Here we are again, friends. Another Christmas issue, despite all the hardships, all the setbacks, all the doubts, all the world-shattering, mind-numbing insanities of the age we are together again. See what good hope can do? We may end up rechristening our subtitle to “A Journal of Hope.” Not because many of you out there mention we tend to slant more toward “opinion” than “scholarship,” (which is not a completely fair assessment, considering most “scholarship” is basically “this professor’s/scienty-person’s opinion supported by other professors’/scienty-people’s opinions”), but because we see the world needs more hope now than it has for the past couple of millennia. We don’t want our 31st-century offspring to look back upon our day as The Second Dark Age. We’ll see. Just a thought.
Without a core group of students contributing to this volume (despite some welcome return authors), I was somewhat trepidatious if this year’s “Christmas issue” would end up being all that Christmassy, or if this would be our “Die Hard is a Christmas movie” issue. Yet somehow, no doubt through mysterious and wondrous Providence, a fair number of Christmas tidbits did appear, however tenuous the connection (which is about typical for our “Christmas” issues, come to think of it). Julian Rhodes reminds us it is cough and cold season (despite his remarks about art criticism standards being subjective). Katie Arthur mentions Christmas briefly in her essay; Professor Zylstra’s timely essay likewise has a patina of Christmastime in it, especially in his conclusion. Michaela Seaton Romero discusses Charles Dickens’s A Christmas Carol at some length as well. Quite exciting how these things are working on this year. I hope you are enjoying the ride as well. (The trickiest thing is getting the back-cover previews to come true without having to write them all myself … not that I mind doing that, of course.)
Looking back on the early years (without trying to sound silly, considering the “early years” were four and three years ago, but a gnat’s wing on the spectrum of Time), especially in some of my personal Christmas reflections, it is odd to see how things have changed within even such a short span. I suppose raising children will do that. Though certainly most of that is being accomplished by my gracious and overly-self-sacrificial wife. Certainly some things remain the same: I’m committed to remaining in my jimjams Christmas morning, even if I am the only one. My parents are visiting again this year, which as always will be nice (and not just because of the excuses to get milkshakes at Chick-fil-A or going out to new restaurants), but even if they feel compelled to get fully dressed before presents time, I will keep that tradition alive as long as possible. But some things even now don’t seem as important as they did even a few years ago — not the material things, which are increasingly less important each birthday or holiday season (no doubt a sign of my impressively-deepening maturity) — things that seemed to be necessary for each holiday season to be meaningful.
I’m fine if I don’t listen to every Mannheim Steamroller album this year; I’m fine if we don’t watch The Bishop’s Wife this year; I’m fine if we don’t watch It’s a Wonderful Life this century. It’s possible the annual compunction to do those things was a kind of anti-death-drive response, as if each Christmas had to be meaningful, had to be special, all the right foods had to be eaten, we can’t possibly forget to sing “O Little Town of Bethlehem” this time … “just in case.” But that’s really no way to live, especially around the holydays. I’ve had (probably less than) my share of “last Christmas” experiences, whether knowingly or not, and trying to make each one special “just in case” does a disservice both to our loved ones (as if cherished memories are not important enough as now) and more importantly Christmas itself. Christmas should be valued for its own worth, the truly wondrous riches of the Incarnation of our Savior and the beginning of the final phase of God’s redemptive processes throughout Time before even that existed. Christmas is not important dependent on our experience of it. And while I don’t want that increasing awareness within me to sound like a resignation of sorts (especially in light of our Death to Cynicism 2015 campaign), it is altogether likely it may be past time to resign ourselves from some things that seemed so important and necessary in our youth that truly are hindrances to delighting in not only this season but our entire experiences abiding in Christ richly as a whole.
