Always stuck on Proust and Kafka

so I never actually end up being able to express my thoughts with any coherence or perspicacity (a word I learned from Lisa Simpson). Allow me to just say that Proust never had a real job (read: one that paid) but he worked, as in wrote, on some occasions. Apart from his one great feat, he also translated Ruskins (with help on the english which he didn't have a real grasp) and worked at some literary journals or whatever. Look, he was another one of those who was left with a fortune and didn't need to work. And just like the descendants of burgeoisies and aristocrats of this era, the ones in Proust's lifetime also were a bit averse to working. It's a little bit of a badge of honour to not have to work in that circle, instead filling their time with gossiping and socializing and the frequent parties. How quaint! Well, Proust didn't need to workand he chose not to. To be honest, what could a morbidly sensitive artiste like him do anyway? Would you have him work as an errand boy? The man had no hustle and that's that: if he lost all his money and needed a job, it was either living on his pen or dying without a third option.

All his gossiping and roming the streets of Paris and sitting down in some hotel for cakes and coffee or whatever all were cumulative in the attention to detail in his works. You don't just get the madeleine bit without having tea on occasion.

On his unrequited love, and mama's boy issues. Well, they're linked. Great surprise. With all his dependence and love for his mama he was bound to fall for anyone who took care of him. In this case it was his servant/errand-person (?) Albertine. So what the hell, that's how it had to happen especially with Albertine being married with kids and totally not gay. And who can blame him for taking any lavish gifts thrown his way? Not a coward as I. Proust probably didn't even want a match that could work, subconsciously anyway, because that would mean he found a replacement for his mother. If that happened what would he do with all those memories and how could he cherish all those moments that he kept like a bee hovering around his nest.

So he is who he is. He's not a loser because of his one great work; I wouldn't say his one great gift of writing because he had to produce something with it to rely on it and that's what he did. And it took him writing on his big bed with people bringing him meals and working through his infirmities. So that's one person who's a genius but not so adaptable in his environment.

Oh, so I guess I'm going to stick to a topic. I was going to blog about this Chinese movie I saw which unlike most of the rest I did like. It was similar to Searching for Bobby Fischer with chess being replaced by Go and some homages to Hikaru No Go. Anyway it was a good father-son movie like Field of Dreams or something. I'll get back to it later if I can remember. The title: "The king of Go and his son"

Kafka is sort of the anti-Proust. He was probably a lot more nice and approachable than a snobbish aesthete such as Proust. He also had father issues instead of mother ones although really they were just maybe orthodox Jewish issues complemented with even greater feelings of worthlessness.

Actually, and I have absolutely no basis on which or evidence to support me on this, but he probably didn't have such a low self-esteem as we'd like to think. Of course, the Jewish experience in Europe was not conducive to building esteem and his father was probably as domineering as any in a child's worst nightmare. But with a person of his self-deprecating sense of humour he probably tookk most of it in stride. I mean the man had a few lovers and got laid. Oh, Proust was no virgin as well though maybe we're talking about a few visits to the market for his needs...um, it's a market economy, n'est pas? I believe that Kafka dealt with whatever issues he had with being Jewish or being intimidated by his father or whatever else, on paper and through his imagination. And after he was done at 4am then he was sane again, nodded off for three hours and headed to work.

So he had a job as a lawyer dealing with injured workings for some company. He was the productive member of society that Proust was definitely not. Probably most of his money was turned over to his parents, so he was that kind of a good kid like the ones you'd want as your son-in-law. Except for his need to write in the middle of the night on these rather visceral stories of varying levels of terror, probably. he supposedly cam up with the worker's helmet that people still use today and saved many workers from accidental injuries. So like I said, a contributing member of society that fifty Prousts couldn't match. Proust is like the wasteful small child and Kafka the responsible eldest. Oh well, can't win them all.

Anyway, he didn't last too long on his diet of pressure and burden and he passed away rather young. I'm tired. The point is, there couldn't have been a Proust or Kafka without their accompanying circumstances. Proust could not write like Proust without being a wasteful person who lived in the past only nourished by his memories (and the gossips of society). Kafka couldn't capture so well the ideas of fear and terror and whatever other issues that he had according to Wikipedia, without a father whose love he could never ever hope to win. Now I can end with the can't win them all.

Sorry to self.

One more thing, it's this old Dennis Miller pseudo-joke. Well, it's not really a joke. What he said in his routine is that, referring to paedophiliacs, " if you feel a need to commit sexual acts with kids then please do us all a favor and take one for the team (gun in mouth gesture)." Favor because Miller is American. Despite being a heart-on-sleeve lefty I lean towards favouring capital punishment because there are some devious people in the world and the rehabilitation element of prison reform is not really effective at all. There's really no worthwhile argument on that point. All I want to say is this is something that gun crazy, trigger-happy, self-destructive types should look into that. No shame taking the coward's way out unless you believe in heaven or hell or reincarnation or the wheels of Samsara (?). Just think about it.

Also, quasi-manifesto, no lists, regular reviews, or ranking crap of any kind should ever appear here.

The Broad and Narrow II

So I really can't finish a thought. Either that or I elaborate and retread the same lines of argument more than I should. I wished I had taken the time to look it over because I wanted to distinguish this broad and narrow definition of purpose of life from the idea of parents telling their kids to go business major or engineer because of broaden career opportunities. I'm not really worried about the career being the slacker that I am; I'm not invalidating the idea that accounting is a safer bet than mortuary school but I think that's only one factor among many and would be overwhelmed by, for example, a fear of crunching numbers for a living.

