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.