Hey Ho, Everyone!
My teenage years, which I will be exiting come the 19th of next February, have been full of change. Teenage years as a class, I am given to understand, are full of change. Mine, yours, everybody’s. The tender, oblivious years spanning birth to one’s twelfth birthday pass by quickly enough, with each child nearly bursting, both literally and figuratively, out of their clothes with an anxious desire to age. We are sheltered to some degree during this formative time, and are not as aware of the constantly shifting world around us. However, we are aware that something fun, scary, and potentially dangerous is lying in wait just over the crest of the hill. This is the gradual climb to the apex of the roller-coaster of childhood. Once puberty hits in full force we are sent screaming in fear and breathless excitement into our teens. This is a time in which the only aspect of our lives which is certain is uncertainty. We spin and race through constant ups and downs, the world rushing by so fast we barely notice it; we’re blinded by the blending colors, a kaleidoscope of flashing lights and movement; we’re deafened by the rickety rumble of the carts and our own mindless shouts of exhilaration. Before we know it the ride is done, we’re getting off and shuffling out, still slightly dizzy, amongst the other wide-eyed riders. We finally get far enough away to see the ride in its entirety and can understand it now, being so far detached. At this point all we want to do is ride again, but, sorry kiddies, the ride’s closed. And in a matter of a few decades, the whole park will be closed as well.
Teenage years seemed filled to the brink with momentous occurrences and drastic changes. Far too full, in this reporter’s solemn opinion. It strikes me as being most unfair for the poor beings caught up in it.
We hit teens.
Two years later, we start high school.
One more year and we can drive. By this point, many of us are working and gaining sometimes frightening amounts of freedom and crushing loads of responsibility. Some of us are experimenting with drugs and alcohol, and some of us are no longer virgins.
Two more years and we’re in college. We can vote, smoke, buy lottery tickets, gamble, and view "explicit material." A mere five years out of being a timid thirteen year old and we’re "adults."
Two years after this and we’re exiting the ride.
Along the way our hearts are broken, our hopes crushed, our dreams made clearer, our spirits lifted higher than we’d thought possible.
Our parents seem to shrink as the walls of our once huge house now seem to be closing in, too close. No amount of open road or boundless sky could be big enough for us.
It’s too much. It’s too harsh. It’s over too soon. It isn’t right.
And yet . . .
There are three clocks in my kitchen. In an attempt to make us more punctual, we set the clocks twenty minutes ahead. Well, it didn’t take long for us to catch on that, instead of leaving at, say, ten of two we could leave at ten after. We became so used to this temporal discrepancy that we even began speaking in "kitchen time." One year, while fixing the clocks ahead for Spring, someone set them only ten minutes fast. I still haven’t become adjusted to it. Recently, I set the clocks ahead a further 20 minutes, making them a half hour fast. Sam said this was too much and endeavored to fix the problem by righting the clocks. Chaos ensued.
I guess my point is that, though the clocks were "wrong," our lives had become adjusted to them to such an extent that any attempt to fiddle with them would yield disastrous results.
So it may be with teenage years. Maybe it’s not "right" to have our young lives flooded with so much change so quickly that some of us drown, but our society revolves around such long-established mistakes. To try to mend this would only prove a bigger mistake.
Alas.
Anyway, perhaps it is these constantly changing years catching up to me with several whopping changes that has made me more thoughtful as of late. But nevertheless, more thoughtful I am. (An annoying development, some of my readers may be muttering right about now.) These years of great pith an moment give me pause to ponder. Here’re some of the things I’ve been pondering about:
To start off with, what better a topic than
blogs?
Recent developments in our immediate blogging community have necessitated contemplation and coverage. I began journaling online close to a year ago and have, over the course of that one year, become very endeared to my blog, and to the concept of blogging in its entirety.
Journaling is a practical and wise thing to do. A journal can help you in a variety of ways: letting you vent when you’re angry and absorbing any emotion you pour into it, recording and preserving your life experiences and thoughts, being a creative outlet when you need to write, and simply providing you with a healthy, productive way of using your time.
Online journaling takes things a step farther, for it lets you be creative, pensive, and emotional, all through words and pictures, and allows others to see the fruits of your labor. You are able to share your emotions with the world. I think that, on the whole, this is an excellent concept. I foresee one of the aspects of our hopefully utopian future being a blog for every person on the planet(s), so that we are all potentially connected and able to sympathize with each other, laugh at each others’ jokes, revel in each other’s successes, and share in each other’s grief. This would be as close to worldwide empathy as we could get without developing telepathy or one of those annoying alien hive mentalities.
True, the openness and vulnerability which comes with worldwide access to one’s online journal is a tragic reality. We are not free to be completely open as we would be in a private log. (Unless, of course, we are brave and have very understanding friends.) However, the advantage of writing something that can be seen by billions of people is an exciting substitute for the ability to write without fear of consequence.
To this extent, I believe that blogs should be one hundred percent open to the public.
Many of my friends have decided to impose restrictions on their online journals as of late. Some LiveJournalers have made their writings "friends only." Others, specifically blogger.com patrons, ban all anonymous comments. Still others, like the scant few MySpace users, have picked an online journal host which automatically keeps all non-members from reading. I disagree strongly with these practices. In my opinion, the key to blogging is in the wide range of readers you may have. Depriving people of your writing seems against the very concept of online journaling. The essence of blogging, I think, is freedom. You are free to write whatever you want online, say whatever you please. But others should also be free to read what you have written.
I leave my blog open, as do many of my enlightened friends. I have absolutely no fear of anything. I mean, my home address is in the freakin’ profile. Who would possibly want to use that information for ill? What motive could they possibly have?
Perhaps I am being foolhardy, but I doubt it. There is far less danger out there than people think. Paranoia angers me, especially when it intrudes on the two-sided freedom of blogging.
Blocking readers and commentators strikes me as being a selfish and cowardly practice.
I know many of you value your privacy, but there are other forms of journals to use if you don’t want your words being read. My open blog has received comments from people as far spread and diverse as a musician in New York City and a homeless guy in Washington State.
If you only want certain people to read what you have to say, start a newsletter and leave the online journaling to us purists.
But, all of this "freedom of blogging" and "purist" nonsense aside, there is one aspect of blogging communities that is drastically impaired by paranoid privatizers. And that is the most important aspect of all. Relationship building. If one looks deeply into the blogging phenomenon, the potential that will hit them squarely in the eye-ball is not about creativity or freedom of expression, but, rather, the potential for strengthening communities of friendship.
Take, for instance, my relationship with
Amy McMenamin. I barely new her, even when, at the Thirsty Mind one fateful night,
Andrew moved in forced us to exchange online journal info.
The only reason I became a closer friend to
Amy is because I was free to read and comment on her journal, and she was free to read and comment on mine. If she had started screening entries sooner, our relationship would never have developed.
As one travels further into the blogging community, one realizes how expansive it is; so many of my friends have blogs. And, as expansive as it is, it struggles to be just as interrelated. My friend
Eddy McCorkindale, with whom I went to Australia, had drifted fairly well out of my life until he began blogging. Now I read his journal, he reads mine. In this way, our relationship is re-fueled and strengthened, and we can be kept abreast of what is happening in each other’s lives. What is more, we both read the journals of our collective friends. (I can’t think of a journal
Eddy hasn’t commented on.) And so, though they have not yet met him physically, many of my friends now know
Eddy very well, solely from the inter-workings of the blogging network. They welcome his comments and look forward to seeing him in person.