The broadness or scope of the meaning is really based on the personal idea of what makes life more than just tolerable (or worse as the case may be). More stupid examples, teaching can be a very rewarding experience for some but not all teachers would feel that way (my personal skew, the percentage is low). Same for a doctor. So it's not very quantifiable and thus it is not wise to try to label a field of work as more spiritually (in the secular sense) rewarding than others. Alot of the backlash towards celebrities and that group I tend to regard as falling in this area: whether it's purposeful or empty is really not for outsiders to judge.

I'm braindead quite frequently, or euphemistically termed as whimsical, and on one of the recent occasions I watched a John Stossel 20/20 report. It's obviously a misnomer because he never reports on anything with any semblance journalism skills; they're all op. ed. piece on camera portraying one side of a soporific (dictionary.com? I wanted to use somnabulistic or however it's spelled.) story. This time he was talking about a subset of the slackers population: the people with money to live that way without being called bums! His interviewee was a guy engaged to some rich heiress, not one with her own library of titles at the local video store, and he had never had a job in his life. Correction: he got a job at an investment company but quit before he had to use the loo on account of seeing those people actually having to work until 2 a.m. midnight. I think that he might have some money on his own, not from earning it or anything or I might just have assumed from the circle he's in. Actually, I'd be scared by that too. Anyway, he quit, and from then on has spent time partying and filling his time with nonsense. It's easy to find such a person disreputable or just downright pathetic, and that's what Stossel counted on when he decided to do this "story". But look, before you decide that it wouldn't be so bad have him put down for the sake or the working population, let's just consider what he's guilty of? Winning the lottery at birth? People have to put in an effort to achieve anything worthwhile, but it is always proportional to some degree of God-given talent, which is another form of lottery, the genetic one. And really, anyone who's born in one of the industrial or relative equal nations where they have an opportunity to work and play with a degree of freedom have already won some form of lottery from avoiding places of far starker conditions. How well would the most successful people you can think of have done if they were born to a desolate family in the third world? Would they even have a chance? Do the people there now have a chance? I mean, I know Oprah came from a bad situation but even she would say it's a blessing for her to have been born is the US; and it's very nice to see that she's giving back to the communities of Africa (it seems pretty evident she has nothing to do with the recent scandals and it's hard to expect complete oversight - even the, say, US government with all its resources suck at oversight (sometimes on purpose, perhaps?) So I guess hurray for genetic lottery. Back to the loafer, he's a loafer but he's been provided the means, albeit through no effort of his own, to be a loafer. So leavef him alone. And if he's a wasteful person, considering the multiplied(?) factor, he's probably doing more for the economy than he would be doing if he was a working productive member of society while spending thriftily. His partying and going to stripclubs is putting some stripper through college, and there's no punchline there because if it's really true and not just an outright lie then I think it's commendable.

To explain with more incoherent ramblings - more name-dropping of the poser variety - with an example from the world of literature. And not English literature because it isn't limited to a less than refined, piecemeal language which, yes, also happens to be the only one I'm semi-fluent in. If I were less of a poser I'd say blow moi. My evidential lineup consists of Proust (that's pronounced proost and not praust, I'm looking at you, Daniel Henney or whoever it was on the Samsoon crew that told him it was praust!) and Kafka. I'll get back to this; needless to say Proust is the narrow and Kafka the broad. Both were amazing, but one was obviously mroe complete than the other - meaning his writing wasn't the only thing that defined him in any meaningful way, in my humble opinion. But I like Proust more - prodigals stick together, not in reality but in spirit.

The Broad and The Narrow

I can never finish my thoughts properly. Also, I'm deluding myself by pretending there are people reading this. I don't even read my own blog, because I can't, but even if I could I probably wouldn't.

Anyway to complete my thoughts: I was only suggesting in general that sociopaths and misguided homicidal maniacs be given some direction. They want to do something that'll etch their name in history, or barring that, a week's worth of coverage on Fox news and CNN and the whole cabal; and they're willing to shed blood to do it. So what seems to be ludicrous and cruel in other circumstances may not be so when it comes to these folks. They want some glorious cause and they don't possess the imagination or discipline to think of something on their own;as a result they copy what other sociopaths do after they see all the media coverage and exposure. They think they've arrived upon the early days of the Klondike goldrush.

What the government, or the media if they want to do something to help, is to show the potential killers alternative causes that could meaningful; hopefully without the bloodshed. So if they can be procured the Sudanese militias in Darfur, or something more realistic like working at the local food bank, that'd be swell. But I'm trying to be more realistic, and no ones is going to want to say the government should send them on some death mission; and as for the food bank or volunteering, if they wanted to do that they would do it on their own.

Then I remembered Battle Royale. Everyone loved that movie albeit just for the gore and hyperbolic premise. But this could work. The sociopaths want fame and attention so what better way than to get them to volunteer to be on a Battle Royale program. People objected to the idea of the movie because they were a random class of misfits in school, but in my scenario they'd all be potential killers. Would they really commit themselves to Battle Royale? If MTV covered it I'm sure they'd even wake up early and lineup to tryout for the program. It's fame and fortune - I meant to say there'd be a million dollars for the winner so that'd he or she wouldn't feel like a burden to the family if they survived but instead HEROES or at least quasi celebrities with a few bucks to their name - who could resist? (This is also like that Sliders episode where the lottery winner got money but then had to die after a week or so of living the high life.)

