Easter Morning - William Stafford (Poem)

First, a quick refresher for those of us who haven't read poetry in a while and may have forgotten the basic process when discovering a new poem.  Step 1 - Read the title.  It is easy to skip this step, but don't.  Step 2 - Read the poem out loud, pausing only when punctuation dictates, not at the end of each line, i.e.:

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,

And sorry I could not travel both

And be one traveler, long I stood... 

Should be read as, "Two roads diverged in a yellow wood [pause] and sorry I could not travel both and be one traveler [pause] long I stood..." with no pause between "both" and "And".  It is not always necessary to pause for commas followed by quotation marks.  Do not try to add emotion to the poem; the words will do that themselves.  Step 3 - Reflect on the general impression the poem gave you.  This could include identifying the tone.  Step 4 - Reread the poem to determine what is literally happening or being described.  For example, here we would say that a man is literally in a wood trying to chose a path.  Step 5 - Look for deeper meaning; this should include both what you believe the author is trying to communicate as well as your personal interpretation.  It is entirely possible that you will see something of worth in the poem the author never intended; do not panic, this is normal.  This is where with Frost's poem we would say the roads symbolize life decisions, but also ask ourselves what else they could be interpreted as.  Step 6 - Fail to get your friends as excited about the poem as you are.  Step 7 - Have the thought, "Poetry doesn't seem too hard."  Step 8 - Write your own poetry.  Step 9 - Rereading your poetry and feel whatever pride you may have in it dissolve as you realize you are simply copying the poem you most recently fell in love with.  Step 10 - Forget you like reading poetry for a few years, stumble across a fantastic new poem, then promptly begin again at Step 1.

Well, that got a little...autobiographical.  No matter, without further ado I present this week's great work:  (Don't forget the poem process!)

Easter Morning

Maybe someone comes to the door and says,

"Repent," and you say, "Come on in," and it's

Jesus.  That's when all you ever did, or said,

or even thought, suddenly wakes up again and

sings out, "I'm still here," and you know it's true.

You just shiver alive and are left standing

there suddenly brought to account: saved.

Except, maybe that someone says, "I've got a deal

for you."  And you listen, because that's how

you're trained--they told you, "Always hear both sides."

So then the slick voice can sell you anything, even

Hell, which is what you're getting by listening.

Well, what should you do?  I'd say always go to

the door, yes, but keep the screen locked.  Then,

while you hold the Bible in one hand, lean forward

and say carefully, "Jesus?"

This is William Stafford.  Who else would it be??

Notice the language here; it is not flowery, it's not even what most of us would consider "poetic".  Why?  I consider it a masterpiece of the simplistic.  It is not only an entertaining and accessible read, it is also useful.  How do we navigate through competing religious voices in our lives?  Are these things even important?  This poem not only explores these ideas, but it gives advise which is a pragmatic without being didactic.  Not an easy feat, especially in poetry.  For me, personally, I can feel my mind expanding as I read this poem.  My favorite line is, "they told you, 'Always hear both sides.'" because it's so true.  I have been trained to do that--which is probably a good thing overall--but I have never really considered the possible danger in doing so.  Also note that in a poem of just a few hundred words the word, "suddenly" is used twice.  Don't think for a moment that wasn't intentional.  What about the described encounters here could be seen as "sudden?"  There's a lot more I could say about this poem, but by following Steps 1-5 of the guide, you will be able to learn much more than anyone other than yourself could possibly tell you about the poem.  I leave further interpretation in your capable hands.

-MA 11.26.2012

Technically Not a Review: Determining the Value of Art for Ourselves

Note: As the title suggests, this is not technically a review.  But it is enough like one that I can present it here.  It is a paper I just finished for my persuasive writing class.  Enjoy!