Amy has taken
Eddy off of her Friends list.
From the online journals of
Pawel,
Tony, and
Andrew, I have branched off into the blogs of numerous others. They read my work, I read theirs. We get to know each other.
Free blogs help create new friendships, and, what is possibly more important, keep already existing friendships strong.
EJ,
Eddy, and
Tony are in Worcester.
Andrew is in Maine.
Dave is in Goshen.
Caitlin is over 2,000 miles away.
Yet, I can know what is going on in their lives because of their blogs
I wish I knew what was going on with
Steve, but his blog is "friends only."
Blogs, as a method for forming and maintaining relationships, are more expressive and impressive than e-mail, more reliable than IM, and more practical than constant travel.
For this reason alone, they should remain free.
Privatization and Censorship are cruel, paranoid, and cowardly, and hurt the blogging infrastructure in more ways than are readily apparent.
For this reason, I have decided to boycott any and all blogs, namely
Steve’s and
Amy’s, which limit freedom of expression in any way.
Except
Tony’s.
(Note on
Steve’s and
Amy’s: I do this not because of the inconvenience of being forced to create a LiveJournal account and having them add me to their lists of friends (I already have a live journal account), but rather because the practice of privatizing online writings goes against my beliefs.)
I anticipate much feedback on this topic.
Many of you will tell me that I am wrong, and try to convince me to change my beliefs. I may even get harsh anonymous comments.
That’s fine by me.
For, that ushers us into the next two aspects of blogging that I wish to discuss.
Firstly,
opinion.
An individual’s personal online journal is not intended to be a completely objective publication. It is personal. It has a definite bias.
Therefore, I detest when certain folks get all up in arms over things I say.
This is a personal journal. It is filled with my opinions. When I say that
Sam is great,
Jay Frank is not, and
Sin City is a disappointment, those are my opinions, my perspective, not what is necessarily true. So, first off, people shouldn’t comment in anger as if I had said that my blog is the only interpretation of reality. I never claim that what I say is absolutely true. My thoughts and beliefs seem factual enough to me, and some of them seem damn near infallible, but that doesn’t mean I believe them to be the only version of truth out there. Nor do I believe that others must have the same beliefs as me. I wish they would, in some cases, and think they’d have to be crazy not to in others, but I respect everyone’s opinions.
I’m not imposing my thoughts on you, you chose to read them.
I never claim to be the ultimate source of truth, so please don’t respond as if I’m trying to convert the world.
Any proselytizing I perform is truly non-aggressive. This is not a missionary blog.
That said, feel free to say whatever you feel like when you comment. If you want to pretend that I am forcing people to believe what I do, or that I claim to be perfectly correct in my theories and assumptions, go right ahead.
I will not condemn those who restrict commentators in one breath, and restrict my commentators in the next.
I respect everyone’s freedom of speech. Say whatever you want, for that is half of the beauty of blogs. I can say what I please, and anyone, anywhere, can read it and respond however they please.
And, I know most of you in the last post were just presenting your sides of the matter, not reputing mine. So don’t comment saying that you were right to present an opposing line of thought and never held that I was claiming to be the one and only.
Unless you want to.
As for comments, I believe this should be open to everyone as well.
I have suffered the anguish of annoying anonymous commentators.
Sometimes they just want to shake things up, like
Sombraro, and eventually confess. But the really bothersome ones are the one-time posters who say something contradictory and never tell me who they are.
The only good part of anonymous commentators is that, as they are too nerveless to put a name behind their words, people put much less stock in their opinions.
(I should really convert to Haloscan, following the wise example of my friend
Tony.)
Anonymous commentators are repugnant cowards, in my opinion. They abuse the openness of blogs just as much as those who keep readers and commentators out. They are low, timid, and rude. They avoid confrontation while angering and upsetting those around them. They make a blogger feel as angry and frustrated as a pleasant commentator makes him feel jolly and refreshed.
But that won’t stop me from leaving my blog open.
If being annoyed every so often is the price I pay to grant freedom to all surfers of the web, then so be it.
And, though I may find some comments offensive, unnecessary, or stupid, there is one step I will never take against bothersome commentators.
Erasing what they have written.
I believe that what has been posted online in the form of journal entries or comments should remain online as is. There is but one person with the right to edit what has been posted, and that person is the author.
Even then I’m not all in favor of going back and changing one’s own work. I try to leave my posts as I have written them, for the most part, no matter the content. This means if I ever read past issues I have to relive how I was head-over-heels for one girl after another. How I made ridiculous claims and plans which fell through. How I lied to myself and others.
But, this will unquestionably keep me from repeating such mistakes with as much frequency and overall obliviousness.
And you take the bad with plenty of good.
Re-reading un-changed entries reminds me of past triumphs and feelings of happiness and peace. It reminds me of how I could be a halfway decent writer from time to time.
It show my progression as a blogger and records my past.
So, I try to leave past entries as they are.
(I realize I have broken this personal rule severely once, and I about that I say, Sorry once again,
Steve.)
But back to
comments!
Comments especially should be left alone.
This is one aspect of blogging
Tony and myself shall never see eye-to-eye on.
He feels perfectly justified deleting comments left and right when they don’t suit him. This practice angers me. He argues that his blog is his own, and people should not use it for their own debates.
I feel this further detracts from the community nature of blogging, and that comment sections should be allowed to go free, and left as much forum-like as they happen to become.
If for nothing else, comments should be left to remind us of past triumphs or mistakes.
(
Tony, you should have left those "Draft Feud" comments so that you could look back and remember how stupid, petty, and paranoid you and
Pawel had become. It might have helped future outbreaks of panicking and error.)
All these problems, privatization, censorship, uproar over simple opinions (of which I have been just as, if not more than, guilty as everyone else), comment section purification, can be traced back to one key problem:
Ego.
More so than cowardice, paranoia, or shame, online journals are afflicted by individuals thinking themselves to have more control over their blogs than, by rights, they are entitled to.
Sure, you can stop people from reading and from posting comments if you want.
Sure, you can raise a fuss when someone’s opinion is different from your own. Or, regard your opinion as the only legitimate one.
Sure, you can police your comment section like the Gestapo.
It is your work, your words, your opinion.
But, when you think deeply on the matter, you have no inherent right to.
There. That’s my thoughts on blogging oppression.
For those of you outraged, feel free to comment.
I doubt you’ll change my mind any more than I’ve changed yours.
I’ll say that I’m right, but I won’t say that you’re wrong.
Get violent or offensive and I’ll respond in kind.
But I won’t delete your comments. I won’t negate your opinions. I won’t take away your right to read and respond to what I have written.
Take your best shot.
Now, about these so-called "troll blogs."
(Nice transition, huh?)
I cannot understand the purpose behind them.
Is it for fantasy? Or creative catharsis?