Positives would be that they want to kill and this would satisfy that urge. To clarify, I don't think that they actually have an urge to kill like Dexter Morgan, rather it's just ennui and aimlessness leading to unrest. But I'm not a professional pschiatrist or anything, in fact, full disclosure-wise all my knowlede on psychiatry is from wikipedia and the links from there. So, that's that.

So gather them up, no entry fee, and ship them to an island like Survivors and give them random weapons and provisions before starting the melee. This sounds like it'll costs alot of money but if you can imagine the ratings then you should see the next step: let the coverage go to the highest bidder! How much did NBC pay for the Olympics"? And CBS for March Madness? Battle Royale would outdraw those things combined. People would condemn it in public and secretly watch it, just like Baywatch. Of course there'd be massive protests against such perceived cruelty but note that: a) they would all be volunteers, nobody will be forced to join, not even serial killers in prison. b) they should also go through psychiatric tests just to make sure they are not just depressed and lethargic but genuinely pose a threat to society at large. c) a million other reasons.

Okay, enough craziness. The broad and the narrow is something I figured out at 26.5. I think most people figure this out when they're in high school. Also it's not profound in any real sense. It is just a simple way to explain the Holden Caulfield Syndrome of living in a trance and feeling everything is phony and meaningless. For myself, I call it the Claire Fisher Syndrome named for the Six Feet Under character because it's where I got the idea. And I realize this is slightly narcississtic and self-righteous and pretentious. At the same time though, I think it's great and clarifies all the instances where some confused teenagers tells their family that they just don't undertand what they're going through. It's like this gifted kids I saw on tv, a successful kid who graduated with honours but decided to work work public authorities on social reform rather than get some high paying job with great perks. Anyway, he coyingly said something about how none of his classmates could understand his decision, at which point I spoke to the tv set as I often do and said, "What's so difficult to understand? You want to work for something that you think is meaning and will boost your ego in a way which money couldn't."

The point is not that he was a jerk (he wasn't). The point is that people have a broad or narrow perspective on what gives life meaning. It depends on your experiences. You know how the well off parents force their kids into drama club and piano lessons and social functions? They might think it's for networking or better communication skills, and it might be true. But I think a benefit that they don't see is that exposure to a variety of what life has to offer broadens a person's sense of the meaning of life. If a father stuck his son with a golf club when he's three and took him to the links everyday and didn't give him any other choices then it's likely the kid will grow up thinking that the meaning of his life could only be to succeed at golf; that'd be the narrow. If the kid succeeds then it's no problem (see Tiger Woods or "The Wolf Man" Mozart) but if not then it might lead to trouble (hopefully for her sake not Michelle Wie), an example would Todd Marinovich.

The broad definition will allow one to seek out other avenues (or settle if viewed negatively) like if they wanted to be a writer but were perfectly satisfied being a chemist. It's a way of ensuring that you don't get stuck in a rut for too long of think that you have to have this one career or none at all. Of course, deriving meaning from family and friends and spouses is also part of it; but let me be the devil's advocate and say that without a job that you respect yourself, those other elements are likely to be less fulfilling. Question: how many marriages, looking to the future, will not end in divorce where there are money troubles? They say that the most likely thing to lead to depression is having a job that does not fulfill your expectations (so disappointment in career beats love-family-friends coalition); in other words, as many will tell you, aim low - at least you'll be happy.

I would like to further my blogger-pedant fetish and use some Plato. I think this is from Meno, where Socrates asks Meno to define colour. Meno states blue, red, etc. to which Socrates responds that those are examples and not the definition. And then Socrates gives his answer (one of the rare occasions) and I think it has something to do with pigments. I guess today the scientist would say something about light and pigments and the light spectrum. Anyway, I'm doing a poor job of showing off wikipedia knowledge, the gist is to define colour is much like defining the meaning of life; you ask people and they'll give you their opinion and it'll be like Meno's answer. They'll all be examples of how life can be meaningful without having an overarching concept to draw out the complete defintion. I guess I'm just trying to say that life has the meaning that you seek to give it. If you like blabbing your opinions to the world when nobody asked you - you blog. You make your judgements all everything and make your choices - that is essential to the nature of man as the existentialists say (I think). My final random statement is this: don't spend time worrying about some grand concept of the meaning of life, as long as you know what it means for yourself (no small feat) then just go with it. I mean, nobody thinks about what colour is, right? When somebody asks you about colour you just blurt out your favourite: Blue! (What? No way! That's my favourite too! Ughh... Time to throw up again.)

Wow, I completed a thought. I think.

Meaningless Existence v. Riding It Out

Another shooting, this time it's Nebraska. But these tragedies all retread the same ideas of meaninglessness of life and the need to do something to gain some notoriety at the expense of the lives of others. Even if you think life is meaningless that's no excuse to terminate someone else's for they may not have the same view, and even if they did it'stheir choice to ride it out. If suicide is the coward's way out, then I think this latest fad is the heinous way.

I lean towards accepting suicide even though it is a selfish way to conduct yourself in respect to people who care about you; but if there aren't any or few in number and you feel the rest of the offerings of this world (that are legally available to you) aren't enticing, then why the hell not. I'm not saying it's honourable, but how many things in life are (not that that's a logical argument).

So I'm not so resistant to suicide but when a massacre of innocents is involved then the idea is no longer supportable. I know this is a redundant question because the perpetrators obvious are reckless to any wrongs so long as it serves their inner desires, but do they even consider how many lives they could potentially be ruining? The victims, their close ones, their acquaintances, the community in general, and the next person who decides to copycat the violence and massacre another dozen in their own communities. I think life is bad enough as is without having to grieve losses, but that's what violence begets is grieving. Well, also more violence, but grieving too. Sorry.

