Monthly Archives: August 2009

The Art of Reviewing: Introductory Remarks

8delaroc

Every blog needs a large-scale project. The Art of Reviewing will explore reviewing as an art form and as a valuable element to understanding society.  During this project, I will profile specific reviewers of merit.  Several specific cases also explore other facets of reviewing.

What makes a good reviewer?

A review is only good as the individual reviewing the work.  But what is meant by good?  Good – like value, civilization, and culture – is a loaded term.  It should be not be used in a cavalier fashion or overloaded with moral baggage.  Does the reviewer have a technique, a perspective, and a knowledge base?  If any of these is found lacking, then the entire enterprise will become suspect.

Below are basic requirements for any review, regardless of length or intent:

  • Knowledge of genre/medium.

Every reviewer should have a basic understanding of what he or she is reviewing.  If not, they aren’t much of a reviewer in the first place.  One facet of this understanding is a general knowledge of the genre and/or medium.  While a complete understanding is impossible, since humans lack omniscience, a reviewer with the contours and trends of the genre is a valuable commodity.  The same goes for reviewers with a keen understanding of technological change and its impact on the audience as it relates to the work’s medium.

  • Knowledge of the author.

A reviewer should have a basic understanding of the author’s biographical details, including historical, cultural, and political information relevant to the discussion.

  • Critical wisdom.

Critical wisdom is conceptually vague, since it is hard to quantify.  A reviewer who misses a basic biographical fact or a major work in the genre can be slighted for the mistake, but how does one measure critical wisdom?  The nebulous nature makes it hard to quantify, but age, experience, and previous work may be helpful.  One gains wisdom not through the raw accumulation of information, but through the discerning use for that information.

  • Right to change his or her mind.

Humans, the ones writing the reviews, are fallible.  We all make mistakes.  Critics aren’t immune.  One of the risks of reviewing is speaking with confidence about a work and rendering judgment.  In the end, that judgment may be false.  A reviewer has a right to change his or her mind regarding any judgment rendered on a work.  This isn’t the same as bowing down to pressure from the mob or giving in to coercion.  Intellectual flexibility and humility are characteristics of a good reviewer.

  • Unique perspective.

Everyone has his or her own perspective.  A reviewer is no different.  With the plethora of information available in all kinds of media, there are hordes of reviewers out there.  Most are interchangeable and otherwise forgettable, evaporating mist on the critical landscape.  A reviewer with a unique perspective stands out among others.  A unique perspective also bespeaks of individuality and ownership.  “This is my opinion and I’ll stand by it.”  In the end, reviews are unique cultural products about another cultural product.  Even in the most perfunctory review, there should be more there than a mere rating and measurement.

  • Acknowledging biases/prejudices, etc.

Similar to the issue of critical wisdom, a quality reviewer recognizes his or her own biases and prejudices.  Every year, tons and tons of stuff get produced.  Reviewers see only a fraction of this.  Because of the impossibility to know every genre or author in totality, biases and prejudices are bound to pop up sooner or later.  This is another inevitability of humanity.  The reviewer should recognize the biases and prejudices within their work.  Readers should also be discerning enough to recognize them, since no reviewer is the absolute authority.  Reviewers should be questioned about their biases and prejudices.

The function of reviewing

Our culture easily dismisses the reviewer.  “Who listens to critics anyway?” is a common refrain.  What does reviewing offer?  The only difference is that the monetary investment may be smaller.  Before one buys a house, one should probably read up on sub-prime mortgages and reviews of the neighborhood.  Or one should read product reviews from Consumer Reports before buying a DVD player, TV, or some other essential appliance.  Why not do the same before buying a book or seeing a movie?  On the practical side, at least know the rating and bare outline of the plot to protect your children from any unwarranted swearing or nudity.

At root, the review is informative.  It should inform the reader.  Short reviews excel at this function.  Longer reviews can also be informative, going into more detail about the artist, adding historical context, and enlighten the reader are about similar works relevant to the discussion.  The function of the review is dependent on the needs of the reader.  Sometimes a reader needs a brief summary.  At other times, a more detailed discussion is necessary.

Blogcritics.org offers short informative reviews while the London Review of Books offers essay-length reviews.

