Smoking Stinks!

Thank You For Smoking (the book) came out in 1994. The year I smoked my first ever cigarette. I was 17. It was a Marlboro Red. I remember thinking (somewhere between the choking and coughing): I don't feel anything. I don't get it. Am I supposed to feel something? Why do people do this? 11 years later, I found myself asking the same question: Why do people do this? Why am I doing this? I couldn't find a good enough answer, so I quit.

I made the quitting sound easy. It wasn't. Over the years, it does become a habit. It does become a part of who you are. I won't lie. I sometimes miss it. But I miss it for nostalgic reasons, in that it reminds me of being young and reckless (or maybe careless is a better word).

I guess that's my two-cents on smoking. I could go into my grandfather losing a lung--and then his life. Or the recent trip to chemotherapy where someone near and dear to my heart has been going through treatment. I'll save you (smokers) the gory details.

Let's talk about the novel, shall we?




The chapter where Nick meets the Tumbleweed Man is the most telling (and honest) chapter in the whole novel. Did it not feel real? For a large chunk of this novel, it feels like sharp, biting satire--where people and situations are grossly exaggerated for comic affect. We can assume Oprah had a show on smoking, but was it like it played out in the novel? Or the Larry King show? Did a lobbyist go on either show to say smoking 'retards the onset of Parkinson's disease'? Unlikely. But how hilarious it is for Nick to get away with it.

Smoking is bad. Look at what it did to the Marlboro Man. I'm guessing Chris Buckley's Tumbleweed character was based on real life Marlboro Man Wayne McLaren. After being diagnosed with cancer (at age 49), he spoke out against smoking--and Phillip Morris fought back by denying that the man even appeared in the ads. Bullshit. They later said he did appear in ads, but not as the Marlboro Man. McLaren died in 1992, at the age of 51.


I think what is so sad is the honesty of the Tumbleweed Man. He, like so many people back in the 40's and 50's, didn't know any better. The Tumbleweed Man tells Nick: "Doctors used to promote cigarettes" (179). After the first cancer scare, the tobacco companies reaction was filtered cigarettes. The Tumbleweed Man ad campaign was important, in that, it promoted the image of a tough, rugged cowboy. Filter-tips were as the Tumbleweed Man says "for pussies" (179). The Tumbleweed Man ad would toughen up the product.

In 1994, the cigarette ad campaign was under attack. The ads such as Joe Camel, were being criticized for their appeal to children. How much power does an ad have on the public? Do you believe that Joe Camel ads would get kids to smoke? What do you think of the Marlboro Man ads? Also, there's a funny moment where the Senator of Vermont is wanting to push for cigarettes to carry skull and crossbones. Thoughts on that? I know in England the packs read: Smoking Kills. Gets the message across, doesn't it?

Bibliography
Buckley, Christopher. Thank You For Smoking. New York: Random House, 2006.

Election

In novels, we get more of the inner thoughts (psychology) of the characters. In film, we get the voice-over. I've been told (when writing screenplays) to stay away from the voice-over narration. It can work. It works in Election. Goodfellas. Double Indemnity.




I can't help but think of the film Adaptation. The scene where Charlie goes to a lecture on screenwriting where Robert McKee (played by actor Brian Cox) has this to say about voice-over narration:

"And God help you if you use voice-over in your work, my friends. God help you. That’s flaccid, sloppy writing. Any idiot can write a voice-over narration to explain the thoughts of a character."

I think Alexander Payne did a fine job. He didn't abuse the voice-over. We didn't get every thought. I don't consider the writing sloppy, nor flaccid (that's insulting). What do you guys think?

Does Mr. M regret what he did with the ballots in the film? He doesn't seem to have too much remorse in tossing out the ballots in the book: 'I wish I hadn't done what I'd done, and I also wished I'd thought of a less obvious place to dispose of the ballots' (132). If he had pocketed the ballots, no one would have found out.

There are other moments in the novel where we get the thinkings and plottings of characters that don't make it into the film. Can you find them?




We talked about moments that work and moments that didn't work in the novel Election. Could you find a passage in the novel that had potential for comedy (particularly dark comedy) but fell flat? Could you find a passage that was made funny in the film?


Again, talking about what is lost in translation--or in the adaptation of a novel (or play) to a film. A film that is better than the book is rare. I read an interview with Alexander Payne (director/screenwriter or Election) where he said he likes to get unpublished works. He was nice and said he likes unpublished or ignored works because no one knows what to do with it--because they are under-appreciated for humor, character stories, etc). Another film he made that came from an unpublished novel is Sideways. I think the books aren't published because the books aren't any good. But that's me. What do you think?

Bibliography
Perrotta, Tom. Election. New York: The Berkley Publishing Group, 1998.

Get to Know Tom Perrotta

The following quote comes from a 20 questions segment from Post Road Magazine. I agree with his views on the writing workshop:

There’s a lot you can learn from workshops—how to edit other people’s work, how to accept criticism, how to gain some distance on your work. It’s great to have an audience when you’re starting out, and you probably won’t ever get a more attentive group of readers than your workshop colleagues. Some of the best friends I've had are people I've met in the hothouse of fiction workshops. But like anything else, workshops become frustrating and repetitive after a while; there comes a point when you’re able to internalize the voice of your colleagues, and anticipate their reactions in advance. At that point, you're better off on your own.

Here's what he has to say about the screen adaptation of Election (from an interview at Zulkey):

Were you pleased with the screen adaptation of Election? Do you think it was faithful enough to the book?

I loved the movie version of Election-it was one of the funniest and most memorable American movies of the past twenty years. It was broadly faithful to the plot of the book, with the exception of the ending, which had to be rewritten and reshot when the original ending fell a bit flat on screen. But what really makes the movie terrific isn't that it's particularly faithful to my book. It's that the director, Alexander Payne (who also wrote the script, along with Jim Taylor) was able to bring his own inimitable sensibility-which is much more satiric and hard-edged than my own-to the material, and transform it in unexpected ways. That was the really exciting part of the translation from one medium to another-watching another artist breathe new life into the work.