Determining the Value of Art for Ourselves

The quality and value of various art pieces has been debated for thousands of years.  Everyone has different expectations of what art should be and from what sources good art can be found.  However, people generally agree that the search for such art is noble and important for both individuals and society as a whole.  The question of what makes art “good” or “bad” is a complicated one and (much to the chagrin of opinionated individuals such as myself) probably has no definite answer.  Instead of making arbitrary value judgments, examining which works of art are more or less enriching to an individual is a more pragmatic and achievable goal.  Through careful self-reflection a person can discover what art will be better or worse for them personally.  Too often people pre-judge art based on its genesis and their expectations; this causes them to spend their time—and often their money—on art that is not as enriching as other art would be, as well as causing them to miss opportunities to be enriched by art which they have judged to be of no value.

Consider this evocative monologue, which has been deliberately removed from context: “The question that once haunted my being has been answered.  The future is not fixed, and my choices are my own.  Destiny has one great test in store for us all.  Has mine already come, and have I failed it?.... A deed once done cannot be undone, but it may yet be mitigated.”  This quote poses interesting philosophical questions, leading one to consider his own past actions and experiences.  Reflection on this may lead a person to ask if there is a “great test” lying in wait at some point in his life, or if he has already faced it.  If he feels he is still preparing for such a test, this may even stand as a wake-up call, helping him understand that he will want to be ready when that time comes.  When I first heard these words I was a child, too young to fully understand their significance, and certainly too young to know what the word “mitigated” meant; but still, they had a profound impact on me.  At the very least I gathered that my decisions were important, and that I would have to live with the choices I had made after the fact.  It may be surprising to those unfamiliar with this monologue to know it was delivered by an introspective, gravely-voiced, fifteen-foot tall, half-raptor/half-robot transformer named Dinobot, a character in the Canadian children’s cartoon series Transformers: Beast Wars.  

I wonder if this thing has an RSS feed.

In 1995, two cartoon scriptwriters—Bob Forward and Larry DiTillio—where asked by Hasbro and the animation company Mainframe to create a television show loosely based on the 1980’s Transformers cartoon.  Transformers was a dying franchise at the time, so Forward and DiTillio were chosen for their acclaimed work on similar shows and given free-reign to do whatever they wanted with the series within reason.  They created new characters and set the show in another time period in order to give themselves room for their ideas and creativity.  In the first episode, an exploring team is shot down by an enemy war vessel, each travel back in time during the accident and crash-land on a prehistoric world.  They then go on to wage the Beast Wars, named such because on this planet they must transform into animals instead of the usual cars and planes.  This may sound like typical sci-fi fanfare—and in many ways it is—but infused within are layers of careful thought and more than a few memorable characters.  Forward and DiTillio worked within the framework of a small budget and very limited resources, but by focusing on what they could do rather than what they couldn’t, they created a show that would go on to be a cult classic with a strong following.  In the Beast Wars featurette “Remembering the Spark”, Forward and DiTillio explain how they wanted to deal with complex issues like military intrigue and treason, philosophical questions such as the need to fight against tyrants despite a desire for passivism, and of course, as Dinobot’s earlier quote explains, the place of fate and destiny in the lives of the characters.  They gave the robots souls (called sparks), conflicting desires, and individual ideas about warfare and honor.  They effectively created a many-layered world in which to explore different situations and concepts. 

Even though DiTillio and Forward knew they were trying to make something new and interesting, they admit they didn’t realize how special many fans felt Beast Wars was until later on.  Years after its final season, DiTillio said of the show, “It all came together in Beast Wars.  That was the thing I got many, many letters on…. [about] episodes that had touched people’s hearts.”  And Bob Forward remarked: “When I meet fans [now], and they just tell me how much… [Beast Wars] meant to them, I almost want to cry.  I almost want to apologize.  I almost want to say, ‘I’m sorry! A lot of the time I was just jamming something out [against a deadline].  If I’d known it was going to affect you this much I would have tried harder at it.’  But still, I think the sort of free-swinging, swashbuckling spirit that Beast Wars had made it…. [That] gave it part of its charm.”  The two worked on the show for the entirety of its run, and fifteen years after it’s release, DVD sets of its three seasons are still being printed and purchased (quite a feat for such a small-budget endeavor), the characters and plot lines are still actively discussed on web-forums, and some of the voice actors are still attending animation conventions to meet fans, sign memorabilia, and speak on public panels where—in addition to dialoguing and answering questions—they re-enact scenes or improvise as favorite characters from the show.  