For any of my readers unfamiliar with the term, it is used to describe an online journal through which one pretends to be someone else. This could be a celebrity, someone in the public eye. Indeed, many a famous person has been made fun of by someone posing as he or she in an online journal. I can see the intent behind this. There are several people I’d like to parody, satirize, and insult via writing as them in a blog. None of them famous, necessarily.
However, a troll can also be simply the blog of a character one invents. A fine example is
Tony’s Azriel blog.
These are the ones I don’t understand.
Why pretend to be someone else?
It seems to defeat the purpose of a journal, especially an online one. Tony does it for humor, and it is funny as the blackest pits of hell, but I don’t think he has a big enough audience to make it effective.
Here’s a link to it, it’s worth frequent patronage:
http://theverydarkpitofblack.blogspot.com/I suppose his is meant to satirize the Goth sub-culture in the same way a celebrity troll is meant to make fun of a famous person.
Still, I’d have neither the time nor the will to make one work
Oh well.
I love blogs. Bloggy blog blog. Posted on the web. Web for all to see.
Speaking of
Love . . .
Romance is too damned romanticized!
I have long been harboring serious doubts that love, as it is portrayed in the movies, songs, and literary work, actually exists. For some reason, love, the curious phenomenon which has inspired poets and artists to lie for centuries, always seemed above the shameless exaggeration which everything else falls victim to.
No cop has ever hung on a helicopter, trying to stop a terrorist.
No shoot-out has ever been glorious.
No one has ever had to dress up as a woman to secure a job . . . ever.
No too buddies have ever gotten into a seemingly endless series of misadventures on a road trip to California to stop a wedding.
I had sadly accepted these realities.
But true love, in that blissful, pure form, must exist, reasoned I.
However, I don’t think it does.
On top of which, nobody talks to a loved one like they do in the movies or in books. In fiction, loving words sound inspiring and heart-felt, no matter the context.
In the real world, anything you say to a loved one in an intimate moment is dribble which would make you hang your head in shame if it was repeated back to you.
I’m not completely cynical, not yet. I’ll keep up the search for my one and only someone. But I’m starting to question his or her existence. For me and for everybody.
But this is not solely a post for random, partially incendiary thoughts. This is also a post of partial explanations and retractions.
Let’s start with the two that got the most people to put me on their "Next to Kill" lists. My reviews of The Talent Show/Battle of the Bands and As You Like It.
Before we start, I will refer to the above paragraphs, those dealing with opinion. My blog expresses my individual perspective. This is my personal interpretation of the performances. Do not be so juvenile as to hate me for expressing an opinion. For the most part, I was generous. I tried to combine both my close relationships with those involved and my mostly accurate perception of the dramatic arts. I was nice to you ingrates. Mostly. There were a few slip ups.
I did not realize how negatively my critiques were received until I had a most uncomfortable conversation with
Mike Pytka. While this exchange was mercifully brief, culminating in my being called an "egotistical piece of shit," it did open my eyes to how much my words impacted the attitudes of my associates.
Now, I am always in favor of pissing off anyone and everyone I can. I love to see peoples’ faces glaring at me in self-righteous indignation. However,
Mike’s words struck me squarely in that place the feelings come from . . . what’s the word I want. Wasn’t sure I had one until he insulted me like that. Heart? Soul? Conscience? That is neither here nor there. But, like I say, those harsh statements and unadulterated hurt feelings affected me. I didn’t sleep that night, I kid you not.
So, to begin this session of explanations, retractions, and apologies, let’s take a look at where I hurt young
Michael.
It was in my review of the Battle of the Bands and Talent Show. I expressed the opinion that
Mike did not deserve to win.
(For those of you who are not certain of the results,
Mike won three times. First place in Talent, first place in Bands, and the quartet he was part of won third place, also in Talent.)
(If memory serves me correctly, he also won several times last year.)
Now, for proper understanding, let’s review the awful, petty, "egotistical," and hateful things I said about
Mike Pytka:
"I’m not sure, then who won, except that Mike stole both first place checks.I like the guy, and, indeed, would enjoy licking him, but I need to disagree with the judge’s rulings that night. Sorry, Mike, but you didn’t deserve first place last year, when you beat me, and you didn’t deserve it this year.But Mike is talented, and charismatic, and so it’s not a ridiculous miss.And, I suppose, SDE (Suicide Death wish Existence, as they are known to their loyal followers) was possibly the "best" band, even though they were a parody act."Pretty harsh, as you can see. No wonder he retaliated so vehemently.
I was merely expressing an opinion. I believe that some readers would share that opinion with me. But, I was not claiming it to be true. Nor was I in anyway insulting you,
Mike.
I was more outraged at last year’s Talent Show when Perverse Psychology stole first place from The Quick Fix. That’s not an opinion, that’s fact. The Quick Fix deserved to win. At the same time, I didn’t find myself very funny that night. I only say I deserved first place because of two things: audience reaction and my originality. The people were rolling in the aisles (fact, not opinion) and I was, I believe, the first to ever do stand-up comedy at one of those Beauchmin/Trask-run Talent Shows (fact, possibly.) But, I thought that the Python Skits should have won in my place. We were funnier together, (in my opinion) than I was alone.
I did say that I didn’t think you deserved to win. At least, didn’t deserve to win so excessively, two years in a row. It furthers the problem I addressed in the last post about the shows becoming too limited and specific.
I praised, you,
Mike, ya gotta be fair about that. I praised you a lot.
I just thought that, that night, out of all those people, maybe you weren’t the "best" act.
Now, you,
Mike, are one of the most talented people I know. In Godspell you outclassed the entire cast, and you even upstaged that freakin’ over-actor,
Frank (We’ll touch on him in a moment.) In Guys and Dolls, though your part was unforgivably brief, you displayed more charisma than either
Pat Danrea or
Adam Goddu in your Fugue for Tinhorns scene.
However, that night,
maybe, just maybe, you didn’t deserve first place.
If I had expressed myself this way, perhaps trouble could have been avoided. However, I made three whopping mistakes in my presentation.
First, I had forgotten that
Mike read my blog, and so, when writing, felt no uneasiness at addressing
Mike directly. I thought that, as he wasn’t among my readers, they’d all just look at it and see me cleverly addressing someone absent from the picture. The same way I’d address the Sun. It’s called apostrophe.
However, as he was reading it, it came off as a direct message to him. So, instead of clever literaryism, it was instead overt, directed insult.
The second mistake I made was in not being explicit in saying that it was only my opinion I was stating. Apparently my readers think everything I write down is the ultimate truth. (Considering that, can you blame me for being egotistical,
Mike?) My opinion came off as hardened belief, and that must have made me seem harsh.
And, finally, I used the term "stole" when describing
Mike’s wins. This was obviously wrong. It’s not even how I feel. The people I should be angry at for the results aren’t the contestants, but the judges.
Mike had nothing to do with his win, other than performing well. Ultimately, the judges picked him this year and the last, the same way the picked Perverse Psychology, and the same way they didn’t pick The Python Skits.
They’re only human. If they made a wrong choice, if, then I can’t really blame them, either. Because, when you come right down to it, they too are just expressing opinions.