Finally, here is what he has to say when asked about the future of American literature (from an interview with Arriviste Press):


What is the future of American literature? How realistic is it to expect people to digest full-length novels or collections in the face of other entertainment distractions? How do we keep from losing our "marketplace"? How do we get people to read instead of fire up the PlayStation?

TP: It's funny that you ask that question just now. Sometimes it seems like we're in a moment of immense cultural change when lots of traditional forms are being displaced -- the sitcom by reality TV, quality narrative films by high-concept blockbusters, the novel by the video game or whatever. But the new Harry Potter came out last week, and kids all over the country were lining up to buy it. So even the PlayStation generation knows the particular pleasure of disappearing inside a good book for a while, and living through characters on the page. For some small percentage of those kids, reading novels might even become a habit, or even a passion, the way it is for some small percentage of the adult population now.

He Blinded Me With Science (Fiction)

I've read Slaughterhouse-Five many times. Each time the experience is different. Each time I get something out of it that I didn't get out of the previous read. Each time I'm caught off guard by Vonnegut's blend of beauty and horror. He has me laughing one minute and I'm heartbroken the next.

For the most part, I've never like the Tralfamadore sections. I found those moments to be a distraction. I've never been much for science fiction. I'd read those moments and rolled my eyes and eagerly awaited for Billy to flashback to the war or back home to his candy bar-eating wife. But this time reading it, something happened. Maybe I'm burned out on war these days and an escape to a another world or dimension is what I've been needing.

How do you all feel about Tralfamadore? What do you all think of Tralfamadore and the Tralfamadorian way of life? Do you agree with their philosophies? Which one do you like most? What do you not agree with? In a way, they are much like us (look at page 150)--can you locate any other spots where they say something that is quite human?


Vonnegut has based his science fiction on his pulp influences. (I've added some Science Fiction pulp novel covers for you to look at here.) Vonnegut even creates a writer character with the name of Kilgore Trout (who many believe is an alter-ego of Vonnegut). Kilgore writes such titles as Maniacs in the Fourth Dimension which was 'about people whose mental diseases couldn't be treated because the causes of the diseases were all in the fourth dimension, and three-dimensional Earthling doctors couldn't see those causes at all, or even imagine them' (Vonnegut 132).

What do you think of Kilgore Trout? Do you see a connection between him and Vonnegut? What do you think of Trout's books? Would you want to read them?



Slaughterhouse-Five is structured much like a Tralfamadorian book. It's a series of random images strung together in no real order. The only narrative the reader can rely on is the war narrative. It moves from the beginning of the war to the end--even if we are interrupted from time to time, we do end up back to where we left off. Billy keeps re-living the plane crash and the death of Derby and he never changes it. He accepts it. Why? Billy is a passive character. He never acts on anything. Or does he?

Bibliography
Vonnegut, Kurt. Slaughterhouse-Five. New York: Dell Publishing, 1999.

Onion-style Opinion Piece

ARE NON-SMOKERS COOL?
By Kristian





It's the Great American Smokeout Day on campus but you'd think the library had been evacuated for some reason.

"What's going on here?" I ask a boy or a girl that looks eternally twelve.

"It's the Great American Smokeout. We're trying to inform people of the dangers of smoking..."

Bored and not caring what the little voice had to say, I walk over to a big girl (one of the many) because I like big voices and I needed a big explanation on today's big event. She was carrying a sign with the words: Smoking is ugly. I couldn't help but think this girl could look almost pretty if she lost weight and I suggested that she take up cigarettes.

"They act as an appetite suppressor. I'm sure if you get yourself a pack-a-day habit you can take off a good ten pounds. You have a pretty face."

"Really?" She beamed.

"Yeah. The rest of you isn't, however. But it can be."

"But cigarettes? Couldn't I just exercise?"

"That's work. Cigarettes. You light, you inhale, you exhale. You can sit and do it."

"I like to sit."

"Cigarettes and amphetamines. Those are illegal, but you can find over-the-counter amphetamines. They do the trick."

She ran off, handing off her sign as though it were a baton to another big girl. She turned the sign around to show again the words: Smoking is ugly, but under there was a picture of Charlize Theron from the film Monster.

"Smoking won her an Academy Award," I tell her.

She looks at me like I'm made of Hostess.

I back away.

Every year, it's the same old protests. But not this year. This one is a little bit different. A Little bit lacking in signs, really.

"You ever hold up a sign," says a boy that must weigh 92-pounds. "Arms kill. You can't do it for more than 20 minutes at a time."

"Is that why the only people holding up signs are overweight?" I ask Clay Aiken.

One of my biggest regrets is that I smoked for 10 or more years...Nostalgia. Makes me want to smoke a cigarette and think back. Back to those romantic days of smoking. How cool I looked. Sexy, even. Dangerous. Looked like I lived life on the edge. Look at me I'm killing myself and it's sexy, I'd say (to myself...in the mirror).

It's been about two years since my last smoke. I tell this to Ugly Betty who tells me how proud she is of me. She also tells me (with a wink) to look her up in a chat room called: The Birth Defects. Before I can ponder what that means, I get to witness my first attack on an unsuspecting smoker.

"What happened? The library burn down?" The smoker asks in earnest.

Then it's like someone's shouted: Lost has been canceled. The crowd of non-smokers has turned into a ravenous group. They attack the smoker. They call him vicious names like "Smoker" and "Nicotine lips". There's hair-pulling and scratching and spitting. I'm seeing a side of the non-smokers I like. One nerd throws a bucket of butts on the smokers head. Another one says: "This is your lungs," pointing to his crotch, "And here are lungs on cigarettes." He kicks the smoker in the balls. I laugh even though that one was stupid. This is your lungs on cigarettes? He tried.

After spending several hours, taunting smokers, making them cry, and oh the laughing. There was plenty of laughing. It all had to come to an end.

The sun goes down and the nerds go home to bed and a new group joins the mix. This group of goth-kids refer to themselves as: The Coffin Nails. Their leader is Niles.

"What are The Coffin Nails all about?" I ask Niles.

"We don't hold up signs."

Signs are very unpopular this year.

"We're known for our unorthodox ways of getting people to quit smoking," he tells me very softly. So softly, I have to ask him to repeat himself five times.