I am not ashamed to say (nor am I alone in saying) that it is one of the most personally important pieces of art I’ve encountered in my life.  It changed how I see the world and how I see art.  There is an ethereal, ineffable quality to some of the finest episodes that is at once unmistakable to the astute viewer and very difficult to describe.  I am by no means sounding the battle-call to encourage the reader to seek out and experience Beast Wars for himself; more simply, I would like to elucidate how something of great artistic value to me came from a source as improbable as a children’s cartoon about transforming robots.  Because of what it is—a computer animated TV show for children—many people might never take the time to consider it, judging it as not for them or not of worth.  Even more likely, they will never hear of it, for the following is large, but by no means to the point of being pervasive.  Even if a person does happen to start the series based on a favorable review or the recommendation of a friend, he might turn it off after the first cheesy voice-over, dated rock guitar riff, or awkwardly animated fight scene, never revealing what is to be found beyond the superficial glance because he had simply not expected to find anything of worth.

Conversely, many millions of people have spent the time and the money to see director Michael Bay’s 2007-2009 Transformers movie franchise despite over-whelmingly negative reviews by professional critics.  The second film in the series, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, received a rating of 3.5/10 from the media review website Metacritic and only 21/100 from Rotten Tomatoes, both sites give an average score based on dozens of professional reviews.  Regarding the quality of the film, respected film critic Roger Ebert said:  “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” is a horrible experience of unbearable length…. To save yourself the ticket price, go into the kitchen, cue up a male choir singing the music of hell, and get a kid to start banging pots and pans together.  Then close your eyes and use your imagination.  The plot is incomprehensible.  The dialog of the Autobots®, Decepticons® and Otherbots® is meaningless word flap…. The human actors are in a witless sitcom part of the time, and a lot of the rest of their time is spent running in slo-mo away from explosions.”  I could include hundreds of similar reviews and statistics from other critics and websites about all three films, but the point is clear: despite record-breaking viewership and undeniable financial success, the films were not well received by professionals. 

The creation of Bay’s Transformers films was very different from that of Beast Wars.  The project began as a live-action film about G.I. Joe, but after the war in Afghanistan began Hasbro and Dreamworks Pictures decided a Transformers film would be more timely.   One man wrote the first draft based on ideas by Steven Spielberg and Don Murphy, then two other screen-writers were asked to re-write it including ideas by Spielberg, Murphy, Tom DeSanto and a number of others involved in the project.  Spielberg felt the focus should be a responsibility motif about a boy and his car, Murphy was interested in the films mirroring some of the disaster films that had been popular around that time, and DeSanto explained that he wanted to produce the movie because he believed a truck transforming into a robot had not yet been captured on film, and that people would like to see it.  At this point Spielberg asked Michael Bay to direct.  Bay admitted he was not excited about the project, dismissing it as a “stupid toy movie,” but agreed because he had always wanted to work with Spielberg.  Once Bay came on he explained that he was interested in making a movie with a lot of military action and asked for the script to be re-written again.  He also expressed interest in the novelty of watching cars transform in live action, stating, “By adding more doo-dads and stuff on the robots, more car parts, you can just make it more real.”  In counterpoint to the two-man team who had a clear vision of the concepts they wanted to include, dozens of individuals had their fingers in the Transformers pie.  This is not inherently negative, but it’s easy to see how such a development might lend hand to the incoherency many critics have complained about, and how it could decrease the probability of the viewer finding something truly enriching.

Interestingly, all three of the recent Transformers films are on the list of the fifty highest-grossing films of all time.  The third installment alone generated over a billion dollars at the box-office, not including DVD and associated merchandise sales.  A strong case could be made that the films are not as bad as the reviewers say, that the public has voted with their money and declared the films to be the kind of art they want, or even that “good” and “bad” are irrelevant in what people choose to watch.  But please keep in mind I am not suggesting these films should not be enjoyed, or that anyone who likes them is wrong to do so.  What I am suggesting is that because these were high-budget Hollywood films staring attractive and recognizable actors, many of the general public assumed before ever seeing them that they were worth the money and time required and never fully considered the potential benefit of seeking out something better for themselves.