The art of reviewing

Reviewing is writing and writing is an art form.  It is also a craft, but when a craft is well wrought, it transcends mere technique to become art.  A majority of reviews out there are craft.  They serve the function to inform the reader about pertinent information.

Automotive reviewing offers an example of technique versus art.  Purchasing an automobile is a serious investment.  MotorWeek, the public television staple, offers informative reviews of cars for the prospective buyer.  Profiled vehicles along with a voice-over and graphics listing off the relevant statistics offer an informative hour of television.  Then there is Top Gear and specifically Jeremy Clarkson, a loudmouth prone to saying sensational things.  Gone are the statistics and purchasing information, replaced by gorgeously produced segments that turn the sports or luxury cars under review into gorgeous baubles.  Infotainment at its best.

The value of reviewing

People should value reviews.  They offer insight into the products of a culture.  The practical side is being more informed before you go purchase a product.  The other side is that one is more informed about the contours and trends of the culture.  A reviewer should tell you why or why not a particular thing – book, TV show, automobile – is good and why.  A discerning reader or viewer will make up his or her own mind.

Reviewing is not a one-way street.  Reviewers are hardly the high priests, giving their audience information with unquestioned authority.  A nation without a strong critical press is in danger of descending into authoritarian madness.  People who didn’t read the reviews shouldn’t complain about their expectations being quashed.  South Pacific is not the same type of movie as Saving Private Ryan. If you don’t like being critical, stay home on Election Day.  Who listens to critics anyway?

Profiled Reviewers:

  • Jeremy Clarkson (Top Gear, London Times driving reviewer)
  • Clive James (author, columnist, polymath, wit)
  • Nathan Rabin (AV Club hip hop reviewer, My Year in Flops)
  • Special Case File #1: The movie 300
  • Anthony Burgess
  • James Wood (book reviewer for the New Yorker)
  • Anthony Bourdain (author, cook, world traveler, host of No Reservations)
  • Harold Bloom (critic, author)
  • Susan Sontag (critic, author)
  • Roland Barthes (author, theorist)
  • Joe Bob Briggs (film critic)
  • Joris-Karl Husymans (Against Nature, 1884)
  • Special Case File #2: The Kindly Ones by Jonathan Littell
  • Walter Benjamin (cultural critic, theorist)
  • Michel Foucault (critic, theorist)
  • Special Case File #3: Reviewing Warhammer 40K fiction

The Driftless Area Review on Facebook

HiveMind

It was inevitable.  The Driftless Area Review now has its own page on Facebook, the social networking-hivemind.  I encourage regular readers of this blog — the dozens and baker’s dozens of you out there — to join.

Addendum: The group is now open and public.  Feel free to join.

Gravity’s Rainbow (1973) by Thomas Pynchon

rainbow

“unreadable, turgid, overwritten and obscene.” — Pulitzer Prize board.

Scenario: Imagine you’re a peasant, wallowing about the mud, occasionally getting hassled by men in armor alleging they are kings because some lass threw a scimitar at him, and you’re late for the biweekly meeting of your anarcho-sydiclist commune. Perhaps you’re name is Dennis. Life is a constant struggle involving mud, plague, and rampaging Crusaders lopping the heads off random farmers.

Your daily routine of mud farming is disrupted. Out of nowhere, an day-glo painted SR-71 Blackbird, piloted by a figure reminiscent of Donald Sutherland’s character from Kelley’s Heroes and co-piloted by Donald Sutherland’s character from JFK, lands in your mud-field. Your reaction would be very similar to that of the reading public in 1973.

This isn’t so much a novel in the conventional character-plot-setting deal common since the days of Homer. No, this is something wildly, beautifully, obscenely different. Not so much a narrative as much as a Rosetta Stone of literary modernism and postmodernism.

What Pynchon did for the novel with Gravity’s Rainbow is what Matthew Barney did for film in Cremaster 3. Epic gorgeous labyrinthine genius encased in paranoia and bio-psychic nightmares.

Parallels: Ulysses by James Joyce, Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace, and 2666 by Roberto Bolano.