One last thought. The more I think it over, the more uncertain I am that
Mike really wasn’t the best act that night. I know, like almost all of the acts, he was overwhelmed by his music. But I can’t think of too many faults. Perhaps I found both the talent act and the band too theatrical. More over-acting. I might have a complex of sorts.
All I really mean is that I was not as impressed with the two performances as I had been with your work in the past,
Mike, and I know you can do great things.
I am sorry,
Mike, if I hurt your feelings. I did not mean to.
I am also sorry if I come off as a jerk most of the time.
Whew.
Now, onto As You Like It.
The general consensus is that I was unfair to
Jason Frank. However, there was someone else who found my review of his/her particular performance also insulting. If you are reading, this is for you:
A boy is on a local quiz program. Let’s call it As Schools Match Wits. The match begins and his teammates are of no help. In some areas, one of his teammates actually hurts the boy’s game with his overzealous answering of the questions. For the entire dreadful half hour, the questions on the show are absurdly difficult. The boy tries his best, but only manages to answer a scant few of them correctly. The match ends and he goes to speak with his friends and family. Everyone tells him he did a great job, and looked so smart. He knows they’re lying. One friend has the courage to tell him that he did slip up a lot. However, the friend points out, the questions were so insanely hard that he doubts whether anyone there that night could have answered them. Even geniuses would have had trouble, the friend reasons. So, yes, the friend admits, the boy didn’t look as bright as the members of the other team, but the friend knows he is a smart boy, and, what is more, a kind boy. And, again, it was the difficulty of the questions, not the intelligence of the player, that caused the defeat.
So, who does the boy thank? The people who lied to him, or the friend who had the courage to tell him the truth and try to make him feel better?
Now, onto
Jason Frank.
Here, again, to allow full comprehension of the events, is my review of
Jason Frank:
"I was very angry with one thing, or, rather, one person in particular, though.Jason Frank.This shameless over-actor weakened the general experience of the play and lessened the work of his peers.He is the Jar-Jar Binks of Holyoke Catholic.Jar-Jar Binks was not flawed in production. The voice actor didn’t do a poor job. The CGI technicians made him life-like enough. The designers and artists who drew him didn’t make too many blunders. As far as his character went, he did well. But he was loud and spastic and inherently annoying. Placed in amongst solemn actors like Liam Neeson or Ian McDiarmid he steals the show . . . in a bad way: by diverting attention from the proper players. Yet, stupid people the world over found him funny. Alas.And yet, mayhaps I go too far.I’ll say that Jason Frank is the Jim Carrey of Holyoke Catholic.You give him a comedic role and he lets himself loose with absolutely no concern nor control. He seems to think that the whole play revolves around him. Carrey is fine as a dramatic actor, as is Frank, who was properly reserved in The Clearing. However, in comedy he cannot control himself.He isn’t a bad actor, as I said before. And perhaps his performance was the ideal for such a play. But where Jason slips up is in his total disregard for his peers. If you’re acting with people who are naturally restrained, and will give reserved performances, you cannot try to play your part as loudly and bombastically as Frank does.He shares a scene with Steph in which they are supposed to banter back and forth equally, and one gets a sense of the contrast between Steph’s, as Corin, simple common sense, and Jason’s elaborate theories. However, though Steph’s performance is strong, Jason overwhelms her. The same is true of his scene with Becky. She struggles under the complicated nature of her character, while Jason dances around, seemingly blissfully unaware that anyone but he is on the stage.His one decent scene is the one in which he threatens Bryan Pytka’s poor William.Jason Frank should not be allowed to do comedy."
I didn’t realize how bad the reaction to my, I’ll admit it, overly harsh review of
Jason’s performance had become until I read some comments from my friend
Tony.
Sara Sawka also commented, saying, I took it to mean, that I belittled the whole play. (She may have also been addressing an anonymous commentator who belittled specifically her performance.) Well,
Sara, I praised the ENTIRE play. Even, a little bit, your beau’s part. I was exceedingly kind to you boys and girls. You deserved such lavish lauding, no doubt, but don’t convince yourself that I was generating "negative feedback."
Where was I?
Oh, yes. I expected retaliation from
La Sawka, as she is intimate with
Frank and, as such, obliged to defend him from brigands such as myself. However, I did not expect such inflammatory, threatening, and shocking remarks from my friend
Tony.
Here are some of the things he said:
(Keep in mind, these are all his own words. He said all of this.)
" . . . you are awful- . . ., Rich. I’ve . . . beat many college . . . groups . . . as you like it. You . . . have . . . no reason. . .. I . . . hurt . . . Sam. . . . You’re pretty. . . . My biggest . . . audience . . . was in Shakespeare’s time. I . . . think a person should . . . pressure- . . . you."
This I’ve heard before from Tony. But then he got all weird on me.
" . . . I’d have . . . Sammy. I’d like to see him do . . . Jason. I told you . . . "play" . . .make larger. Jason did dominate, but I won’t hold it against him. My . . . Jason . . . was . . . excessive . . . in drag. I HATE . . . you."
Earlier, he had remarked that, and I quote, "I . . . cut . . . you- . . ., Rich."
Of course, his previous comments, such as "I . . . puff . . . smoke," and a reference he made to us leaving a bar at some point indicate that he might well have been under the influence of drugs and alcohol when he commented. His habits had never been very healthy, as evidenced by this quotation from that same post, "We should . . . sometime . . . try . . . whore . . . places. It’d be fun . . .."
And then, the most damning evidence off all:
"My first choice would be . . . Jason Frank, because I've always wanted a significant other . . . and that little bastard loves to put me in my place. I beat him . . . a couple times, though."
Could this mean what it implies?
Tony might have been defending
Jason Frank for the same reason
Sara Sawka was! Kinky sex!
Because of this irrefutable proof, I am forced to disregard all opposing views presented in my blog.
Now that I don’t have any annoyances to contend with, let’s get down to my review of my review of
Jason Frank.
To start with, let’s be clear about a few things.
1) I never said he was a bad actor.
2) I never said he gave a bad performance
3) I never said he was a bad person.
When one pauses and looks at those three facts, one finds it hard to believe that people became so angry over my review. But, I’ll take the time to explain myself, anyway.
I know
Jason Frank is a talented and capable actor. I never said otherwise. His broad, flamboyant performance in As You Like It proves he has a gift for being expressive and conveying emotion. This is true.
It is also true that when undertaking a comedic performance, he over-acts. Screamingly. No one can argue with me on this one.
Jason Frank’s comedic performances, be they in Godspell, Guys and Dolls, or As You Like It, are over the top. Way over the top. This
does prove that he is a talented actor, because it takes someone bold to throw himself at the audience like that. Moreover, it takes someone skilled to over act well.
In the movie Saw, Cary Elwes over acts. Poorly. In the movie Batman Forever, Tommy Lee Jones over acts. Poorly. Even accomplished thespians have trouble over acting well.
Jason has no such trouble. People love his performances. (I could add that people are mindless and vacant, and would probably be amused by something twinkling and shiny on stage, like a set of car keys, but I need not bring my misanthropic leanings into this review.)
There are just two problems I have with the over-acting.
1) He over-over-acts. I know that sounds funny, but let me explain.