To sum up, you're allowed to brood about how life is unfair, or laze around and think existence is empty and unfulfilling (so long as you can leech off someone...uh, I'm not trying to validate my own existence...woah, what's that? Look at that UFO-thing behind you!). You can even talk to yourself on the bus or whatever and smoke pot all day until your can't keep your eyes open for five seconds. But you cross the line when you hurt other people. Okay, I mean other than the ones that volunteered to care for you. What am I saying? Go back to stupid school or get a stupid manual job. God, I've been reduced to say something I'd never have said but for self-centered scumbags.

What to do. What to do. Maybe the government can fund a hybrid institution - a mix of prison and mental institution. So you call for all the people who think life is meaningless and feel an urge to pick up a gun and start firing. Anyone who felt that they could snap at a moment's notice would be welcome. The recruited people will be put to labour and given three square meals a day and a bed in a bunker. Come to think of it, this is also like the army. They can have minimum wage but all the money is put into some sort of pension plan as they'll have no need to use money inside. The type of labour they do can be filling pot holes to cleaning the streets.

All this sounds pretty trivial and exploitative of desperate, confused individuals for cheap manual labour. It's almost Bill O'Reilly-esque and you have no idea how painful that idea is to me. But I think the key to remember is that these people are like ticking timebombs but in a way all they want is not to be a burden to their families. For an example, see AJ in The Sopranos from his suicide state to his working for a B-movie company "glad to be alive but still whining about getting people coffee" state. Oh, and getting laid was pretty helpful too. The key element is when they feel like they need to be put out of their doldrum. Then you ship them to Afghanistan with proper provisions and send them to explore those tunnels that the Taliban are supposedly using and where Bin Laden was supposed to have hidden. You can train them to do this or just let them go in raw; they do have experience with firearms.

Clearly, they'll feel alot more self-important and experience life as something less meaningless after hunting for Osama. This is also something that AJ wanted to do. It's not important that they catch anyone, with all the press reports and special-op gear they are bound to feel better about themselves. It might be a waste of money but this is the military we're talking about. If it makes any difference you can make them pay for the guns out of their pensions. Of course, you have to announce to the general population to stay clear the tunnels because the target is only "terrorists". And if in the unfortunate event that the AJs get hit, then they would have died for something worthwhile, at least in their eyes. It sounds kind of cruel when I reread it but is it not like something JD Salinger wrote in Catcher in the Rye, to paraphrase it: young men want to die for a grand and noble cause while adults only want to live for a small and even insignificant cause. At least with this plan, unlike the army, there'll be no lies and no disillusions about the purpose which is to remove the crazies from the rest of the population.

Note to self: Next topic - The narrow and broad approach to meaning of life.

Enough Berserk, More Monster

Just one last thing about a possible, as in existing only in the figment of my imagination, movie version of Berserk. Since there's already a boring straight adaption into anime, it would be great if the story is told from the perspective of Griffith. And he'd be the "hero" of the story. It would be that much more interesting to see someone sacrifice anything (that is not himself) to get what he wants but at the same time possess this incredible charisma and aura. Griffith is an awesome leader if you want to play on the winning side, until he allows some demons to ravage you along with all your comrades. I'm not saying he's a nice guy but it's pretty clear that he's just swept along by his destiny. How do you judge a person's actions when he's been told he'll rule over all these people and destined to achieve great things? And what if it looked as if it were about to come true only to have that dream completely obliterated? Wouldn't that make you decide that maybe sacrificing a few hundred souls for your own glorification seem reasonable? (Plus they were supposedly all fighting to support Griffith's ambitions - mission accomplished! Sacrifie! Teamwork! Take one for the team (of one, the owner in this case)!)

Monster is completed and was when I started, so there was no horrible episode of waiting every week or month for forty panels that advanced the plot by a millimeter. It's very suspenseful, for a comic or otherwise. My problems with it though border on race and politics. I also think the pop psychology answer to the mystery of Johan and Nina was mildly insulting. But like people watching 24, sometimes you just leave questions alone, like the omnipotence of Johan. How does Johan convince everyone, underworld or officials of just about anything? I'm not saying there isn't persuasive skills or that people can't be convinced of some crazy things, but it usually only works on weak-willed and confused people and not mobsters who make their money on the infirmities of those same herd of weaklings (including myself). Especially when the person looks like he's barely hit puberty. But okay, that's the premise and it's not right to read comics and knock the premise - hell, look at Franz Kafka's Metamorphasis for crazy premises (granted, they were meant to speak to the ugliness or weakness he felt; I mean alienation and ostracization and all that - Monster didn't have any layer to it other than to make Johan as powerful and sinister as possible).