Vineland and the Pynchon Canon: A Critical Appraisal

vineland_cover

Introduction: “The bums lost.”

the-big-lebowski-1

The Big Lebowski: Your revolution is over, Mr. Lebowski. Condolences. The bums lost. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

The Dude walks out and shuts the door.

The Big Lebowski: The bums will always lose!

Brandt: How was your meeting, Mr. Lebowski?

The Dude: Okay. The old man told me to take any rug in the house.

The Big Lebowski (1998) – Los Bros. Coen

In 1990 saw the publication of Vineland, by Thomas Pynchon.  The novel concerned the exploits and misadventures of burnt-out hippies, insane DEA agents, and a monomaniacal FBI agent, taking place in the Orwellian year 1984.  It truly seemed that “the bums lost” and “would have to get a job, sir.”

After a long hiatus, following the award-winning Gravity’s Rainbow, Vineland seemed like a mere trifle, an afterthought and utterly inconsequential to the Pynchon Canon.  This will attempt to dispel the stereotypical reactions that Vineland is Pynchon’s weakest work and critically unimportant.

History is a great leveler.  Pynchon’s newest novel, Inherent Vice, requires we re-examine his Canon.  New works have a way of re-contextualizing everything that came before it.  In this case, the key to the re-contextualization is the much-maligned and misunderstood decade, the 1960s.

(Full disclosure: I have not read any Late Pynchon – Mason & Dixon, Against the Day, and Inherent Vice.  Hopefully this will not negate the value of this essay’s assertions.)

History and re-assessing the artistic work

the-march-of-time

Time present and time past
Are both perhaps present in time future,
And time future contained in time past.

“Burnt Norton,” Four Quartets (1944)T.S. Eliot

The past is never dead. It’s not even past.

Requiem for a Nun (1951) – William Faulkner

Time marches on.  History exists as the delicate dance between interpretation and time.  With the luxury of time separating us from the events, historians can interpret what happened.  The same holds true for literature.

The publication of Gravity’s Rainbow represents a landmark in both modernist and postmodernist literatures.  A rara avis that changed the novel-writing game forever.  It stands alongside monumental experimental novels like Ulysses, Infinite Jest, and 2666.  In the words of Claude Debussy: “Works of art make rules but rules do not make works of art.”

Gravity’s Rainbow is a labyrinthine, darkly comedic epic involving Tyrone Slothrop’s relationship with V-2s.  The novel seems plotless, involves hundreds of characters, and reverberates with Nixon-era paranoia.  Not an easy read by any estimation, it also represents the form of the novel at its most terminal since Finnegans Wake, except funnier.  Expressed another way, if you showed a medieval peasant a day-glo painted SR-71 Blackbird, he would express the same reaction the reading public had to this novel in 1973.

Therefore, it was with great disappointment that Pynchon’s next work was Vineland, a novel about hippies, the FBI, and female ninjas.  After the genius of Gravity’s Rainbow, anything would be a letdown.  It had been seventeen years and anticipation can become agonizing.  The same happened between the release of The Return of the Jedi (1983) and The Phantom Menace (1999), thankfully, Vineland, for all its cartoonish aspects lacked midichlorians and the minstrelsy of Jar Jar Binks.

The latest novel from Thomas Pynchon is Inherent Vice, a short novel following his epic Against the Day. While this pattern of large novel followed by short novel is typical of Pynchon, we have to explore the subject matter and the effect of history upon the Pynchon Canon.  There are relationships and parallels running through the various novels that reflect back upon Vineland.

Triad I: The Magnum Opus, the Miniature, and the In-Between

First, some statistics:

The Magnum Opus

V. (492 pages)

Gravity’s Rainbow (760 pages)

Mason & Dixon (773 pages)

Against the Day (1085 pages)

The Miniature

Crying of Lot 49 (183 pages)

The In-Between

Vineland (385 pages)

Inherent Vice (369 pages)

Vineland and Inherent Vice exist in a peculiar category among Pynchon’s novels.  Obviously not epic works, they are also not written with tightness and efficiency like Crying of Lot 49.  Both also followed the publications of epic works, although Inherent Vice followed only a couple years after Against the Day.