"We're not unorthodox," A blond kid who isn't very goth says. "We're Christian, right? I mean, not practicing. All hail evil. Not Satan cuz that's not what we're about either, ok. Right, guys?"

I was starting to miss the nerds from earlier. There's something more disturbing about a nerd-virgin crushed in eyeliner. It's not as cool as you'd think. I decided to call it a day.

I went home and thought back on my day and the friends I made (and hope to never see again in my life) and I decided to not smoke a cigarette.

Kurt Vonnegut

"War Prayer" by Mark Twain (1905)

It was a time of great and exalting excitement. The country was up in arms, the war was on, in every breast burned the holy fire of patriotism; the drums were beating, the bands playing, the toy pistols popping, the bunched firecrackers hissing and spluttering; on every hand and far down the receding and fading spread of roofs and balconies a fluttering wilderness of flags flashed in the sun; daily the young volunteers marched down the wide avenue gay and fine in their new uniforms, the proud fathers and mothers and sisters and sweethearts cheering them with voices choked with happy emotion as they swung by; nightly the packed mass meetings listened, panting, to patriot oratory which stirred the deepest deeps of their hearts, and which they interrupted at briefest intervals with cyclones of applause, the tears running down their cheeks the while; in the churches the pastors preached devotion to flag and country, and invoked the God of Battles beseeching His aid in our good cause in outpourings of fervid eloquence which moved every listener. It was indeed a glad and gracious time, and the half dozen rash spirits that ventured to disapprove of the war and cast a doubt upon its righteousness straightway got such a stern and angry warning that for their personal safety's sake they quickly shrank out of sight and offended no more in that way.

Sunday morning came -- next day the battalions would leave for the front; the church was filled; the volunteers were there, their young faces alight with martial dreams -- visions of the stern advance, the gathering momentum, the rushing charge, the flashing sabers, the flight of the foe, the tumult, the enveloping smoke, the fierce pursuit, the surrender! Then home from the war, bronzed heroes, welcomed, adored, submerged in golden seas of glory! With the volunteers sat their dear ones, proud, happy, and envied by the neighbors and friends who had no sons and brothers to send forth to the field of honor, there to win for the flag, or, failing, die the noblest of noble deaths. The service proceeded; a war chapter from the Old Testament was read; the first prayer was said; it was followed by an organ burst that shook the building, and with one impulse the house rose, with glowing eyes and beating hearts, and poured out that tremendous invocation

God the all-terrible! Thou who ordainest! Thunder thy clarion and lightning thy sword!

Then came the "long" prayer. None could remember the like of it for passionate pleading and moving and beautiful language. The burden of its supplication was, that an ever-merciful and benignant Father of us all would watch over our noble young soldiers, and aid, comfort, and encourage them in their patriotic work; bless them, shield them in the day of battle and the hour of peril, bear them in His mighty hand, make them strong and confident, invincible in the bloody onset; help them to crush the foe, grant to them and to their flag and country imperishable honor and glory --

An aged stranger entered and moved with slow and noiseless step up the main aisle, his eyes fixed upon the minister, his long body clothed in a robe that reached to his feet, his head bare, his white hair descending in a frothy cataract to his shoulders, his seamy face unnaturally pale, pale even to ghastliness. With all eyes following him and wondering, he made his silent way; without pausing, he ascended to the preacher's side and stood there waiting. With shut lids the preacher, unconscious of his presence, continued with his moving prayer, and at last finished it with the words, uttered in fervent appeal, "Bless our arms, grant us the victory, O Lord our God, Father and Protector of our land and flag!"

The stranger touched his arm, motioned him to step aside -- which the startled minister did -- and took his place. During some moments he surveyed the spellbound audience with solemn eyes, in which burned an uncanny light; then in a deep voice he said:

"I come from the Throne -- bearing a message from Almighty God!" The words smote the house with a shock; if the stranger perceived it he gave no attention. "He has heard the prayer of His servant your shepherd, and will grant it if such shall be your desire after I, His messenger, shall have explained to you its import -- that is to say, its full import. For it is like unto many of the prayers of men, in that it asks for more than he who utters it is aware of -- except he pause and think.

"God's servant and yours has prayed his prayer. Has he paused and taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two -- one uttered, the other not. Both have reached the ear of Him Who heareth all supplications, the spoken and the unspoken. Ponder this -- keep it in mind. If you would beseech a blessing upon yourself, beware! lest without intent you invoke a curse upon a neighbor at the same time. If you pray for the blessing of rain upon your crop which needs it, by that act you are possibly praying for a curse upon some neighbor's crop which may not need rain and can be injured by it.

"You have heard your servant's prayer -- the uttered part of it. I am commissioned of God to put into words the other part of it -- that part which the pastor -- and also you in your hearts -- fervently prayed silently. And ignorantly and unthinkingly? God grant that it was so! You heard these words: 'Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!' That is sufficient. the whole of the uttered prayer is compact into those pregnant words. Elaborations were not necessary. When you have prayed for victory you have prayed for many unmentioned results which follow victory -- must follow it, cannot help but follow it. Upon the listening spirit of God fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He commandeth me to put it into words. Listen!

"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle -- be Thou near them! With them -- in spirit -- we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it -- for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.

(After a pause.) "Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The messenger of the Most High waits!"

It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.

So it goes.

As we've read and seen, death is everywhere in dark comedy. It is the genre's most dominant theme.


Wes D. Gehring's fantastic book American Dark Comedy: Beyond Satire says that there are four basic lessons to be learned from dark comedy's obsession with death:

1) Death itself is a terrible absurdity.
2) The casual, random death which emphasizes the absurdity and shows how insignificant human beings are in the scheme of things.
3) The popularity of suicide.
4) People's callousness to shock.

Slaughterhouse-Five is full of death. So it goes. Vonnegut's ho-hum attitude toward death shows how absurd and meaningless both life and death really are. I posted a Youtube clip where Vonnegut discusses his actual experience in Dresdon. He, like Billy in the novel, had to mine through the rubble for corpses. The corpses would be thrown into a pile, along with some wood, and then set on fire. The image is horrifying. None of us can truly understand that horror. The sight. The smell.