So anyway, my problems with the racial/political aspect of Monster has to do with the setting and stock of characters. First, Tenma is way too unblemished. He kind of played puppet to the chief administrator of the hospital; that's the one negative side. Oh, and he saved a child who happened to be a monster so he goes to fix that mistake. But he doesn't kill anyone. Ever. Even though he learned all that shooting and saw so many atrocities. Double oh, he's Japanese and Monster is a Japanese comic made for the local market. Good to know. Ok, he's not the only one who's personality is beyond reproach, there's Nina and the old shrink, but it's still unbearable. The thing that makes it unbearable is having a story set in the post-war period, about some deplorable program to dehumanize people and subtly laying all the guilt on the Nazis and their soulless behaviour. Are we forgetting about Emperor Hirohito or the horrors the Japanese army layed on their Asian neighbours? It's not to say that a Japanese creator can't do a story about wartime atrocities meted out by Nazis without any mention of the acts of Japan. It's just that it seems too convenient to point a finger at someone's past without reflecting your own. I mean the thing with the stone and glass houses thing that Jesus supposedly said; although, who lives in glass houses anyway. I don't see why the story has to be set in Europe when it could have been set in Japan. And the only Japanese character in this story set in Europe being a most benevolent doctor is a tiny bit farcical - and I'm going to try one of those over the top analogies that are so much the trend in blogging - like when you hear a speech from a fifth grader about how great some revolutionary was only to think to yourself: does this kid even know what a revolution is? Or how many people had to die and suffer for some ideal that probably wasn't worth much in the end - especially buried under several feet of soil (if they were lucky enough to be buried at all)?

Okay, that's all.

Stephen Colbert and The Golden Compass

God please bring back The Colbert Report. This is the perfect book for the Stephen Colbert character - bears! Armoured bears! Bears who devour people's souls! That;s a Threatdown all down up and served on a platter. Killer bears in children stories - true as that may be to the nature of bears - must be like proof of the existence of God to people like TV Colbert. So please bring the writers back.

The stories of how the viewership for all the streamed shows for one week did not hold up to a crappy 30 min sitcom. I think the implication is that the writers shouldn't be trying to fight for the small pie over the present money at least from the mouths of the producers. But doesn't that exact same logic apply to the other side as well? Why be uptight over sharing a supposed piece of nothing and be set back on whatever they're losing in delays and coughing up ad money? What a bunch of crap! No logic whatsoever. Well, I never understood business and making huge amounts of money.

Berserk II

I know all the writers are on a strike, so it might be a great time to read some comics and do borrow some material. Well, better yet, the producers can just use a little of the coin they are trying to squeeze out of the writers and pay for the rights.

The decline of Berserk aside, they really could turn the story up to Shierke's introduction into a great movie. Eclipse, Fake eclipse, the berserk armour and apostle fights would all make great scenes. Just leave out some of the gratuitous nudity and violence. I know some people think the graphic novel is kind of weird for its excessive adult material, but it is an adult comic and it's just all those goatmen orgy scenes.

Monster would be great, too. It practically writes itself. It's cinematic, but maybe the complexity of the plot make it too rigid for adaptation. Plus the explanation for Johan was bound to be a letdown, which it was.

Finally Battle Royale, oh wait...I liked the use of cheap nudity frames in the manga that was very much missing from the movie; I'm supposed to infer sex scenes now? What?

Manga Berserk

I soak up alot of what is popular on the internet. Being populist is great because it means everything is readily accessible. At this point I don't even think a resident of Japan has an better access to manga to the english-speaking population at large. Can I sidestep the legality issues? I'm just trying to point out that the internet is a great library of time-wasting resources for the otiose wastoids of society of which I'm a member. Maybe for a lifetime.

So after all the depression, self-flagellation act, let me remind myself about Berserk. It's still active and I'm following it, but it's a monthly and the pacing has disintegrated. At this point I follow it for closure more than the quality. The story was great - an expansive scope and no real attempt to soften the edges - it wasn't novel but it really had some elements you don't get from say, Naruto. Up until Schierke and that thief kid transformed the group from lost souls into the fuzzy circus-like troupe. They took the hints of cuddly Gutz and pretty much blew it up full scale. It's turned from a dark gothic revenge tale to the merry adventure travelers of the high seas.

Maybe this is just the lull in the story exacerbated by the monthly schedule. I really hope that's the case. Also, the scope of all the breakouts of war are great, but since we know Griffith ain't going down to anyone, can't they just wrap the Kushans quickly? Oh that's right, the kid is Isadoro. I think.

Actually all the active mangas I follow have similar effect on me in that: once the delay starts from having caught up I start to lose interest and I feel the quality is poorer. The only exception has been Claymore. This is not to say it's better than Berserk. It's more accurate in my opinion to say that Claymore was never as expansive and ambitious as Berserk; what you got from the beginning is what you were going to get. The story was pretty linear and focused on only one characters with very few secondary arcs in the background, and those wrapped up quick. In Berserk they haven't resolved much of anything - only more threads come into play.

On Naruto, which to me is like the TV series Heroes in that the beginning and middle of the arcs are going to be crap and all you can hope is that the build up to the finale will make up for all that. Naruto did that with the first arc as the end fight between the titular character and Sasuke and the pursuit before that was the highlight of the series by far. Shippuden has been disappointing so far, even with this new Pain business. Oh well, still better than Dragonball Z.

It takes me a week to finish a thought

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

I have blogger's ADHD

But I'm not going to do anything about it. Just like the depression. If you acknowledge the problem it gets old real fast so instead ignore it for as long as possible, life will go by more quickly.

Anyway, The Office and Seinfeld (and 30 Rock). Wait, if Mourinhno really wants the England job then I think (not that anyone would ever ask) the FA should pay him pretty much whatever he wants. He'll have the highest chance of succeeding at the job since Sir Bobby Robson. The Special One is egomaniacal enough to not be pressured into sticking with the players with a good reputation and actually be able to alter the lineup according to the player's form; from the past decade of watching England, one would be led to believe that this is a novel concept. For example, it took Hoddle almost two games in the opening rounds of the 1998 World Cup to stick Owen in for Sheringham and Owen never looked back, at least for that tournament. Michael is just a sour topic because he really had some quality which were never improved on and then the injuries wore him down to the overpriced journeyman he is today. He could have been a contender, especially among the slowfooted centrebacks of the Premiership. Mourinhno would still keep England in a conservative style but he's an excellent mindbender which will help the players get over the pressure on them. He'll probably be able to get the media pressure off by having the corp focus all their attention on him, something he did with Chelsea. He'd also mess with the opposing coaches just for fun, he's perfect, give him his own money printer, stat.