Triad II: The Contemporary, the Nostalgic, and the Zeitgeist

Crying of Lot 49 (1966)

Vineland (1990)

Inherent Vice (2009)

Vineland becomes important to the Pynchon Canon when we look at the transmutations of history.  Besides Past and Present, history also contains mutations like Nostalgia and Zeitgeist, subjective transformations of the events.  As memories grow fainter, do our childhoods – those eponymous Good Old Days – get better?  Or is it another lie to keep ourselves sleeping well at night, even if existence involves defeat, compromise, humiliation, desperation, and futility?  History can be weaponized like everything else.

Let’s examine three interrelated Pynchon novels: Crying of Lot 49, Vineland, and Inherent ViceCrying of Lot 49, written in 1966, tells the story of a suburban woman and her run-in with conspiracies real and imagined.  It was written in the Sixties on the Sixties, specifically Southern California.  It was also written before the Boomers deified (or demonized, depending on who you talk to) the decade, turning the decade into an Idea, an Ideal, and a Lost Revolution every bit as resonant as the Lost Cause to the South.

The losers of this Lost Revolution appear in Vineland, hippies, burnouts, and other nonconformists trying to survive the predations of the Reagan Era.  Vineland is unique because Pynchon makes his political allegiances passionate and obvious.  No love is lost on Nixon and Reagan, since he sides with hippie burnout Zoyd Wheeler.  He makes his living from an annual performance of personal insanity, much to the chagrin of DEA agent Hector Zuñiga, who, it turns out, is actually insane.  Zoyd’s archnemesis is FBI agent Brock Voyd, a man who fell in love with Zoyd’s wife Ferensi Gates.  Ferensi, living as a snitch for Brock’s mobile grand jury, exists as the symbol of American idealism.  Both her parents and grandparents were active in American left-wing organizations, from the IWW to the pro-socialist production unions in Hollywood.

Nostalgia for the Sixties informs the entire work.  The reconnection with the past and Prairie, Ferensi’s daughter, reconnecting with her mother, are a major through-line in the novel.

Inherent Vice returns to the Sixties, this time as a reconstruction of the Zeitgeist.  Vineland has the Past creeping in to the Present, whereas Inherent Vice is written about the Past from the vantage point of the Present.  Even with the same subject matter (Southern California in the Sixties) the results will be different, since one can not walk through the same river twice.

Vineland links both Crying of Lot 49 and Inherent Vice, a trio in minor key compared to the major works like Gravity’s Rainbow, Mason & Dixon, and Against the Day.  Reading Pynchon does make one hyper-aware of connections between things, events, and personalities, even if the connections do not actually exist.

Brought to you by the letter v …

V., Gravity’s Rainbow, Vineland, Inherent Vice. The letter v, like several characters, appear and reappear in several novels.  Is this evidence of some greater connection or is it all in our heads?

Conspiracies Real and Imagined

Bush Family Flow Chart

“One by one, as other voices joined in, the names began – some shouted, some accompanied by spit, the old reliable names good for hours of contention, stomach stress, and insomnia – Hitler, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Nixon, Hoover, Mafia, CIA, Reagan, Kissinger, that collection of names and their tragic interweaving that stood not constellated above in any nightwide remotenesses of light, but below, diminished to the last unfaceable American secret, to be pressed, each time deeper, again and again beneath the meanest of random soles, one blackly fermenting leaf on the forest floor that nobody wanted to turn over, because of all that lived, virulent, waiting, just beneath.”

Vineland (1990), Thomas Pynchon

In Crying of Lot 49, Oedipa Maas works to uncover a conspiracy which may or may not exist.  In Vineland, the conspiracy is the history of the United States.  Brock Voyd and Ferensi Gates represent the two poles of that United States conspiracy, since each event and actor (“Hitler, Roosevelt, Kennedy … CIA, Reagan, Kissinger”) becomes the manifestation of Good or Evil depending where one stands in the political spectrum.

“You one of those right wing nut outfits?” inquired the diplomatic Metzger.
Fallopian twinkled. “They accuse us of being paranoids.”
“They?” inquired Metzger, twinkling also.
“Us?” asked Oedipa.