One terribly absurd (and ironic) death happens to Billy Pilgrim's wife, Valencia. She's heard Billy's plane has crashed and that he's been hospitalized. In a panic, she drives over to the hospital and in her frenzied, emotional state she gets into a car crash. Nobody is seriously injured but Valencia's exhaust system has been ripped off in the crash. This doesn't stop her. She has to see her beloved husband (who the doctors believe may end up a vegetable--more irony?). She drives away from the accident with no exhaust and continues on her journey to the hospital. She finally gets to the hospital where she dies from carbon monoxide poisoning.

The death of Edgar Derby can go along with lesson number two. Derby, who has survived the fire-bombing of Dresdon, picks among the rubble and discovers a teapot. He is accused of stealing the teapot, tried, and shot by a firing squad. We are told about Derby's death in Chapter One when the narrator (Vonnegut) says that this event will be the climax of the book. Why is this the climax?

The shock in Slaughterhouse-Five comes from the casual 'so it goes' attitude toward death. Almost every page has a death of some kind followed by the narrator's 'so it goes'. Why do you think Vonnegut does this? Did you notice a change in your reaction to the deaths as you read further and further along? I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

What your thoughts on death in the dark comedy we've read or seen? Any other examples to add to the list? What is your reaction to the death in the books we've read and the films we've watched?

Bibliography
Gehring, Wes D. American Dark Comedy: Beyond Satire. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1996.

Defining Dark Comedy

"If there's anyone out there who can look around this demented slaughterhouse of a world we live in and tell me that man is a noble creature, believe me, that man is full of shit."
-Newscaster Howard Beale (played by actor Peter Finch) in the film, Network

In Wes D. Gehring's American Dark Comedy: Beyond Satire, he writes about film mostly. But I find his breakdown of the genre to be rather helpful, especially in a classroom/academic setting, where we are looking for text book definitions and explanations to help guide us to understanding the genre. He has several interrelated themes that he uses for dark comedy film, but we can apply them to the literature we've read as well. These three themes are:

1) Man as beast
2) The absurdity of the world
3) The omnipotence of death

In the above quote, Howard Beale compares the world we live in to a slaughter house. He's reduced man to animal, and is saying we are destroying one another. Howard Beale is considered a 'mad prophet' because he speaks the truth and calls out the American audience for being consumed by television. Here is Beale's amazing speech on the 'tube':

"You're beginning to believe the illusions we're spinning here, you're beginning to believe that the tube is reality and your own lives are unreal. You do. Why, whatever the tube tells you: you dress like the tube, you eat like the tube, you raise your children like the tube, you even think like the tube. This is mass madness, you maniacs. In God's name, you people are the real thing, WE are the illusion."

In a way, man as beast has turned into man as object by this point in the film. We eat, sleep, and drink the 'tube'. How true it is today. We all quote from television shows. You guys have no idea how annoying high school lunch was in the 90's when Seinfeld was a hit. Every week, you'd hear the play by play of an episode. I couldn't even watch or appreciate that show until it was off the air and came back in syndication. I digress. The point is: Man as beast. So back to that.

In Day of the Locust, we get many allusions to the animal. Miguel wears a sweater that makes him look like a gorilla. Abe is compared to a dog, or at the party he attacks (butts like a goat) Earl. And then there is sex and sexuality which can be said to be an animalistic urge. A man that can't control his urges is considered a beast.

Could you elaborate on the 'man as beast' theme? Examples from the texts we've read, or films we've watched.

The second theme is that the world is absurd. Life is absurd. We've talked about this in class. Life is out of our control. We're participants in a game; the point is to survive (and not go crazy while doing so). Gehring writes: 'Black humor absurdity is usually presented in two ways--through the chaos of an unordered universe and through the flaws of mortal man' (36). I hate to say that we are all victims of life, but in a way, we are.

To go back to Beale's brilliant 'bullshit' speech:

"Bullshit is all the reasons we give for living. If we can't think up reasons of our own, we always have the God bullshit...We don't know why we go through all this pointless pain, humiliation, and decay. So there better be someone somewhere who does know. That's the God bullshit."

What is Beale saying here? Have we created our own man-made bullshit? Is this absurdity something that we've created? Or something the institutions created? Yet we have created the institutions as well--government, church, television, networks, corporations. Why not blame the institutions? Why not attack them? The real world is not a rational world. Bullshit is lies. The lies have turned into the truth. And in the end, we believe it all. We consume the tube. We are the tube. Tomorrow, I'll hear people talking about and quoting their favorite shows (My Name is Earl, The Office, Scrubs) and I'll want to shout and get 'mad as hell' and say to these people: "What's wrong with you? Don't you have your own thoughts, ideas, and stories to share? Do you have to recreate scenes from your favorite television show? Is this how we bond or connect these days? Is this human interaction? These scripted sitcoms and lame ass jokes? And are they really funny, or do we laugh because the canned, fake audience laughter shows us where to laugh?"

Who am I kidding? I'll be right there talking about Alec Baldwin's Redd Foxx impersonation on 30 Rock. I am the tube.

I've left out the last theme of the omnipotence of death. I'm sure I could fill a whole blog post up on that one. I'll do write a post on it next week.

Bibliography
Gehring, Wes D. American Dark Comedy: Beyond Satire. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1996.

HAPPY HALLOWEEN

 

Grotesques

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

adj.
a: fanciful, bizarre b: absurdly incongruous c: departing markedly from the natural, the expected, or the typical

n.
1 a: a style of decorative art characterized by fanciful or fantastic human and animal forms often interwoven with foliage or similar figures that may distort the natural into absurdity, ugliness, or caricature b: a piece of work in this style 2: one that is grotesque

Using the above definitions of grotesque, what passage in the novel comes to mind? There are numerous grotesques present in this novel--name one and using the above definition explain why this person is a grotesque.

For me, Harry Greener is a grotesque. And I'd like to add a bit more to the above definition, by saying, a grotesque is an exaggerated human--and what I mean, especially in the case of Harry, is that he performs the role of the clown on stage and he's unable to abandon the role because the role essentially becomes the man. Harry can't help but play the Vaudevillian performer with all his jokes and gags because the performer (and all his tricks and impressions) are all that is interesting about Harry. Harry the man, the human, no longer exists. He's been performing the same routine day in and day out that he isn't able to stop. If he stops performing, Harry the performer, no longer exists. Performance is his life--literally.