If the Special One took England all the way he'd be a living god and get any job he wanted, like Alex Ferguson's after he finally retires. The odds of England winning would be incredible because the World Cup is in Africa in the summer and you know the European teams wonn't last two matches without dehydrating (unless they use two lineups). And also, because it's England we're talking about.

So I was reading SI's Peter King who, if you're a fan of the NFL and wasting time on the "interweb", is really one of the good weekly reads. So in it he mentioned how people think The Office compares favourably to Seinfeld and might be its successor. Now, that might be true from a viewership standpoint because The Office probably gets the strongest ratings of the NBC thursday lineup and also because it has characters and character relationships that viewers actually care about. But that's exactly why it really isn't anything like Seinfeld because like most people weaned on pop culture would know, Seinfeld never went for that element in its stories. It'd have romances, but they'd end before the episode was out, except George and Susan and Elaine and Puddy. The former they dealt with by having George off his bride to be and the latter was not any less farcical. Basically, everything was played for a laugh. Not that there's anything wrong with that. You never saw them do anything cheesy but sweet like The Office finale of season two and it would have been awful if they did.

The Office is much more like that other successful NBC sitcom before Seinfeld: Cheers. Both are sitcoms but with the occasional dramatic arcs, chances for their characters to cry in an empty stairwell or get a feel good hug. They also boasts great underused secondary characters, loads of them. How much did they use Bebe Neuwirth on Cheers? Small dosage and she was awesome. For The Office, I guess I'd pick Darnell. Seinfeld had Newman and Jerry's parents and Uncle Leo and Peterman - actually, nevermind, all great sitcoms have excellent secondary characters that leave you wanting more. But Frasier getting left at the altar was an event that made you empathize with him, did anyone ever have that for a Seinfeld character. Exhibit B is Dwight in the hallway crying about Angela or Pam crying and having Dwight take off his coat and tying it around his waist because it was warm.

If you had to correlate The Office and Seinfeld, I think it should go like this:
Michael ~ George, except without the bitterness and meanstreak. Michael would park in a handicapped spot because he burnt his foot on a Foreman Grill, essentially because he believes he's handicapped by the injury. George wouldn't even need any excuse: so long as he thought he'd get away with it. He'd know it was wrong and wouldn't care. Plus, he would pretend to be handicapped just to use the executive washroom.

Jim ~ Jerry but more idealistic and caring. Oh, and dreamier. Jim's usually the straight man to all the other screwballs. They both have trademark expressions (of indignity as it were?)

Dwight ~ Kramer but humanized. I mean, of course there are real Kramer's in the world but you can't relate to them - not in the real world and not even on your idiot box.

Pam ~ Elaine. She's not really Elaine, but obviously they're both female. Pam is almost too perfect on the US version. She's everything good, and on top of that, approachable. She's pretty but not intimidating to be around because she's just the receptionist (it's not prejudice, just something about the attitude that they have to show: mainly being approachable) out that almost every guy on the show has wanted to do it. Pam did do a bitchy thing on Karen at the Survivor trip. Elaine is pretty much acting like that (selfishly) all the time.

30 Rock, it seems to me is the new Seinfeld. It's like how Jack described Liz Lemon, which is also how he'd probably describe the stiking writers, "funny, weird, and socially retarded." It's got a Kramer-like Tracy Morgan. I want to say Jack is like George if he were successful but it'd be a lie. Still, Jack and George were the stars of their shows, respectively, above the main character. Tina Fey and Jerry are both limited actors (Fey's probably better by a lot because Jerry really has the range of a stand up, albeit a very good one based on my tastes), they play the straight man with the occasional misadventure. Mostly they just disapprove of the outlandish schemes of their comrades and in the process make us laugh. Elaine, is there an Elaine on 30 Rock? Jenna, I guess, but I think most people see her as modelled on Rachel Dratch with more feminine allure but less "apartment full of cats", cherubic charm. Okay, now I need to look up what Dratch is up to on Imdb.com, great.

The Office and Seinfeld

Is it safe to assume that the vast majority of the population believe the writers have the moral high ground over the studio suits. It's not the boycott all mediums of entertainment or even honk your horn level of support, rather more of a "if I had to choose one side to pray for at night if I weren't agnostic"-type of support. It doesn't matter whether they have support though because the writers can handle themselves. You can count on one hand the people who were not told that being a writer and joining the entertainment industry as scribes was the most farfetched daydream ever. And the stubborn kids did it anyway, whether they're making Tina Fey money, or I don't know, Jill Soloway money (actually they're both probably doing well).

I was reading that interesting article a few weeks back by some guy who was married to a WGA member and he was saying that the members can't agree on anything but they're unified. Additionally, the suits were all keeping and line and pushing their talking points and pretending to have amnesia with regard to their hours of planning an efficient online business model for their product. I found it hilarious that the two sides were acting so cliche - it was exactly as you'd imagine it. The corporate fat cats tell all the bald-faced lies in the world without blinking and taking less than a minute to do so. No shame, no breaking character, no emotions. They just read the lines they want to feed to the media outlets that are owned by the same people and then have business lunch at Le Cirque and go about their day.