           

The question of how much art affects us is central to my claim that seeking out more enriching art is important and worth the time and effort; if it does have a considerable effect, then of course people would want to intake more enriching art, but if it does not, than anything that entertains will suffice for artistic needs.  Serial rapist and murder Ted Bundy claimed that pornography played a serious role in his interest in murder, and many other convicted criminals have expressed similar sentiments.  In their point of view, what they took in had a serious impact on them.  Certainly not everyone who has viewed pornographic material has gone on to become a serial killer, but it is striking evidence that we should carefully decide what art to focus on.  In the 2009 documentary Kimjongillia, which documents the real-life stories of North Korean prison camp survivors, one young man relates the emotional account of his escape at the age of twenty-four.  He was born in the camp and lived there his entire life until he was assigned a new duty in one of the more secluded areas.  It was during this time he had the following experience:  “There were smuggled books circulating in our camp.  The Count of Monte Cristo.  Anna Karenina.  Resurrection.  I think The Count of Monte Cristo touched me the most.  Reading Monte Cristo gave me the idea to escape North Korea.  [And] if I ever got out, I would take revenge like him.”  For this young man, art had a very dramatic impact; it opened up new possibilities to him, and indeed, went on to change nearly every aspect of his life.  He escaped in the early 2000’s and is still alive today, consider how his life might be different if instead of thought-provoking and enriching books circulating the camp, there were only base thrillers, formula romances, or—Heaven forbid—a 90-page Scholastic novelization of the second Transformers movie.  These are extreme examples, of course, dealing with situations and actions the vast majority of us will never face or be in, but the concept is sound.  If art has such an ability to change us, and if each of us will react differently to different art pieces, then we should take great care to intake the kinds of art that will be most personally enriching, and not through laziness or ignorance take the course of least resistance by seeking out only the art that is most popular and easily accessible.

           

It is my firm opinion that many of the people who have enjoyed the Transformers films may not be fully analyzing their worth, or, potentially, lack thereof.  Not everyone will gain as much as I have from the Beast Wars series, but it is important to ask ourselves—outside the framework of popularity and funding—where we will find value in art.  And if anyone feels that they have wasted time and money on art of lesser worth, they need not despair.  There is still time; it may yet be mitigated.

- MA 11.19.2012

Something Special

No, no.  I'm not getting lazy about posting.  I have something kind of a special in store for today's entry, but it won't be ready until late this evening.  Check back tomorrow!  In the meantime, here is a humorous gif:

I admire how unfazed she seems.  Perhaps this has happened before.

-MA 11.19.12 

The Face That Must Die - Ramsey Campbell (Novel)

Before getting down to the book itself, allow me to introduce the author.  That he even needs to be introduced is a shame.  I am not the first to sing the song of Campbell's unmatched ability.   Ramsey Campbell is widely considered to be one of the best (if not the best) horror writer currently active.  Normally, I stay away from what other reviewers have said about the work I'm examining, and I'm going to keep that tradition up, I will, however, include some quotes about the writer himself:

"Britain's most respected horror writer."
-Oxford Companion

"Campbell writes the most terrifying horror tales of anyone now alive." -Twilight Zone Magazine 

"Campbell is literature in a field which has attracted too many comic-book intellects, cool in a field where too many writers--myself included--tend toward painting melodrama.  Good horror writers are quite rare, and Campbell is better than just good." -Steven King 

"Ramsey Campbell is one of the modern masters of horror...He has a genius for infusing horror into the everyday, piling up small moments of dread and confusion and fear until they become insurmountable." -Tim Pratt, Locus

"The greatest living writer of horror fiction." -Vector

"Ramsey Campbell is the best of us all." - Poppy Z. Brite*

"The best horror writer alive, period." - Thomas Tessier

"The most sophisticated and highly regarded of British horror writers." - Financial Times