Crying of Lot 49 (1966), Thomas Pynchon

subgenius_big

Both Pynchon and the Church of the SubGenius realize that the political spectrum is circular with the extremists of both “sides” indistinguishable from each other.  The only differences, much like the differences between the Republican and Democratic parties, cosmetic and superficial.  If you in front line infantry, does it really matter which autocrat will shoot you in the back for retreating?  Both Nazi Germany and Stalin’s USSR possessed penal battalions.

Today we can add more names to that litany, shout and spit and froth, and interweave them into that constellated leaf on the forest floor.  Then again, no one possesses the cajones to actually lift up that leaf.  Can’t do that, since that would disrupt the incumbent’s crusade for “bipartisanship and healing.”  How can one heal when wounds fester?

Vineland’s genius is that it explores what one finds beneath that leaf on the forest floor.  The exploration comes from the misadventures of people with funny names doing crazy things and female ninjas.  The most subversive, rebellious, and anarchic voices are the comedians and the pranksters.  Comedy offers an easier entry point for readers as opposed to a preachy treatise.  Mark Twain said, “Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand.”

Conclusion: “The Dude abides.”

The Stranger: I like your style, Dude.

The Dude: Well, I dig your style too, man. Got the whole cowboy thing goin’.

The Stranger: Thankee.

The Pynchon Canon has had its ups and downs, its haters and its fandom, but the Dude abides.  Pynchon has succeeded where few author have, writing novels on his own terms and at his own pace.  No one compels him to churn out bestsellers or to down down his complex, usually plotless, tales of outcasts and (possibly false) conspiracies.  He can write low comedy or craft beautifully poetic passages, arguably the best in the language.

What does this mean for the Pynchon Canon?  What will he come up with next?

“Obviously you’re not a golfer.” – The Dude.

Dollhouse Riffs: Riff #3: “Epitaph One” and the mutability of the Dollhouse Canon

3145191023_c728f84501Los Angeles, 2019: Another ‘Verse.  Another Vision.  More Human Than Human.

Epitaph-One-1L to R: Scut Farkas, Little Miss Sunshine, Codex.

Apocalypse Now That’s What I Call Entertainment

The TV series Dollhouse faces a unique canonical situation with “Epitaph One.”  The episode was produced but unaired, while the series was renewed for another season.  With Season 2 unseen and speculation rife, with a series finale full of cliffhangers and unanswered, where does one place “Epitaph One”?

The title name winks at the possibility of the series ending.  The episode’s narrative and setting allude to finality.  Set in the year 2019 in Los Angeles, the viewer is thrown into a postapocalypic scenario, techno-military slang tossed around, and the economical vision shot in HD video.  In the words of Jack Burton, “What the hell?”

Los Angeles, 2019: Insert tongue into cheek.  On the surface Joss Whedon pulled a nice in-joke to all the geeks and cyberpunk aficionados in the audience.  The setting is the same as Bladerunner, Ridley Scott’s 1982 science fiction classic that redefined the genre.  In the film, the Tyrell Corporation manufactures replicants, androids nearly identical to humans in every way.  The Dollhouse’s eponymous dolls allude to the replicants – the pleasure model, the laborer, the political kick-murder squad unit – complete with nefarious megacorporation.

The postapocalyptic Los Angeles also puts a neat twist on Luddite concept.  The military types roaming around the shattered megalopolis make sure to destroy anything capable of broadcast and reception.  (It also seems like a meta-commentary on creativity in broadcast television.  “You don’t like my series?  Fine.  I’ll destroy all televisions.”)  The military types destroy broadcasting technology because the technology that wiped the minds of the dolls has “become wireless.”  In the hermetically sealed utopia-fortress of the Dollhouse, the dolls could be implanted with personalities and wiped in a relatively safe environment, save the occasional rogue FBI agent infiltration.  Since the technology is now wireless, everyone could become a victim and be turned into a “butcher” (Cf. reavers from Firefly).

The military types eventually find refuge in the remains of the Los Angeles Dollhouse.  Apocalypse and Genesis become one and the same.

107-1248649388-dollhouse_epitaph_one_090726Oral history meets techno-futurism.  Want me to tell you a story?