The writers being unified was perfectly explainable by their stubborness and self-centredness that makes a person think that they can put to page something that people would want to expend time, energy, and money to see. It's got to be pretty special to beat a nice long sleep after a ten hour day plus commuting, but the TV hooks alot of the labour force every night. On top of that, if they can't on anything else (global warming, voting democrat, etc.) then they are still sure to agree on one thing: that they're worth more than they're being paid. That applies with almost every worker, and probably more so with writers who are obliged to feel that their works are unique unlike an accountant (well, excluding the "creative" ones) or a code-monkey (I'm just bitter, IT people make good money). They'll put up with being used by the people who cut the check, they may even put up with being groped once a month, but they can all agree that they will not put up with being royally screwed by "The Man". And they're willing to eat into their savings a little to show their backbone. How many movies or TV shows portray management as the good guys? Obviously, the audience relates better with the underdog but it's also because the writers skew socialists.

I'm probably a left-wing socialist liberal by any standard but I have sided with management for a few sports strikes/lockouts. The recent NHL lockout because that's one where the players knew for a fact that a number of teams were in trouble and still chose to stand firm on the status quo; you know it's time to back down when 20% of the teams had much better finances during the lockout than in operation. They had a national TV contract in the US that the lacrosse and curling leagues wouldn't want, so how much did the players think the owners could milk from their attendance revenue.

I also had a problem with the MLB strike in 94(?) just because they waited until the good part of baseball - the last three months - to strike. Financially that was the play but it was not fair for the fans, especially the six of them in Montreal because the Expos were leading the division and I'm sure if they made the World Series they would have at least the size of a saturday night movie crowd. Maybe.

England: The Prodigal Son

If there's an equivalent to being a Chicago Cubs fan in the world of international football, then it's likely to be supporters of the English national team or the Spanish one.

At least Spain made it to the dance this time, with one game to spare whereas the three lions in their profligent manner flunked their exams and have to go back for an extra year of high school. English fans would the mother who has already cleaned out her basement and done the math on how many decades it'll be until he moves out it ever. I didn't have to use a strained metaphor, but I'm kind of an authority on prodigals and not just according to my parents.

The truth is the majority of fans view the team as underachieving, listless, and inane, and that's not just this past Euro qualification but probably the last time the team won the World Cup in 1966 with Sir Bobby Charlton. Maybe expectations are a bit high; the English media has a penchant for overreacting.

As a loyal parent of a the handicap-able child that is the English national team, I think the best thing is to lower expectations a bit. The aim should be reminiscent of Portugal through the last few big competitions; they haven't won it all but they've been a threat and always played like they were a threat.

Obviously, England does not have the big guns like Brazil or Argentina - most glaringly in the front six. Those two teams have three to four viable options for each spot with some overlap but also a good complement of skills. England can barely fill up the front six positions with players of pedigree. Strikers are Wayne Rooney and Michael Owen; a strong lad who plays a little deep and an experienced poacher - it's not bad if not for the empty cupboard: Peter Crouch is the next best option. Michael Owen is bordering on being washed up unfortunately, and Rooney needs a partner who can take some pressure off him.

Midfield is an area where England has exactly four guys. They get about the same performance from Lennon or Cole or Pennant or Wright-Phillips so the flanks don't really provide any spark. They lack real creativity as evidenced by the majority of attacks ending with overhit crosses into the area where they have one teammate and five defenders. Beckham is actually quite useful considering the number of goals that are derived from dead ball situations and even more so in Team England; it wouldn't even matter if he stood around the rest of the game, which is probably semi-accurate. A goal in soccer is too precious. Steven Gerrard and Frank Lampard are good players individually but obviously can't gel and also not the creative type to unlock and defence - they're more play it quick and hope something happens, and if not, hit a forty yard screamer and try to get lucky. There's a reason why the team stinks in possession stats against good teams and can't do anything with their possession advantage against bad ones.

The team does have pretty good selections at the back. No depth, but when healthy they're at least an A- in three positions, projecting a little bit on the potential of Micah.

The goalkeeping situation is seemingly atrocious but I believe good teams make good goalkeepers, at least partially. It's a confidence issue. Experience and technique are important, but there's nothing like a two-goal lead to work with when the opposition threads a perfect through-ball and creates a one-on-one; in that case it's much easier to come out aggressive as compared to being down a goal in a big game.

Liverpool FC fans secretly wish they had...

Abramovitch circa 2002 as the owner instead of Hicks and Gillett.

It's probably too early to come to any conclusions but at the very least we can all stop holding our collective breathes waiting for the money tap to start flowing. To be fair, the new owners did put to plan the oft-delayed proposal for a new stadium. And the recent war of words with Benitez may be just a way of keeping everything behind closed doors and playing the media game. Anyway, it is too early and realistically I'll have to wait about five years, then take a look at the trophy case to assess the success of their reign.

Having said that, I beseech them to not give that bs about having spent the most in club history on transfers. Like Benitez responded the club recovered half of the output from the players sold, even extracting a breakeven sum for the "distinguished" Craig Bellamy - some things in this world are impossible but apparently this wasn't one of them. And I think it's also fair to acknowledge that during Benitez's tenure - I don't know if the fault is with Rick Parry or the board or the manager himself - alot of money has been wasted on mediocre talent. It's not as bad as the Houllier era when Bruno Cheyrou, Le Tallec and Sinama-Pongolle were supposed to be wunderkinds with limitless potential on the level of Zidane, but the haul hasn't been great either.