Jason Frank, in the last two productions, was given lead roles. Complex roles. These were not flat characters. They have moments of sadness, doubt, confusion, repose. You can’t over-act those moments the way
Jason does. See, he comedically over-acts. In Saw, Elwes dramatically over-acts. There is a difference. Thus, if he were to do those few scenes properly,
Jason should have restrained himself. Or, at least, been melodramatic instead of vaudevillian.
But he didn’t. Every scene, every line was delivered with the same ecstatic, jittery, smirking gusto. For instance, one of the most jarring examples of these is when he first enters the play, As You Like It, and tries to escort
Sarah Cantler away to see her father, The Duke. I can’t see how this could have possibly been interpreted as bouncing and funny. It’s not. It should have been more restrained.
Also, there are some scenes in which the over-acting gets in the way. For instance, in his "7 Argumental Stages" soliloquy, he should have been slightly more layered. But, he seemed to get too excited and (at the risk of sounding horribly corny) let the "over" become more important than the "acting."
2) He ignores his fellow actors. As I said before, my biggest problem was that he didn’t seem to even try to make an attempt at matching his co-stars. I’m not saying outright that he is conceited and wants every scene to focus on him. (I kinda get that impression, but I have no way of knowing.) However, he steals (this time it’s okay to use that word) every scene he’s in. But not in a good way. He detracts from the efforts of those who share the stage with them. Makes the spotlight on them grow dimmer as the one on him grows blindingly bright. Even bat-shit insane
Tony, between slurs and threats, pointed out that acting is about building chemistry, a rapport, with the other people in the play. Creating balance. That’s what it’s about. But
Jason ignored this. Maybe not purposely, but he did.
Now, in response to my insane detractors’ comments:
First of all,
Sara, I have heard from a few reliable sources that
Mr. Goddu did not expressly tell
Jason to act like that. In fact, these sources claim that
Jason ignored
Mr. Goddu’s actual direction in some cases. I dunno know if they’re right, but it’s their word against his girlfriend’s.
Second, yes, laughs are laughs regardless of how they’re achieved, but that’s a bad attitude to have. What about quality? The geniuses behind Jackass might very well have had the same philosophy you do.
And he
could have played that part more quietly. For those of you who have seen The Big Lebowski, let me use that as an example. Jeff Bridges is a fine actor. He usually gives very restrained, quiet, realistic performances. The part of "The Dude" could have easily been played differently. He could have gone way over-the-top and shambled around mumbling and shouting, as if in a perpetual acid trip. But he didn’t. He played it quietly like he always does and the movie was amazing. So,
Jason didn’t have to play Touchstone with such manic enthusiasm.
And, as for you,
Tony, just try an cut me!
I have been thinking about what you said. I thought about it while watching the play, actually, even before you mentioned it. You may be right. I was under the belief that
Jason, by over-acting, hurt the overall play, and detracted from his co-stars’ performances. I felt that he should have given a more restrained performance. In this way, the acting of those around him would have at least seemed better
in comparison, if it did not actually improve. But, as you say, it might very well be the opposite. If he hadn’t over-acted, maybe those around him would have had even less energy. Maybe by going so far over the top,
Jason was compensating for the others and giving them a zest for acting at the same time. If this is the case, then
Jason, unwittingly or no, saved the entire play. Boy, if that is actually true, will my face be red.
Also, I believe I said in my last post that I thought
Jason’s portrayal of Touchstone was in many ways ideal. If everyone acted that well, and that expressively, I would have had no problem.
So, in the end, all I said was that
Jason, though he gave a great performance, ignored his co-stars and for me, hurt the play.
There.
Now that that is out of the way, I’d like to take this time to yell at those people who got angry with my review, and damn them for forcing my hand at this over-wrought, pompous re-cap/apology.
I hate critics. I have long believed them to be bitter people who only comment negatively on what they have failed at themselves. I hate all you commentators for turning me into one of them.
I’m nowhere near the actor
Frank is. I don’t think I’m a terrible actor. (I used to, but then I took a theatre class and realized that, by comparison, I’m not bad.) But still, I don’t think I have a right to criticize what
Mike and
Jason did when I cannot do that myself. But, as I say, I had to.
To defend my opinion.
And that’s what all this rambling boils down to. Opinion.
You people need to realize that you cannot hate a person for feeling a certain way about something. Nor can you hate them for expressing themselves.
I liked
Jason’s performance in the Clearing. He was perfect. Many people felt this way. However, those same people could have said that
Tony's performance was over-the-top, Trisha’s was dreary,
EJ’s was uneven, and mine was bland and lifeless. (Keep in mind, for all those of you who say I was bland and lifeless, I did imagine my character as a robot.) Anyway, what I’m getting at is that maybe they’d be right in saying that. Who knows? It’s all opinion. And I wouldn’t hate them for criticizing me, even harshly. Especially if I wasn’t forced to hear or read their remarks.
And I can’t see why people got so angry at me anyway. Especially you,
Mike. I mean, sure I got kinda insulting. But
I figured I was goofy and likeable enough to be forgiven, and I hate myself.
However, it seems that by focusing the spotlight of my blog on them to such an extent I have insulted them more. It strikes me as worse to devote so much time to something which really is not very important, and, in the process, insult more people, than it would have been to just leave the matter closed. I think that by talking about them this much, especially
Jason, in such a critical manner on a publication which he will probably not read or respond to, I have done them a greater disservice than I did by misjudging their work.
And, also, if I did seem harsh or bitter in my reviews of either of you, it's probably due to a large extent to jealousy and unrequited lust.
Uh . . .
So, in case it hasn’t been clear:
I am sorry to have insulted you,
Jason and
Mike, you who I call my friends . . . or . . . uh . . . casual acquaintances. I hope this doesn’t adversely affect our . . . uh . . . casual acquaintance-ship.
And, for everyone still offended by my opinions, and not at all softened by my mostly sincere explanations and words of contrition, I have but one thing to say.
You mother is a cow.
Okay . . . uh . . . oh, right,
Sam!
See, I thought there’d be more comment about my claim that
Sam was the greatest character actor in HCHS history than about my insul– I mean review of
Jason Frank.
When reading that remark praising
Sam, you must take two essential facts into account. Fact one: I have seen, in my 19 years on this planet, all of five Holyoke Catholic performances. So, when making my observation, I can only compare
Sam to the past five years’ worth of actors. Fact B:
Sam is my brother.
In many cases, when a level-headed person comes into some seat of power, they purposely avoid favoring their flesh and blood, even if said flesh and blood deserve favoring. No one knows this better than
Adam Goddu. His father holds all the power in casting the plays. As such,
Adam has been denied lead roles (which he richly deserves) because he is the director’s son.
Mr. Goddu knows
Adam is a good enough actor for a lead role, as do most people. But the thought that he got the lead because his father is the director would be unavoidable, even for people who know he deserves it. I think it was this way for Tim, too. The Goddu brothers that I know are both talented actors. So, what I’m trying to say is that many people, if in a favorable position, are conscientious enough not to engage in the spoils system.
I, clearly, am not level-headed. You all know this. And so, when the time came for me to praise
Sam I said, "What the fuck?" and threw caution and good sense out the window, off a cliff, into a pool of lava with cinder blocks around their ankles.
