst, but ideally for the better.

In a story I want to see will-power enacted and rewarded. I want to see human drive push through the bad with sheer persistence, ingenuity, chutzpah, and indomitable human spirit.

Both of the movies I saw tonight didn't have that.

Cloverfield is a single image. Screaming people under Godzilla's feet. That is the whole deal. Nothing else. We just deal with that for 80 minutes. Things don't get better. Willpower and drive are not rewarded. Everything goes to crap. And I'm left thinking- well, so what? Who cares? About time they died. About time they quit trying to film stuff at the same time as they were running for their lives.

No Country for Old Men has been applauded and plaudited and loved. And there is no doubt it's a well-made, nuanced, deep, beautifully shot movie. It is. But it just goes nowhere. It's nihilistic- which I suppose is the Coen brothers' thing. It ends without any kind of climax. It ends essentially in chaos. Will-power is not enough to stamp order on the universe. Don't bother trying to hold on to things because in the end we're all just gadflies tossed around on a strong wind.

The final moments and Tommy's final words are nice. They tell us sure- life may suck. Life may be out of our control. But at least we don't have to be alone. Otherwise, don't worry about it too much- it's out of your control.

I don't know. Do I want that from a story? I don't think so. No country for old men is a picture of chaos, in an untamed land. The people living on the surface think it's tamed, but underneath the crust, lurking like Lovecraft's vision of Cthulu, all there is is chaos and random chance.

It's bleak. Super bleak. It plays down man's ability to control his own destiny. It shows us even the hardest core of evil chaos bad guys get whupped by the hand of chaos themselves. None of us are special, or chosen. There are no principles, no absolutes. Just us, and chaos, and death in its wake.

Bleak. And because nothing changes, it's a poem about bleakness. There's a lot of running around, but by the end, nothing has changed. We've been on a merry chase, and nothing has changed.

The Big Lebowski is much the same. Very much the same. Nothing has changed by the end- except the Dude got his rug back. But that ride was more fun. In that ride- the main events didn't happen off-screen. We saw it all. And yeah, it was fun. And yeah, the good guys won.

Hudsucker Proxy, things changed. Lessons were learned. Barton Fink, the same. In No Country for Old Men, nothing changes. Nobody wins- everybody loses. Nobody learns anything. Chaos triumphs.

I suppose there's room for movies like this. People champion them because they're 'like real life'. They think we need more 'real life' in our entertainment.

But aren't these movies just a kind of high-brow showing off? I get that feeling. Like they're trying to 'teach' us something, proscribe something for us to better ourselves.

Cloverfield- well, that's just Abrams showing off. Look what I can do. Look at how chaotic life is, how small we are, how little it would take to rub us out in a random instant.

No Country for Old Men- that's the Coens showing off too, and trying to ram down our throats their nihilistic ideas that we're all just leaves on a breeze, so don't get too attached to anything.

Having said all that- I suppose No Country for Old Men ends on an up-note. That perhaps something HAS been learned. And what lesson would that be? Why, the lesson of the Dude. Don't worry too much. It's out of your control. Just let it go on by.

But basically- I wanna see the good guys fight through and win. So the 'real life' message of- 'don't worry, give up, you can't win' is ultimately unsatisfying. Cerebral maybe, patronizing perhaps, defeated and surrendering for sure- but not at all satisfying. I just don't want heroes that give up.

Lostpedia has a massive amount of information on it. Every episode is completely documented. Seems like not a trick has been missed anywhere. All the parallels to Star Wars had completely passed me by. Getting into it makes you appreciate how much stuff the writers compress into an episode.

Like a Winzip file. Then the fans decompress it.

Am not keen on it being Christian Shepherd in the chair. I don't see how it can work.

Feeling better today. Forgot my ipod at home though in the rush to get to work. No Geoff show for me. But that means 2 Geoff shows for me tomorrow!

Anybody listen to the Geoff Show? From Virgin Radio. He's hilarious. Often pathetic and wimpish, but funny.

Argh! Just remembered- a student gave me chocolates today from Saipan, with the Saipan-da panda on the cover, and I totally forgot them in the classroom. Oops.

I could be getting sick. I had intensive classes today- 3 dudes who work for the Japan Coast Guard, and about 1 hour in I was feeling the pain. Legs hurting for no good reason. Shoulders too. Yes I did about 5 minutes of squats and push-ups the night before- but I normally spend 30 minutes on that in the gym, and never feel as bad as today.

I'm getting sick.

Just took a hot bath. That may have helped. And will go to bed early tonight. 12. As soon as I get done writing this.

Ever thought that we're all just tubes walking around? Human tubes. Stuff goes in and out at either end. We try to put our tubes into the tubes of other people. We have simple/complex programming to help us achieve this goal.

And that's it, really. We're just fleshy tubes with fetishes for other bits of fleshy tube. Ambulatory fleshy fetishy programmed tubes.

Ho hum.

I saw a girl on the subway today with bleach blonde hair. She was wearing a leather jacket. She looked good. I thought to myself- 'that's a nicely decorated tube.'