In chapter 11, we see how physically and mentally sick he is. He is 'like a mechanical toy that had been overwound, something snapped inside of him and he began to spin through his entire repertoire' (71). Harry, like so many others struggling in Hollywood, has finally 'snapped' from all the hard, unpaid for, unappreciated work. They're all tragic cases, but for me, Harry sticks out as the most tragic. As a youth, he aspired to 'play Hamlet, Lear, and Othello' (111), but ended up playing Vaudeville. At the end of his life, Harry starving for any sort of attention wanders into bars and drinks and recites poetry--or he goes door-to-door selling a product he made at home, but it isn't about the product, it's about the performance of selling the product. In both instances, even if he's boo-ed or thrown out of the bar or gets a door slammed in his face, he's performed. He has, even if it doesn't go over well, performed in front of an audience, and the audience even if it boos, gives him something.


I found this definition of grotesque (written by Lauren Gibson) on a website called A Glossary of Literary Gothic Terms:

1) This term originated from oddly shaped ornaments found within Roman dwellings, or grottoes, during the first century. From a literary standpoint, this term implies a mutation of the characters, plants and/or animals. This mutation transforms the normal features and/or behaviors into veritable extremes that are meant to be frightening and/or disturbingly comic (Cornwell 273). Example: An example of the term grotesque can be found within the short story "Rappaccini's Daughter." Within the tale, the flowers found within the garden of the inventor have been mutated into beautiful harbringers of death. While the physical features of the plants have grown more exquisite, their interior workings have become a frightening caricature of normal plant-life.
(2) The term grotesque also defines a work in which two separate modes, comedy and tragedy, are mixed. The result is a disturbing fiction wherein comic circumstances prelude horrific tragedy and vice versa.

How are characters, plants, and/or animals mutated in Day of the Locust? Are there instances where a character is mutated into a plant or animal? Can you see man as beast in this novel? Or any instances where plants or animals become characters or given human qualities? And how are these mutations seen? Are they frightening, or are they darkly comic?

Chapter 14 is loaded with the human/animal/nature mutations. The city and all that is corrupt and experienced follows Tod and crew out into the country. We get the beauty of nature and its technicolor extravagance--and we can assume this is the place set designers and decorators want to recreate over in the Hollywood lots (and it's safe to assume many representations of the canyon are buried alive in the 'dream dump'). The beauty of nature is real, but there are hints of the unreal and man-made present when a hummingbird is called a 'ruby bullet' or a flock of birds is referred to as 'metal confetti' (100). Even nature is tainted by the influence of man.

I've also included a photo of Shirley Temple, child star of the 30's and Jean Harlow, another star of the 30's, and many consider to be the first 'sex-pot' (influenced Marilyn Monroe). Being that this book was written in the 30's and came out in 1939, we know that Nathanael West was writing Faye as either a parody of Harlow, or a parody of the many women that now wanted to be Harlow. The character of Adore can be seen as a parody of Shirley Temple, or he could have been satirizing the exploitation of child stars of that time. What do you all think?

Sedaris

Choose a Sedaris essay (or story) and write a blog post about it. Like I said in class, I want more than a summarization of the essay or story. What is the purpose of the essay or story? What is he doing in the writing? He's been compared to Mark Twain and Nathanael West. Do you see similarities between his writing and the writing of Twain and West?

Blog post is due Friday, Nov. 2nd.

Tasteless

This Old House
In The Waiting Room

What I Learned

It's Catching

Turbulence
Old Faithful
The Girl Next Door

Our Perfect Summer
Who's the Chef?

Waugh's Pre-Loved One Essay (and a can of beans)

I found this photograph on Google images. "Two friends" travel around taking pictures of famous monuments and city attractions, but here's the kicker: They include a can of beans to every shot. Photo of the Great Wall of China and a can of beans. Photo of France and something Frenchy plus a can of beans. Forest Lawns Cemetery and you-guessed-it: a can of beans. Their website is cleverly titled Beans-Around-The-World.
Call it what you will. I won't say it's funny. Or satire. Or parody. Or anything really. Maybe a waste of time if you decide to visit their website.

Any way, here is Evelyn Waugh's essay Half in Love with Easeful Death. It was published in 1947. A year later came The Loved One.
How does the essay compare with the novel? How is it dramatized? What is missing?

Here is Forest Lawn today. And here is a history. It's funny how much Forest Lawn hasn't changed. It's still ridiculously over-the-top. Click on Memorial Property and you'll see what Waugh was making fun of when he writes about disposal options: "Normal disposal is by inhumement, entombment, inurnment or immurement, but many people just lately prefer insarcophagusment."
It's absurd, yes, but it's real as we can see by the list of Memorial Property Types.

Looking at the website, what else was Waugh commenting on? What has changed? What hasn't changed?

Wuh Waugh

Here's the New Partisan article I was referring to in class the other day about his son. He also apparently loved his booze and his opiates--which he'd give up for Lent. He may have been a drunk, drug abuser, and bad dad; but he sounds like a good Catholic.

More-y Gorey

I told you he had a thing for cats.

Here's a decent Salon article that came out around Gorey's death. I had no idea that he was buds with Frank O'Hara in college. They would dress up like Oscar Wilde and go about town and attack passers-by with their dandyisms. Sounds either really fun or really lame. I can't decide.

And here is a PBS interview where Gorey talks about Charles Addams (creator of Addams Family):

Does it bother you when people lump you together with people who do "horror" like Stephen King or Charles Addams?

Yes. Only very occasionally do I try to shock in a mild sort of way. I'm very squeamish really. As for Charles Addams, I knew him. We had the same agent. I occasionally would have lunch with him. I was told he envied me because I had a more highbrow reputation than he did. I love Charles Addams' stuff. I suppose there's always the possibility somebody will come along and want to do the equivalent of The Addams Family movie with my stuff. Well, I'm not that rich, so I'd probably say, "Go ahead."