Is
Sam the greatest character actor in HCHS history? Who knows? This, once more, is a matter of opinion. My mother, and many other decent people, would argue hotly that
Jason Frank is the greatest performer in HCHS history. Ever. Some might argue that I’m the funniest person in HCHS history. (That "some" would probably be just me.) Others might raise the point that
Brendan Smith is the best singer/songwriter in HCHS history. And who’s to say these people aren’t all right?
I know this much:
Sam is a talented actor. He’s funny, he’s expressive, he learns his lines well. In my opinion, the best actors in As You Like It were people like
Sam and
Pat and
Las Saras. They performed, for lack of a better word, perfectly. They didn’t go overboard, but they weren’t shy at all either. They just perfectly fit the roles.
Now, I’m not even sure what the hell a character actor is. Going by the definitions I’ve heard, all actors are character actors. In my statement, I was speaking only of Catholic, and considering any actors who had flattish, smallish parts as character actors. I was a character actor. I was supposed to be an arrogant judge. That was it. One scene of arrogance (which I did not even properly pull off.)
Tony and
EJ and
Tara and Trisha were not character actors in the play. They played fully developed parts which demanded a full range of emotion.
So, in As You Like It, the "character actors" were people like my brother, Chelsea, Andrew Menard, and
Mike Martin.
Will Murray was a character actor in Fiddler on the Roof. So was Kate Bonci. These are the types of parts I consider "character actor" parts.
In my mind,
Sam’s performance was perfect. If anyone cares to dispute that, let them only raise a reasonable objection and give me actual evidence to support their case. Let them not say something along the lines of "He was entertaining, but was better as the wrestler. Best ever? Nah." That’s not an argument. That’s a driveled, poorly conceived opinion.
Whew . . . I think that’s it.
Wait, no, one more thought.
I have long been developing a mathematical theory to explain the level of dislike any certain person or thing is entitled to. In my mind, if a person is annoying or cruel, then they deserve to be disliked. If they are disliked by enough people then they eventually cross over (in my book) to deserving pity as well as dislike. But the people or things who deserve the most dislike accorded to them (by me, anyway) are those that are annoying, ignorant, or cruel, but are somehow well liked by the general populous.
When judging the movie
Underworld (which we’ll come to soon enough) I was operating on the perspective of one who has heard nothing but angry and irritated comments from those around him. I have never heard anyone praise the movie, and have heard very few raise an objection to the ridiculous degrading it has undergone.
Tony pointed out that many people nationwide liked the film, As such, his negative opinions are justified. But, to me, who has only heard the film put down, the pity factor came into play.
Likewise, when I heard only good things about the film Titanic, winner of a jazillion Oscars and other awards, I felt it was my duty to present an opposing opinion. I hate that movie. I would probably not dislike it as much, riddled with dewy, cloying, melodrama and poor performances though it is, if it weren’t so overrated.
So, if something is bad, dislike it. If something is bad and people like it still, hate it.
Now, this theory of mine can also be applied in the reverse. It can be applied to a person’s or a thing’s detractors. If something or someone is almost unanimously hated, the few voices who are thoughtful enough to say, "Wait a minute, it’s not that bad," should not be immediately turned on and scorned. Rather, they deserve more praise than is allotted to them. Likewise, if something is universally loved and lauded, the minute, yet fervent portion of the population which dare criticize those golden idols should not be vilified or shunned, but thanked.
So, what I’m coming to is this:
Jason, how many people have ever criticized you as an actor? Has anyone ever (aside from me) come to the brink of insulting you over a performance? I’d bet that no one ever has. Everyone loves your acting. To many, you make the Catholic plays worth attending.
Mike, how many people have ever criticized you as a performer? Has anyone ever (aside from me) come to the brink of insulting you over a song? I’d bet that no one ever has. Everyone loves your singing and demonstrations of talent. To many, you’re the most talented kid to come to Catholic in quite a few years.
Thus, when I raise an opposing voice, when I alone have the courage to say, "Wait a minute, maybe it might be this way . . ." or "I think that in reality . . ." I should not be hated for doing so. If I alone criticize your performance I should not be turned upon with such unadulterated venom. I might even go so far as to say I should be praised for my bravery and openness. I might even go so far as to say that I should be thanked.
I’m still very sorry I hurt the both of you, especially you,
Mike. And I wish I had better control of my words and didn’t let them get away from me like that. But, as I am the only one I have ever heard publicly criticize either one of you, I don’t think I should be looked upon as such a damnable fiend.
And now, let me conclude this God-awfully long and poorly organized mess before another thought crops up in the ol’ skull and I’m forced to explain it and thus make a further ass of myself.
It’s done! Let’s talk about something else.
I know! While we’re on the subject of my opinions that
Tony has bitched about, let’s recap what I said about the movie
Sin City.
Tony, that perverted, beer-guzzling, dope-smoking, Rich-stabbing maniac, was outraged that I didn’t love the film.
Here is
Tony’s gripe:
"Hmm, a pause for thought, if you would grace me. Let's accept things as they are. For someone who thinks "Underworld" (yeah, I brought it up again) is a decent movie for what it is, you are awfully critical, Rich. A perfect book to movie translation is simply NOT possible; I think Sin City should be appreciated as a film alone, no matter how well you know the work behind it."His major-- well, only problem with my thoughts on
Sin City was that I didn’t think it was a faithful enough adaptation to the books upon which it was based. He thought it should have been viewed as a film alone, completely irrespective of the graphic novels which provided its source material. He also reminded me (a low attack, in my opinion) that I had said
Underworld wasn’t that bad a movie. His reasoning was that, if I had the stomach to view
Underworld without vomiting, I shouldn’t have been so hard on
Sin City. If
Underworld was okay in my book that would logically mean that
Sin City must have been the greatest thing I had ever seen.
And I’m not saying he’s totally wrong on this one.
His argument does make sense . . . in the same way a syllogism makes sense. It fits logically, but with a little real-world understanding, it all falls to pieces.
Both
Underworld and
Sin City were based on comic books. The most important difference between them when reviewing them as films Rich-style, is the manner in which they used their source material.
I had never read the
Underworld comic books. I don’t even know if they share the same title. All I know is that it was mentioned in Wizard magazine when they announced the movie.
The makers of
Underworld never attempted to be overly faithful to the books, (as far as I know.) They never claimed they were being exact. In this way, I judged
Underworld as a movie, without any thought to the books. It wasn’t a great movie, or even a good movie, really. However, among my core of friends, it is far more defiled than it deserves to be. It may not be great, but it no where near as bad as
Tony pretends it is.
Tony said
Sin City should be judged as a film alone? He is completely wrong.
The biggest boast the makers of
Sin City had was not the amazing visuals, or the stellar cast, or the pitch perfect soundtrack. No, the aspect of the film Rodriguez and Miller, and, subsequently, everyone who reported on the film bragged about the most was how accurate it was to the source material. They claimed it was not an adaptation but a translation. Rodriguez wanted to put the comic book on the screen panel for panel as it was printed. Because of this do I judge the film by the standards of the comic. In other cases
Tony might have been right. The film might have stood alone. But here they deliberately boasted how devoutly faithful they were to the source. They were asking to be assessed in comparison to the comic book.