I remember Benitez rueing about the fact that they couldn't spend like Arsenal when talking about Theo Walcott which kind of neglects the angle that Arsenal has the lowest payroll and transfer kitty of the four giants of the Premiership. They were paying Thierry Henry abouot half as uch as Liverpool were paying Gerrard plus Zenden (no research on this except from the SI's Football Manager 2007 database - good game, but like everyone complains, change the engine once in a decade. And also, you can't do like Bolton to Man U, play rough and disrupt their timing when Man U were in great form. They did rest Rooney and C. Ronaldo, but still Tevez better score some more or he's going to become the next Diego Forlan). Arsenal have the kind of operation that Liverpool should be aiming for.

For reals, if Arsene Wenger left Arsenal, every team on his shortlist should have their fingers on their "Fire the Manager" buttons - hook him back up with David Dein and you'll have a challenger in five years. That would include Benitez - he's been very solid especially in Europe - but Wenger is in another class in the Premiership. Experience apparently matters, I never believed when I sent out those job applications and even when I got no response for like six months - I'm a naivete.

Note to self

Just in case I forget in ten years, don't get drawn into comparing the big four of HBO dramas ever. The four should be quite unaminous according to ratings or critics - but ten years is a long time, so - the shortlist: Six Feet Under, Sopranos, The Wire and Deadwood. I'd agree with people who think Six Feet Under is pretentious but I think it was inevitable with that premise, at least Ruth stayed above all that; she probably should have lashed out at her children somemore when they were young, at least then she'd have gotten something from them - I liked the Fisher children, but even I thought they were a bit ungrateful and coming from an ungrateful child like moi that's saying something. The main point is whichever one is on rewatch automatically becomes my favourite for that span so I feel like I should waste time on other impertinent questions such as "Will Roger Federer tally 22 slams by the time he's done? (To match the total of Agassi and Sampras combined)". I think at this moment that it is not a crazy proposition assuming he stays healthy for the most part.

From the ratings perspective, The Wire would be the weak sister and Sopranos the leader by a mile. But from the critics and the rabid fan support angle, The Wire is probably the champion. Having spent an absurd amount of time to think about the greatness of The Wire, I feel it comes down a few factors:

1. The Black culture - It's not something most of the appreciating audience comes into contact with in real life. Moreover, you almost never see a heavy drama on American television where the cast is predominantly black and speaking street. So it's a combination of a coolness factor mixed with an authenticity and uniqueness bonus. There's no other show with that kind of cache. The Wire, however it frames the interaction of its characters, runs no danger of coming off as patronising or pretentious - something that none of the other shows can count on.

2. The Freedom to go Slow - On a network show, it seems every other show is some form of mystery of the week and a resolution to a situation is always within a few episodes save for the one thread stringing the main plot. Cable shows, on the other hand, can move at a molasses pace without having executives pulling the fire alarm and evacuating the building. Actually, this is something that was mentioned by a producer of Lost when he or she was defending the honour of Heroes in its sophomore season. My contention is that The Wire might be even slower than any other cable show but that does not equate to tardiness. To me, each of the four seasons of The Wire have hit their stride on about the eighth or ninth episode. Before that point, the dialogue and personal dramas hold down the fort. The Wire will never have our favourite division solving petty thefts and finding lost dogs.Actually, it's great and I wouldn't have it any other way.

3. The gritty police perspective - Legalizing soft drugs seems to be the common stance among policemen but not among the rest of society where there's a significant divide. When I was watching the show, it seemed natural to support softening the stance on junkies and the softer drugs in general. The Wire will make their case very strongly. Junkies will chase their high until they die; it's sad but probably one of those near certainties neighbouring on death and taxes. From the police perspective, cleaning them up off the streets is neither worth the effort nor possible. I probably should have just went straight for the impossible part. The show should also be given credit for showing the results of such a decision as not being quite ugly in the form of Hamsterdam. To state the obvious, the drug war is very complicated with many gray areas. The most essential of these: "Is there any possibility of winning a clean victory? Just winning?"

4. Social commentary - The Wire, unlike The Sopranos, works best as social commentary. So it really plays better to the liberal audience as opposed to the conservatives. Ultra-conservative viewers will reject most of the moral dilemmas and the subsequent compromises presented as reprehensible. They'll also hardly have a character to identify with or support. So political alignment is very important to the enjoyment of the show. This is something that the other three HBO gems also suffer from, but less so in my opinion. Then again, the predominantly black cast probably chased away all the octogenarians watching CSI as well as all the Reaganites watching Fox News. Oh, The Wire also portrayed a labour union (dock workers) sympathetically and the depressing state of blue-collar labourers of American industry. So that says something about which side of the battle it's on. Uh, if there's a battle at all; I don't want to suggest there's some kind of class war because there doesn't seem to be. The blue-collar have clearly been roofied, penetrated while being videoed by the people with the green. I'm not saying it's unfair; I'm just saying it is. Saying a spade has for clovers doesn't make it so - would anybody believe that this was a quote from Abraham Lincoln on poker night while on his nineteenth white russian? No? Oh well, keep telling everyone the Civil War was on account of slavery, Honest (?) Abe (in heaven or hell or wherever you are)! And keep in touch with Honest Richard and Honest Ronald.

I'm lacking that thing...

that makes a good blogger - mainly a life. I didn't realize that blogging is only fun if your life is interesting. Apart from that, all that a blog can become is bitter, snarky, and pretentious. It's bad enough to be a poser without branding yourself on the forehead with a sign to that effect.

It's that or an imagination, which incidentally is also lacking. I'm going to blame education on that one.