I could go on, and believe me, I'm tempted to.  But I think you get the idea.  Of his multitude of books, there are thousands upon thousands of positive reviews.  Most of them go beyond the average, "So scary I had to leave the lights on!" or "Skin-crawling terror!"  (Whatever that means.)  You get the sense in reading these reviews that there is something not being expressed.  Absolute phrases like "greatest" and "most" are rarely used in the world of review, for they can sound extreme or ignorant.  And yet here we have dozens--if not hundreds--of individuals proclaiming "he is the scariest", "he is the most sophisticated", and of course "he is the best."  Of all the reviews I have read of Campbell, the one has come closest to my personal feelings, and it seems, to those who have tried to express their awe for Campbell's work is this:

"It doesn't seem enough to say that Ramsey Campbell is a master of the horror genre." - Publishers Weekly

What is it about Campbell's work that makes it so great?  First off: it's scary.  He takes his time to set the stage; he tells you all about the world the story takes place in usually long before things get truly weird.  He transforms everyday objects and scenarios into items and encounters dripping with implicate menace.  The protagonists are real; in fact, they are just like you.  For you, too, would be slow to see the danger around you in the same situations these characters are in.  You, too, would not want to believe that such horrors were even possible.  Campbell is about as far away from buckets-of-blood shock-o horror as you can get.  The books are not thrillers or spectacles.  They are private moments of sinister confusion.  They are deliberately slow.  They manipulate you more than you would like to allow.  Once, I read a line in a book of his which was innocuous at first, but when I understood the double meaning several lines later it literally took my breath away.  I was terrified by what had almost happened.  In that moment, it was not a story or a book, it was the very real possibility of a gruesome death, or worse.  I was surprised (to say the least) to find two or three tears has leaked out of my eyes.  Not tears of sadness or joy; tears of fear.  His implications alone are terrifying.

But there's a lot more than "scary" going on here.  Campbell fills his books with many different view-points.  He has a strange knack for putting you in the mind of a disturbed or insane character and making their view of the world make perfect sense; or on the other hand, in the mind of an average person in the midst of devastating horror who is blind to what is happening.  He loves to offer uncomfortable and interesting ideas and question, such as, What if you had an out-of-body experience you didn't ask for, and you couldn't control?  How might you react? Or, What if the whole world is just the dream an unimaginable being the size of the universe?  What might happen if that being woke up? And one of my personal favorites, What if God put all the dinosaur bones on the earth to test Christian faith?  Because, you know, maybe He did.

I have some complaints with Campbell.  He re-uses motifs.  He seems to have an indelible distrust of authority and policemen which I feel is unfair to many of the decent and honest individuals who serve in such positions.  His plots are not always as intricately crafted as we might want.  His books can be, at times, dense and confusing in unintended ways.  But all of this is easily forgiven in the face of his truly remarkable prose-work.  He is a master in the truest sense.  And as far as some of his less-than-impressive plots go, I simply think of Shakespeare; anyone who has studied the bard knows this is notoriously his weakest suit.  The plot sometimes doesn't matter, it's just there so we can examine the characters and marvel at the command of language.

This is as good a segue as any to the actual book I'm reviewing: The Face That Must Die.  This is considered to be one of his finest novels.  He himself believes it to be his best.  While it is not my personal favorite of his books, it is probably the second or third on my list.  Also, it is definitely not the scariest of his works.  It is, however, the one I would first recommend to a new reader of Campbell.  It's plot is immaculate, as are the characters, the language, the terror; it's all there.

It is one of his most tame books in terms of language or sexuality, but there's a little more blood than usual for Campbell.  It might be disturbing to some readers because it is quite dark, and also, it's supposed to be a comedy as well as a horror novel, which might be a turn-off for some.  This is black comedy in its highest form.

I don't think it will be a big problem to state the basic idea of the book, but I'll let you decide for yourself if you want to know what its about.  It you're not opposed to knowing the premise of the book and reading a few funny quotes, click here.  It's a very short novel.  Scarcely over 300 pages long, with pretty big font.  A person could conceivably read it in a day or two.  But the story will stay with you for a long time afterward.