Tomy y Daly - Scar Treak- The Next Lacertation

Tomy y Daly - Why Do Fools Fall In Lava

Chowderhead Bazoo--A blog you should check out

I've been checking out Chowderhead for awhile. It's a cool blog with some funny animation and writing. Here's a funny satire on the different types of people which he calls the Bane of My Existence series. The drawing above is called: A Prickly Paradox.

Favorite Simpsons Episode: Homer's Phobia

Okay, so it's not my favorite episode. But I do think it has its moments. And it has John Waters, who should have written this episode. Or maybe he could have made a few suggestions, like, I don't know, cut the hokey feel good ending. Any way, the show tries, and I believe it succeeds in bringing homosexuality into households that never would have dared to talk openly about such a subject with their children, or even to themselves.

The episode is about Homer Simpson and how he reacts when he finds out his friend is gay--thus the clever pun of a title "Homer's Phobia". As Andrew brought up in class, this isn't about gays, but about Homer's intolerance of gays. Like most homophobes, it's about not knowing or understanding homosexuals--the not knowing is what scares Homer. When Marge returns from her galavanting about town with John, Homer says to her "Did he give you gay?" To Homer, gay is something you catch. This fear becomes more pronounced when he notices Bart wearing a Hawaiian shirt. A horrified Homer tells Marge that "there's only two kind of guys who wear those shirts: gay guys and big, fat party animals. And Bart doesn't look like a big,fat party animal to me." After he catches his son dancing to "The Shoop Shoop Song" with a Hairspray-style bouffant, Homer freaks out and decides he has to do something.

I love the scene in the car. It represents male bonding between a father and his son. Homer's going to fix Bart and make him straight in a day or less. Homer has a plan (which involves so-called manly activities) and he assures Bart "by tomorrow morning, you'll be a regular Burt Reynolds"--who by Homer's standards is a representation of what a man should be: hairy and virile. It's a very real moment that turns into satire when Homer begins his internal monologue of how he should talk, act, and behave around his son. Homer shows his son that he loves him but doesn't love him because men shouldn't love each other. Homer cares, he just doesn't know any better. He himself has been raised (trained) to be a certain way. Like many fathers, he's unable to escape the 'norm' of being masculine. I believe that every man hates being called out on his masculine/macho-ness (or there lack of). It's threatening. To be called a sissie. Ok, I'll get back on track. I won't go off on gender roles and gender expectations (though it's there and perhaps even satirized).

Another great satirical moment is when Homer has Bart sit in a lawn chair in front of a Laramie Slims cigarette ad. The ad has two young scantily clad women having a pillow fight. The satire is directed at the cigarette advertising and how it is deceitful in its message: Young attractive people having fun and smoking. Cigarette advertising has been under attack for years--probably starting back in the mid-90's, so it was timely I'm sure to make a joke about it.

Situational irony: Two hours later, Homer returns and asks his son how he feels and Bart says: "I dunno. I kinda want a cigarette." Homer wants the boy to see half-naked women and fall in love; boy sees what is actually being advertised: smoking/Laramie Slims cigarettes.

I'd also like to point out a bit of dark comedy which happens while Lisa and Bart are walking around Cockamamie's (John's store). They come across the robot from the movie 'Clank Clank! You're Dead!'

Lisa: Ooh, think of how awful it would be for the poor midget inside.

Bart: Aw, boo hoo. That's what they get paid for.

They walk away and a door inside the robot's chest opens to reveal a tiny little person skeleton.

I'm surprised by Lisa in this scene. She says 'midget'. She's normally politically correct, so it catches me off guard when she says 'midget' instead of 'dwarf' or 'little person'. I'm also surprised by her not giving her dad a speech on tolerance. Lisa wasn't herself in this episode.



The gay steel mill was a great way to satirize gay stereotypes. I mean, I know John Waters was happy to see that even his cartoon self was a bit more butch than his real self--and he was very relieved that his animated self didn't resemble Richard Simmons. An average American household may actually believe that gays are limp-wristed, lispy femmes--i.e. Richard Simmons. So it's ironic, when the masculine steel workers turn out to have lisps and limp wrists. The audience doesn't see gay men as being big strong men. It's shocking, perhaps. This is pre-Brokeback Mountain and remember the reaction that movie had received. People were freaking out because the movie was about two masculine men falling in love with each other.

Again, let's look at when this episode premiered. It was February 1997. Ellen just came out to Oprah--and a few months later her character comes out on her television show. This is pre-Will and Grace. Pre-Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. This is Sunday night, network television, prime time family television. It's quite revolutionary. I thought it was great to hear what you all had to say, and I sometimes forget how young you all are (and how old I am), so telling me you were in junior high, that you were kids, really put it into perspective. Again, it shows the power of a show geared towards families. Jessie's comment on what gay meant prior to seeing the show was quite profound. The term 'gay' was thrown around as a derogatory: "You're gay" or "This is gay" were thrown around as insults meaning "you're dumb" or "this is stupid". Now gay had a face. A different meaning. The power of television, folks. Being exposed to something you weren't exposed to before. The more we see gay, the more normal it becomes.

The Simpsons may be geared for adults, but it's sold to kids. Maybe the show isn't what it used to be. But at least, we have the reruns in syndication to remind us of how good it once was.

David Sedaris on Letterman

Mark Twain Stories for Monday, Oct. 8th

Read The Story of the Good Little Boy and The Story of the Bad Little Boy for Monday, Oct. 8th.

"Deeply Superficial" Writing Exercise

I thought it'd be fun to see what happens if you give the superficial characters of The Importance of Being Earnest depth. What would change if the characters felt something? Cared about something real? How would they think? How would they interact with one another? What would happen to the comedy? How would it change? Would it change?

You may want to begin by free writing. Think about these characters in the play. Remember the qualities we wrote down on the board today. Keep them in the back of your mind while you write. When you're done writing, go back and look at what you wrote. How'd it play out? Comment on the comedy. Or lack of.

Here are your choices again. Choose one of the following:

-Write a diary entry using either Gwen or Cecily's perspective.

-Write a dialogue between Algy and Lane or a dialogue between Jack and Merriman.