And so, when some scenes which I thought completed the individual stories were removed and other scenes from different stories were patched in inexplicably, I became understandably upset.
When they arbitrarily (and for the worst) changed the chronological order of the stories, I was reasonably miffed.
And my biggest problem with these changes was that they were entirely unnecessary, and completely for the worst. If they had done their little patch-work job and made the plots more intriguing, the characters more developed, and the movie better as a whole, I wouldn’t have minded so much. No, every time the deviated from the source, they did so at the expense of the film.
And my other problem was that when you’re reading the comic book it’s a lot more believable. When you read some of the lines the characters deliver, odd thought they may be, they do not instill laughs. When you see some of Miller’s violent stark black and white drawings, excessive though they may be, they are given, through Miller’s earnest work, a sense of dignity.
In the film, many scenes (Bruce Willis escaping from being hanged) and characters (That
Yellow bastard) become laughable.
It hurt me to see what should have been exciting and scary reduced to cheap comic relief.
Plus, as I said, the graphic novels somehow carry within them a feeling of honesty and somber cool. Most of the actors in the film could not convey this. Bruce Willis, Jessica Alba, Josh Hartnett– they were all crushed under the weight of their parts and the characters suffered. In my opinion, only Mickey Rourke fully captured the character he was trying to play.
The film was glorious in its visual imagery. I never said otherwise. And the actors, whether they pulled off their parts or not, gave strong performances. (Mickey Rourke, for me at least, would make the film worthwhile were it as bad as
Tony accuses Underworld of being.) And I can absolutely appreciate the genuine humor that Rodriguez and Miller managed to put into such a dark production.
I never said I disliked the movie.
All I said was that, by its own standards, it should have been better.
However,
Tony’s perspective on the film was perfectly respectable as well.
You see, comic book fan though he is,
Tony rarely strays outside of his beloved Marvel. As such, he had not read the
Sin City books, and could only judge the movie by itself.
Furthermoreover, I alone among my friends, with my extra free time and subscriptions to Entertainment Weekly and Wizard, have my finger on the pulse of Hollywood . . . especially the comic book section of Hollywood. Thus,
Tony couldn’t be expected to know about all the claims of the film, about how the makers bragged endlessly of its faithfulness to the source, if he had never read an article on it.
So Tony commented his feelings on my review.
That was fine.
So here’s a thought on comic book movies in general:
I hate when film makers take a comic book movie and try to make it like any other film, but use the fact that it’s based on a comic book as an excuse for low quality.
The best example of this is with the new
Punisher film.
The writers and director attempted to make another action/revenge thriller. But, because it was based on a comic book, they felt it was okay to have wholly unbelievable characters, bad dialogue, worse acting, and cliched plot developments. However, the old
Punisher movie, with Dolph Lungdren, is a much better movie than people gave it credit for. Largely because it revels in the fact that it’s based on a comic book. It doesn’t try to play by the rules of normal movies and then blame its roots for the bad results. It, like the titular avenger, plays by its own rules. There are mute ninja hotties and delightfully trite mobsters. There are inexplicable escapes and gadgets. The
Punisher’s informant is a shady, British ex-thespian who’s now a shady British drunk. In one scene, Dolph lures the poor sot to a prearranged location with a bottle of Bourbon balanced on the back of a remote control car. The new film had touches of this illogical, escapist fancy in the characters of the two hitmen assigned to bring the Big P down. The first, a gravelly-voiced minstrel of death, Harry Heck, and the second a mountain of sadistic, grinning, watery-eyed mania, the Russian. And these were the best parts of the crummy picture.
See? Wholly unbelievable, wholly comic-book-esque. Completely shameless and absolutely fabulous.
This can also work in reverse. If film-makers set out to make a movie based on a comic book, but keep it from being comic-book-like in an attempt to make a grander film, then they too run into trouble Take
The Hulk, for example. Through this, Ang Lee was trying to make a thoughtful statement, heavy in metaphor, about repressed childhood memories and the dangers of holding back our anger, coupled with the sheer beauty but perilous isolation of living in the desert, and also mankind’s carelessness with invention. This is all well and good. However, the medium through which he expressed this noble vision was a movie about a big, angry green guy who bashes tanks on a sand dune and then snaps the neck of a giant, rabid poodle.
Ang made a decent film, but, it, while never using its comic-book roots as an excuse, nonetheless strayed from those roots and was a pretty flopping disappointment.
Comic-book movies should accept the fact that they’re based on something very few people take serious, and then be themselves, making no apologies or grand statements.
So, when Tobey Maquire calls Willem Dafoe "Gobby," in
Spiderman, that’s comic book movies at their best.
Keeping with the subject at hand, I’m sure that plenty of my friends and readers have been bored and confused over my reappearing comments on comic books. Most likely, only
Dan and
Tony can understand or appreciate what I say. However, that will not stop me from covering my next topic (which may turn into another werewolf/vampire debate), which comic book publisher is better,
Marvel or
DC?
Only one who can distinguish the various titles each company publishes could have any sort of perspective on this particular debate.
Marvel Comics, the creative force behind such popular titles as The Uncanny X-Men, The Amazing Spiderman, The Incredible Hulk, The Avengers, The Punisher, and Daredevil, began, endured, and thrived due to the efforts of mainly two men, Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, who were the geniuses behind four of the above six comic books. In recent years, new Marvel CEO Avi Arad has made groundbreaking achievements in Hollywood, saving the company from the brink of bankruptcy by licensing the titles to movie producers. As far as popular culture goes, people are exposed to Marvel characters more often than those of DC, mainly because of all the new movies out there.
DC, or Detective Comics, has long lacked much of Marvel’s creative and innovative, if sometimes reckless spirit. They have a longer, more "noble" heritage in the comic book industry. In addition, they are the creators of the most iconic comic book heroes, the ones which have become timeless pieces of Americana. These are generally their big three, Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman. You may also know some other famous DC titles, such as The Green Lantern and The Flash. At DC, there was a solid separation between those who created the comics, Bill Finger and Bob Kane on Batman, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster on Superman, and those who marketed and distributed the comics. Also, DC was lucky to have many skilled artists and writers, as opposed to the more Stan-Lee-centric Marvel.
Over the years the two companies have competed bitterly for the attention of adolescent boys everywhere. Both companies reportedly infiltrated each other with spies and informants. Throughout their 50 years in the business, they have copied and stolen and sabotaged one another. However, they have also cooperated for worthy causes, and, in the spirit of friendship, have masterminded huge cross-overs, in which the characters from both Universes blended together.
In the mid-‘80's, they have adopted the more indie-comic mentality of targeting adults as well as kids. And, due to fine work by skilled people on both sides, comics are more popular now than ever.
Each company has its merits and its faults. But I have always liked DC the best.
For starters, in a broad sense, DC has always been darker and more serious. It’s true, in the ‘50's, ‘60's, and 70's, both comic publishers swerved dangerously close to uncondonably campy, but, through it all, DC has continued on with a sort of grim dignity and set purpose. Marvel has always struck me as being too colorful, wild, and flamboyant. DC’s iconic characters usually limit themselves to dull subdued colors, Superman’s noble red, blue, yellow, Batman’s gothic black and grey, the earnest verdant shades of Green Lantern and Green Arrow. Marvel’s favorite sons and daughters are more garish and, almost silly and disrespectful in their coloring.