Oral History: Adventures in Techno-primitivism

Holed up in the Los Angeles Dollhouse, the military types discover the device used to imprint personalities on the dolls (aka “actives”).  The bulk of the episode focuses on different people sitting down in the chair, getting a personality uploaded into them, and then they divulge what they know about the events leading up to the present unpleasantness.

The use of the imprinting chair to invoke personal testimonies is a curious amalgamation of primitive and futuristic storytelling techniques.  Oral storytelling is one of the oldest forms of communication.  Myths, histories, legends, and laws passed down from one generation to the next via recitation and memorization.  This is older than electricity, older than the printing press, and older than writing itself.  One of the first things we ever did as a species was tell each other stories.

From the episode “Man on the Street” (1.06):

Academic: If that techology exists, it’ll be used, it’ll be abused, it’ll be global. And we will be over. As a species, we will cease to matter. I don’t know, maybe we should.

The great irony of this situation is that oral history – piecing together the splintered fragments of the past – requires them to use the imprinting chair.

dollhouse-castL to R: Tahmoh, Joss, Eliza.

The Loose Canon

“Epitaph One” contains its fair share of genre allusions and media metacommentary, but it does not answer the question: “Where does this go in the Dollhouse Canon?”  In the featurettes on the Dollhouse: Season One DVD, Joss Whedon summarized his reasons for making the episode.  He wanted to create a cheap capper to the first season should it not be renewed.

It is a challenge to position “Epitaph One” within the Dollhouse Canon prior to Season Two airing.  The episode allegedly answers a lot of questions and offers a fragmented reconstruction from the Then (Dollhouse, present day) to Now (Los Angeles, 2019).  But any good TV series should avoid narrative straitjacketing, which, if we consider “Epitaph One” as written-in-stone, unalterable Dollhouse Canon.  Luckily, Whedon is a master of narrative construction and manipulation.  Since the episode was unaired, he could use the episode for spare parts and seed Season Two episodes with snippets and/or build entire episodes around the fragments harvested via the treatment apparatus.

Context remains the key.  I hope that Whedon will provide viewers with mythos-heavy episodes, holding his deck close to his chest, and revealing The Mystery one driblet at a time.

*

Felicia Dey, who starred in “Epitaph One”, also headlines The Guild, a satirical web series based on the lives of players of an online role-playing game.  For their upcoming new series, they produced a video called “Don’t You Want to Date My Avatar?”  Sounds like the premise of Dollhouse.

Here’s the video, enjoy!

Fulgrim (Horus Heresy, Book Five) by Graham McNeill

51bveeC3VyL._SS500_

The epic tale of the Horus Heresy continues in Fulgrim, the fifth volume of a planned twelve-volume cycle in the Warhammer 40K series. In the previous book, Flight of the Eisenstein, Battle-Captain Nathaniel Garro flies to Terra to warn the Emperor of Mankind of heresy. Not just any heresy, but heresy led by Warmaster Horus to overthrow the Emperor.

Fulgrim tells a story parallel to the events of Eisenstein, eventually meeting up where the previous volume left off. The Fulgrim of the novel is the Primarch of the Emperor’s Children, a Space Marine legion priding itself in its fighting perfection.

The Primarch engages an alien enemy and comes in possession of a powerful sword. Fulgrim’s desire for power and aesthetic beauty cause friction with the policies of the Empire of Man. One of those policies is the blanket extermination and subjugation of alien (xenos) races. Fulgrim initiates a policy of his own, using xenos technology and genetics to improve his legion of Space Marines. The combination of human and alien causes dissension in the ranks.

In the novel, we also meet Ferrus Manus, Primarch of the Iron Hands. The friendship between Fulgrim and Ferrus Manus is legendary. Each forged a weapon for each other, which they exchanged. While Ferrus Manus remains loyal to the Emperor, he begins to see telltale signs in Fulgrim: a vanity that expresses itself in make-up and filling his warship with artworks.

Fulgrim is unique in Warhammer 40K novels in its depiction of artistic work and sexuality. While the Warhammer 40K franchise thrives on grim, bloody warfare, whether against space demons, alien races, or human rebels, the depiction of sexuality has always veered on the PG side. One does not see a lot of female nudity, let alone females, in this RPG (role-playing game) setting.