-Write a letter to Dr. Chasuble from Miss Prism/or a letter to Miss Prism from Dr. Chasuble.

-Jack's Ernest and Algy's Ernest meet in a chat room. Write a dialogue between the two.

Choose one. Go ahead and post it in your blog. I'll count the exercise as a reader response. Keep in mind, this isn't required. If you don't wish to do it, don't do it. Your choice.

If you decide to do the exercise, keep it PG-13. I know it may be tempting to get a little racy, especially between the letter writing of Chasuble and Prism, and possibly in the chat room between the two alter-egos. Keep it clean. PG-13 clean.

Have fun and have a good week/end.

The Importance of Being Earnest part2

"Only the shallow know themselves"

We had a question today about what people considered to be trivial and what people considered serious back in the Victorian era? And how, if any, have those opinions changed or stayed the same, in today's society?

Heidi's surgery is trivial. I mean, she can die under the knife and that's rather serious, but if she doesn't wake up, that's okay because having a new nose and breasts are worth dying for.

Heidi Montag (from The Hills) is talking about her plastic surgery in new issue of US--it's a cover story! It's pretty amazing stuff. Spencer sounds like a supportive boyfriend. He tells her how proud he is. Proud of what exactly, I don't quite understand. It sounds good. Sounds supportive. But deep down he's like, oh good, she's going to look hot. That's really what he wants. If he were supportive, he'd be like, no Heidi, don't do that. I love you for who you are. For your mind, not for your body.

She made the right decision. She could have gone to school and bettered her mind, but she took the easy (and let's face it, realistic) way out and bettered her body. I'm proud of her, too.

David Sedaris Bio, Interviews, and Stories

BIO

Interview (s)

Go Carolina

Us and Them

Wilde Wit

Wilde is known for his wit. I'm hoping that Alexander will post a Youtube clip of a Monty Python skit on his blog. In the skit, Wilde, Shaw, and James McNeill Whistler have themselves a bit of a wit-off.

I'd like for all of you to bring in a quote (or witticism) from Wilde on Monday. I'd like for us to celebrate Wilde's genius.

Here's my favorite quote: Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong.

Shaw Vs Wilde

Shaw didn't like The Importance of Being Earnest. He had this to say:

"It amuses me, of course; but unless comedy touches me as well as amuses me, it leaves me with a sense of having wasted my evening. I go to the theatre to be moved to laughter, not to be tickled or bustled into it; and that is why, though I laugh as much as anybody at a farcical comedy, I am out of spirits before the end of the second act, and out of temper before the end of the third, my miserable mechanical laughter intensifying these symptoms at every outburst. If the public ever becomes intelligent enough to know when it is really enjoying itself and when it is not, there will be an end to farcical comedy."

Shaw's problem with Wilde is that his plays are funny, but they lack humanity. His plays are about his words; not about his characters. What do you all think?

As if

I love Clueless. I remember seeing it in 95, my senior year of high school. I had no idea what to expect. I was like, Alicia Silverstone, blah. I hated those Aerosmith videos. I had low expectations going in, so yeah, I was very surprised by how good it all was (including Silverstone). It reminded me of Heathers--the dialogue was sharp and original. Yeah, "As if" and "She's a Betty" became annoying catch-phrases in 95, especially for those in high school.

I have to say I love the subtle performance of Alicia Silverstone. I think it's really an underrated performance. Her delivery of that Hait-ians speech is great. Not only does the class room believe what she's saying, but you can't help but fall for it too. She's that girl you didn't like in high school--and here she is winning you over. I like how the satire exposes the disgusting habits of the children of the rich in Beverly Hills. It shows teenagers aware of their status--they're class-conscious and they're only sixteen. The film, much like Heathers, also satirizes high school and the set of rules to live by for each of the cliques.

The film is comedy. The film is satire. The performances are parody. So why do I have a weird feeling that people have watched this film as a sort of how-to? Paris Hilton. The Hills. It's funny how spoiled rich girls are mainstream right now. I watched the Hills and I was like, this could be really funny, if it were edited right. MTV has it all wrong. These people are horrible. Exploit them. Put in a laugh track when they say something vapid. Okay, maybe that wouldn't work, because everything that comes out of their mouth is vapid. Here are spoiled brats shopping, eating, "working", lying by the pool. Dullsville. I do like how The Soup makes fun of them. Maybe the Hills should exist as such: A Mystery Science Theater style show where comedians watch the show and make fun of Lauren and crew. I'd watch that.

George "Beardie" Shaw

Socialist. Vegetarian. Nude Model.

And Feminist?

Theater critic Eric Bentley had this to say of Shaw's sex role reversals: 'Shaw once committed himself to the view that all superior women are masculine and all superior men are feminine.'

Could you see it happening in Pygmalion? Eliza, Mrs. Pearce, Mrs. Higgins? How does Higgins, or even Pickering, behave/act in front of women? Who has the power in those scenes?

Eliza Doolittle is a heroine. She goes to Higgins to "fix" her way of speaking, so that she can land a better gig--cuz selling flowers ain't paying the bills. Higgins may have been joking when he said he could make her into a duchess, but she saw an opportunity. Maybe not a duchess, but something better than a flower girl.

After she wins the bet (for she is the one who did all the work), she says, now what? She can talk like a queen, but she has no money or power to call her own.

LIZA: Oh! if I only c o u l d go back to my flower basket! I should be independent of both you and father and all the world! Why did you take my independence from me? Why did I give it up? I'm a slave now, for all my fine clothes.

HIGGINS: Not a bit. I'll adopt you as my daughter and settle money on you if you like. Or would you rather marry Pickering?

Shaw's comment here is that women don't have many choices in the matter. They can marry well (Pickering) or the father (Doolittle/or the adopted father, Higgins) can take care of them.

Liza says screw this. She doesn't want her father or her adopted father, both who treat her like dirt, to have anything to do with her. She wants to be treated well, so she chooses Freddy. This is very revolutionary. She chooses her husband, and a poor husband at that. But this husband loves her and treats her well. Imagine the reaction of a late Victorian audience. A society that is all about marrying for status and money. This would be appalling.