Beyond the sheer skill of language and the creation of terror, one of my favorite things about this book is the plot.  It doesn't feel like a plot that someone sat down and figured out or outlined.  It reads almost like a true story.  There are not shocking twists or turns, and things tie together by the deliberate actions of an individual, not through convenient coincidences. 

So go forth, read, be horrified with a little mirth, and enjoy!

- MA 11.12.12

 *Weirdest name for a horror writer imaginable?

"Would You" - Poema (Song)

The cover of their recent album.

I recommend reading this review before seeking out the song.  You can listen to it on Spotify or similar programs, or check out the YouTube posting here.  Today's great work is "great" in a different way than the others I've posted so far.  It's basically your standard sort-of country/sort-of pop relationship song.  You might be asking yourself, "Why is this great again?" and I think a pretty solid case could be made that it isn't.  But I'm going to go ahead and say that I think it is.

Most of us, in addition to whatever else we may be, are "art-seekers", meaning we are open to new art in our lives.  Now, how open we are is a matter of degree, but for the most part people want more art that they will enjoy.  Sometimes, however, I feel that a lot of us (myself included) are less open-minded than is beneficial for us as art-seekers.  We think that if a song is a certain genre (some examples I've heard are rap, country, ska, and heavy metal, but really it could be anything) then we will not like it.  We are essentially pre-judging the piece based on how it is labeled.  This is not as assumptive as judging a person by their name, I would say it's more akin to judging them by how they are dressed.  I think (within reason) we should not just assume that an art piece will be good or bad based on genre or other label.  We not only miss out on art that we might really enjoy, but also on dynamics and points-of-view we otherwise wouldn't experience.  I really feel like there's something different to take from this than the kind of music I've been listening to for the last ten years, which has mostly been harder 90's rock.  I'm not saying this is better by any means, but that it's good to expand artistic horizons.

That said, I present to you this song by Poema, a sister duo of singer-songwriters who even play their own instruments!  I love the song "Would You" off of their new album.  I think it is sweet and interesting and honest.  Yes, it has some flaws, not the least of which being the garish grass-is-greener cliche in the first verse.  (My advice?  Pretend it isn't there.)

The song is not so complex that it needs an in-depth exploration by me, but not everything needs to be complex in order to be effective.  I do think the young woman presented in the song sounds a little more self-aware than in a lot of other pop songs like this I've heard, and the chorus is pretty catchy.  Lyrics-wise, the one part that I would like to draw your attention to is the refrain, "If you knew what to do, would you?"  This reminds me of some of the emo/pop-punk stuff I got into in high school.  Some of the earlier Brand New and Bright Eyes songs that try to layer sadness; they takes something bad and then putting something else bad on top of it.  I might be dumbing down what I'm trying to say too much here, but maybe you know what I'm talking about.  I've always thought that was an interesting lyrical effect.  Not only does the kid she's singing to not know the "right" way to behave in a relationship, she isn't even sure he would want to.  You get the feeling she could almost take his shortcomings--which admittedly seem a little innocuous for the tone of the song--if he can't help but be that way.

Live in Kansas City

Here are the lyrics, which I transcribed myself after a fruitless internet search:     

I've been looking for a confirmation.
I've been searching for a way to leave this time.
Cause I hear the grass is greener on the other side.
I've been looking for a consolation.
To give me some direction, showing me a sign.
But lately, leaving has been on my mind.
I like the way you see me, and make my bad days easy.
No one likes your singing.  But I do.

I want dinner made for two and you to make a move, but you never do.
Hold my hand in front of your friends.  
It's not a lot to ask and I shouldn't have to.
Oh darling, if you knew what to do, would you?

You've been down on love, talking about your situation.
You've been out of touch and almost out of time.
Cause I doubt we are gonna make the finish line.
I like the way you don't do things the way they most do,
except for when I need you, and you don't come through.

I want dinner made for two and you to make a move, but you never do.
Hold my hand in front of your friends.  
It's not a lot to ask and I shouldn't have to.
Oh darling, if you knew what to do, would you?

You may or may not like the song, but please judge it on its own merit and not by what genre it is.

-MA 11.5.2012


P.S.  I really like the line about holding hands, couldn't really tell you why!