Marvel’s heroes owe their powers largely to radiation, as most of their titles came out right at the crescendo of the Atomic Age wave. The Hulk, Spiderman, Daredevil, all granted abnormal abilities from radioactive substances. This explanation strikes me as forced in monster movies, and it strikes me as forced now. DC heroes gain their powers in seemingly more contrived and dignified ways. (That’s if they have powers at all.) Many of DC’s heroes rely on skills we all could attain to fight evil. Batman, The Green Arrow, The Sandman, The Blue Beetle 2– DC has the greater number of normal characters.
Because I long for comics to be appreciated by all, and taken seriously as literary works, DC’s quiet, somber themes appeal to me more than the wacky ones of Marvel.
Another aspect of the DC Universe that I find appealing is how under control it always seems.
There are many characters, but not an obscene amount.
There are usually clearly defined levels of those characters, first, second, third, and so on, tiers. Thus, exploration into the mythologies always turns up heroes and villains you’d like to hear more about and who could possibly be called into play for later comics.
To me, the Marvel Universe is WAY to big. It’s bright, gaily colored expanses encompass a seemingly infinite amount of characters and worlds. It seems constantly slipping and sloshing over the edges of its taxed container, like water in a hastily carried, overfull bucket. Moreover, it seems that if anymore characters are added, the thing will soon burst at the seams.
However, comic book experts point out that there are two problems with comics today. They both deal with lack of originality. First, comic creators are lazy about inventing new characters. Most of the characters in comics today have been around for at least 40 years. But, these long-standing icons were once new themselves. Fans, while they love the old characters, long for new, interesting heroes and villains to read about. In this aspect, Marvel does need to be praised. Of the two big companies, Marvel has always been dreaming up new characters. DC is far more reluctant to deviate from their 70 years of tradition.
However, the second problem in comics today is the refusal to leave dead characters dead. Both companies constantly kill off their characters for cheap thrills and then shamelessly bring them back to life so as not to break from routine and to save well-tested draws. However, as Marvel is constantly inventing new characters as well, it gets out of hand.
Think of a country with an almost non-existent death-rate, but a booming birth rate.
Those are all my general reasons for preferring Dc.
There are but two specific areas I wish to touch on tonight. If this carries over into a debate, which I’m half hoping it won’t, because I’m tired, I’ll address other aspects of the two companies. Tonight, though, just the two.
Firstly, villains:
They say a hero is only as good as his villain, and I agree heartily with that. Both Marvel and DC have their share of truly threatening and engrossing evil doers, and they both have plenty of annoying, seemingly harmless wastes of ink. However, I feel that DC has the more dangerous, more serious villains. This follows logically enough. If it is less whimsical and, for lack of a better word, silly, than Marvel in general, than its characters are obviously more "respectable."
The villains in the Marvel Comics are, for the most part, there are exceptions, the take-over-the-world type villains that are so common in science fiction.
You got some, like Bullseye, who are scary cool, and others, like Doctor Doom, who are untouchable badasses. But, for the most part, the villains aren’t all that intriguing.
DC’s villain situation I can sum up with two words: The Joker. He is simply the best comic book villain of all time. If written properly, he can be this thrilling blend of hilarious and terrifying. Moreover, the character itself is so engrossing. Throughout the years he, as Batman’s perfect, evil foil, has accrued more levels of depth than perhaps the Dark Knight himself. Perhaps the scariest thing about the Joker is his anonymity. No one knows who he is or exactly how he came to be this way, so violently, unpredictably insane. The entire Batman Rogues Gallery is wonderful. I don’t know what is about DC villains. They just strike me as being more threatening, more real, and much deeper.
The second area I wish to use as comparison is that of the alternate reality comic books. I don’t know which of the two companies developed this concept first and which stole the idea, perhaps they each developed it separately. I’m pretty sure its creation was inevitable, though. Some comic book writer is sitting in an office thinking to himself, "I have these great characters that everybody loves, but the settings and scenarios stay the same. I need a way to liven things up. I need a way to keep the beloved characters, but change the way you look at them. I need a way to further investigate these complex heroes and villains. And so he realizes what a fantastic idea it would be to put the characters in a different setting, sometimes very close to home, sometimes surreal and unbelievable.
Both companies have series which do this, from time to time, while the real mythology of the comics progress in other books. For DC the series is simply a collection of books which have nothing in common save that they take characters from the Detective Comics Universe and alter the realities in which they exist. Maybe they’ll depict the Justice League of America in a Knights of the Round Table situation. Perhaps they’ll show one of several possible futures for the DCU, or perhaps they’ll slightly alter one thing about the history of a character and see where this new mythology leads. These stories are all classified under the collective title "Elseworlds Tales."
For Marvel, the most popular alternate reality series is a continuing title called, "What If . . ."
The idea behind this one is the creators at Marvel take one character or event in the Marvel Universe, and ask what would happen if one thing, and only one thing, were changed.
At the risk of sounding biased and mean, the What If stories are crap.
You see, every Elseworlds Tale is as long as a graphic novel. This gives the authors time to fully examine the differences in this situation, and fully develop the new characters. What is more, they don’t try to change only one aspect of the mythology, they completely alter the entire story-line. There are similarities, of course, and that is what allows you to see the characters in a different light, but the writers and artists are not at all limited.
Whereas, in the What if stories, they claim to change one variable, as one would an experiment, and then see where it leads. However, they already have a destination in mind, and so change anything they want for arbitrary reasons. In one in which they ask "What if Uncle Ben lived and Aunt may died?" they pretend to change just that fact, but then, for the sake of their projected story line, have Spidey get "caught in traffic,""because . . . uh . . . it’s different this time," and make other such inexcusable changes. The whole series is riddled with fallacies and contradictions, including the concept itself. Change one thing, see where it leads. The writers change anything they damn well please. That’d be fine, if they admitted to it. And the What If books are a short as a normal comic book. This leaves little time for exploration into the newly defined characters, and even less time for excitement. So, most seem flat, bland, and boring. Perhaps the worst aspect of the What If line is that they almost always end up at the same destination as the "real-life" comic book mythology. "What if Xavier never founded the X-Men?" They all get together under Xavier at the end, that’s what. "What if Uncle Ben lived and Aunt May died?" Spidey would be exactly the same, that’s what. The idea of an alternate reality novel is to explore the familiar characters. To look at them in a different light. But with the What If’s, it’s almost as if the message is, "These characters could never be changed. Don’t try to get any new insight other than that our characters are formulaic and boring."
So, I have no hope whatsoever of converting
Tony to the D Side, but I hope this’ll give you all an understanding as to why I love DC.
And maybe a debate will ensue.
Damn. My neck is stiff.
That's all for now. But expect another update later today. I woulda crammed it all into this one, but lengthy blog entries are cumbersome and difficult to edit, not to mention read.
So,
Current Mood: Expectant.
Current Music: Carry On Jeeves, by P.G. Wodehouse (book on tape.)