Not only does Shaw satirize the class system; he also satirizes gender and the expected roles of women and men.

Wilde at Heart

Read for Monday, Oct. 1st: The Importance of Being Earnest (Acts 1-2)

For Wednesday, Oct. 3rd: The Importance of Being Earnest (Finish)

George Bernard Shaw's Pygmalion

Read Preface and Acts 1-3 for Monday, Sept. 24th.

Read Acts 4, 5 and the "sequel" for Wednesday, Sept. 26th.

My Fair Lady is based upon this play. Perhaps something to keep in the back of your mind while reading. Especially if you've seen the musical--film version or staged production.

And of course, the Simpsons had their fun with Pygmoelion and their parody of My Fair Lady--My Fair Laddy (see pics).

Have a good weekend.

Quotes and Comments on American Psycho

Here are some quotes from Christian Bale and film maker Mary Harron around the time of American Psycho's film release (in 2000):

From Reel.com:

Q: In a recent Interview magazine you called Patrick Bateman a dweeb. What do you think turns a dweeb into a psychopath, specifically in Patrick's case?

Christian Bale: I have an idea on that, but it has nothing to do with the history of the character or anything like that because I didn't even delve into that. It would have been too realistic an approach to Bateman, who is not a real character. It is not that he is in any way vague or confused at all — he is very sure of his sensibilities about what he likes, why he likes things, what annoys him. To me it is certainty about everything. His obsession with minute details. His certainty that his life is pointless. That drives him crazy because nothing has any meaning and consequently he loses any sort of a conscience and has no limits. He can just as easily shake your hand and smile at you and pay you a compliment or bite your jugular out. He doesn't feel anything and that is his own living hell.

Bateman is unable to relate/connect with human life. It's all surface; not deep. This is why he pays so much attention to his exterior. He does the 1000 crunches and uses the expensive bathing/grooming products and dresses in designer suits. He's a walking advertisement. It's all about brand names and products. It's all about what everyone else is doing. Where is everyone going to eat. What is everybody else listening to. Everyone is going to see Les Mis, so he has to get front row seats. Maybe his 'living hell' is the not being able to feel or care or think for himself.

Q: Mary Harron said in Filmmaker magazine that the movie was realistic up to a point. I would argue that the book is entirely surreal and I just wonder how you saw the film vis-a-vis the book?

Christian Bale: Yes, I do think it is surreal. I think the movie is very surreal as well. We never attempted for realism. I think that Mary is just saying that we weren't going for some sort of cartoonish exaggeration, but there is a heightening to it. That was something that we had to be very careful about, but which didn't become too massive that it was entirely caricature. It had to be somewhat of a parody.

I'm not sure how I feel about Bale's answer. The Huey Lewis scene in the film is a cartoonish (perhaps highly caffeinated performance). They weren't careful in that scene. The parody works when it's not overdone. Look at a scene like the business card scene or even the opening scene with Bateman going through his daily routine. The parody: a day in the life of the yuppie.

From Barnes and Noble.com:

B&N.com: The film's actually very satirical and funny, which is what Ellis claimed the book was all along. Mary downplayed the carnage and sharpened the social satire. It makes you wonder why Ellis needed all that excruciatingly detailed violence in the first place.

Christian Bale: Because he wanted to show that Bateman's obsession with details is the source of his insanity. That's what I see about Bateman -- his fixation on minutiae, and absolutely needing to get an answer for every little tiny thing, even though all the things he's interested in are completely shallow.


I don't think Bateman kills anyone. I don't think any of it is real. He's a cut-throat businessman. He kills Paul Allen, not literally but figuratively. They're all Paul Allens. Kill one and another one will replace him. You noticed how many VP's were at the office he worked at. Each business read: so and so. Vice President.

What do you all think?

Don't do it! Don't eat that baby!

The overall impression I get from you guys is: why does Swift drop the irony/the sarcasm/the deadpan and get all serious towards the end?

I'm sure this will come up again. Why does the funny stop? In dark comedy and satire, there is a comment being made. It isn't like other forms of comedy where people laugh and laugh and have a good time and someone farts and laughs or trips and falls and hurts themselves and laughs and trips then farts and laughs. Satire and dark comedy is a social critique hidden beneath laughs. Sometimes the critique rears it's ugly serious head for a second. In Dr. Strangelove, it sneaks in. It's a (somewhat) serious moment when all of the planes are called off but one. In Little Murders, it gets serious and not so funny after the death of Patsy. I wonder if the same can be said about Dr. Strangelove and after the death of Ripper. Perhaps something to think about when we watch these films. What happens when a character dies?

Maybe Swift could only do so much with the dead baby thing. Recipes. Check. Skin used for gloves. Check. Hm. He could have gone on to coats or shoes, I suppose.

As the proposal progresses, the audience is desensitized to what is being said. So how shocking it would be to come in with truth of the matter (even if the truth comes off with a snippet of anti-Semitism with his line "Nor acting any longer like the Jews"). The tone shift is abrupt. I don't know what to do with the speaker. Do I trust him? He's persuasive from the get-go, even with the baby eating proposal, but what do I do when he gets 'real'? Again, we should discuss these moments when they come up.

Mark Twain Assigned Readings

For next class (Mon. Sept. 17th): Read Twain's The Man that Corrupted Hadleyburg (pages 478-528 in the Signet Classic Book of Mark Twain's Short Stories)

For Wed. Sept. 19th: Read Twain's Extracts from Adam's Diary (pages 379-390 in the Signet), The Notorious Jumping Frog of Calaveras County (pages 3-9), and The Invalid's Story (pages 260-268 in the Signet)

The Films

Sept 19th: Monty Python's Life of Brian
Sept 26th: In the Company of Men or Clueless
Oct 3rd: The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie
Oct 10th: Serial Mom or Polyester
Oct 17th: Addams Family Values
Oct 24th: Network
Oct 31st: Bucket of Blood
Nov 7th: Bamboozled or Hollywood Shuffle
Nov 12th: MASH (two signed up for this already)
Nov 26th: Bob Roberts or Bulworth
Nov 28th: Election
Dec 5th: Wag the Dog