As the Emperor’s Children Space Marines legion slides further into open treason, the astute reader will find references to The Book of Urizen by William Blake and The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde.

This volume is pivotal because Warmaster Horus prepares by separating those loyal to his cause and those loyal to the Emperor. When the opposing sides are finally assembled, the Horus Heresy transforms from covert operation to open rebellion.

Readers who enjoy military science fiction, epic fantasy, and British science fiction will thrill at the strange alien races and the epic battles studding this novel like bullet holes in battle armor.

Critic’s Notebook: Whedon, Pynchon, and the Flexible Canon

In the next few days, I’ll be posting another Dollhouse Riff.  Riff #3 will focus on the unaired episode “epitaph one” and how it relates to the Dollhouse Canon.  I will also write a Critical Appraisal of Thomas Pynchon’s novel Vineland.  For years, Vineland has been relegated to second banana status in the Pynchon Canon.  With the publication of Inherent Vice, the Pynchon Canon requires that we re-examine the works and their critical status.

Decline and Fall / A Handful of Dust, by Evelyn Waugh: Two Microreviews

declineandfall230

Decline and Fall (1928)

Waugh does Candide.

33345152

A Handful of Dust (1934)

Gosford Park meets Apocalypse Now.

The Best TV Shows You’re Not Watching

tv_bad_girl

“I missed the season finale to Dancing with the Stars!  Damn you, crystal bucket!”

One of the benefits of the Internet and blogging is an opportunity to write for other ventures.  If you don’t know already, I am also a regular contributor to Blogcritics.org. I recently had another opportunity present itself with the website The Best TV Shows You’re Not Watching. On the Driftless Area Review, I’ve written “Dollhouse Riffs,” essays discussing the more controversial thematic elements of Joss Whedon’s new series, Dollhouse. With the renewal of Dollhouse, I’ll write more thematic essays for Season 2.

An Adultery (1987) by Alexander Theroux

n305890

Alexander Theroux’s name returned to the news with the publication of Laura Worholic; or, The Sexual Intellectual. The 878-page work can be intimidating to readers, especially those unfamiliar with Theroux’s bombastic, encyclopedic, maximalist style.  A gateway to his larger works would be An Adultery, written more than two decades earlier and less than half the length of Laura Worholic.  The writing is as straightforward as the slip of a plot.

Painter Christian Ford loves Farol Colorado.  Farol is married and Christian is going out with Marina.  Complications ensue.  While the adulterous male narrator may be one of the most clichéd characters in American fiction, Theroux uses the stock characters to enter a world of deception, dissimulation, and denial.  Between Ford’s introspections into the nature of relationships, he treats the reader to lengthy dissections on East Coast intellectuals, the arts scene, and New Hampshire.  The residents of St. Ives, the small university town where he teaches art, “had no manners, only etiquette, and yet to emphasize correctness made every attempt whenever possible to drink port, play racquetball, sail boats, see art films, flambé food, affect ascots, collect paintings, cross their sevens, wear legible clothing, subscribe to concerts, hire help, and in general follow no fashion by which first hadn’t been established a precise – and identifiable – semiotic function.”  When Theroux writes satire, it’s like reading a mad cross between François Rabelais and Evelyn Waugh.

Speaking through Christian Ford, his assessment of New Hampshire is no less scathing, vicious, and hilarious.  “I saw more of the damn state than I ever thought there was of it.  New Hampshire has always been cheap, mean, rural, small-minded, and reactionary.  It’s one of the few states with neither a sales tax nor an income tax.”  Then he takes the gloves off: “Expecting aid for the poor there is like looking for an egg under a basilisk.  It places lowest nationally in what it spends on anything.  The state encourages skinflints, cheapskates, shutwallets, and pinched little joykillers who move there as a tax refuge to save money.”  I don’t imagine Mr. Theroux gets many calls to write copy for the New Hampshire Office of Travel and Tourism.

Nevertheless, the book contains more than snark and satire.  The slow disintegration of Christian and Farol’s relationship is as nuanced as Portrait of a Lady by Henry James.  While the premise is basic, Theroux still manages to create an ending filled with devastation and heartbreak.  Ford faces irreplaceable loss, but whom he loses unexpected.