This is starting to be a lot more serious than I intended it to be, but tough times demand tough talk, after all. But as Hamlet says, “Something too much of this.” You and I most likely originally thought of the Peanuts song when reading the title of this, but it turns out more accurately to refer to the Beach Boys’ lesser-known Christmas ditty “Christmas Time is Here Again,” a far more upbeat and energetic number than “the other one.” And that should renew our hopes and enthusiasm for the season. We all have painful memories of what did and/or never would happen at and around Christmases not-so-long-long ago, but for now let’s delight in what the season is and can be, an enjoyable time of traditions new and old, quality time with friends and family and, natch, “the reason for the season.”
Perhaps it’s the old age talking, but some of my seasonal music tastes are changing as well. Indicated above, I don’t necessarily need to listen to every Mannheim Steamroller album each year, but certainly the first two albums are a “must.” Their first Christmas album is about as pristine as an album can get, Christmas or no. It’s not that the more recent albums from there are “disappointing,” but part of what makes the first two so impressive is the counterpoint arrangements (and the fact they are carols, not just “songs of the season”). While this may seem contradictory in my character, as I have railed quite pronouncedly in the past (and authoritatively, don’t forget that part) against Christiany singers doing their own “modernized arrangements” of classical hymns, it is not the same thing. Slowing down or speeding up a beloved carol and/or adding a musically-enriching counterpoint or harmony is not in any way the same as adding irrelevant choruses with drastically dissonant chord progressions within the same song. When Mannheim Steamroller arranges a carol, it gives a new unity to the song, an entirely fresh and invigorating and moving approach to the work as a whole, without deceiving the audience into thinking “oh, good, this is one of my favori— hey, hey! What is happening here?” Mannheim Steamroller’s first two Christmas albums, especially, give us a better appreciation for the songs in their care.
Admittedly, that has nothing to do with changing tastes, but I do think my appreciation for these albums to which I’ve been listening for thirty years is deepening. What is really changing lately is my fondness for other modern-classical Christmas sounds, such as Harry Belafonte’s “Mary’s Boy Child,” the New Christy Minstrels’ first Christmas album (thanks to a chastisement from my father after an earlier Christmas article), and especially the deep, rich tones of Roger Whittaker. Something about the timbre of his voice, I suppose, evokes memories of gentler, simpler times (real or imagined). This phenomenon is akin to the Andy Williams Effect, I’m sure. “Those halcyon days” may not have been all that great at the time, but the nostalgia for them is powerful. Yes, must be the old age kicking in.
As we look back on 2014, we’ll likely rank it as one of the better years for our family. I know that sounds horribly selfish, as genocides, race warfare, international conflicts, biological epidemics, and the usual destructions have run rampant throughout the world of late (as is their wont — said without facetiousness). These truly are heartbreaking, and without trying to sound like I’m bragging, having prayed through Operation World this past year, my heart is becoming even more sensitive to the sorrows and needs of others around the world. But allow me to say for my family at least we will look back on this year fondly. It had its hardships, indeed, but nowhere near as challenging or enervating as others in recent memory.
Summer vacation this year saw an actual out-of-town vacation that did not involve driving to Iowa for the first time in over five years. I spent several weeks not on the computer. Days and days were spent reading actual books. Games were played, including approximately four hundred rounds of Go Fish. I got to play Panzergruppe Guderian and Here I Stand for the first time. Julia got her first library card, which began a continual life of going to the library as a family. True, that did have the unfortunate side-effect of me reading so many New 52 TPBs (as lamented earlier in this issue), but on the positive side it has enabled me to get and see dozens of good movies I hadn’t gotten around to yet (especially a number of William Holden, Burt Lancaster, Clint Eastwood, and John Wayne movies — so victory all around, there). No point for me in going to the library for books, really. I have my own.
What others planned for evil (notably something ironically named “affordable”), God used for good, enabling us to give up dependency on wholly flawed systems and live by faith far more, which has been both helpful financially as well as psychologically and spiritually vivifying. This will definitely be a key signifier of the fondness of this year.
Many of these positive elements (vacation, assuaging a potential financial disaster) are owed to, well, God, obviously, as we said, but also to the kindness and generosity of others, who deserve far more than brief mentioning here: thanks especially to Dr. and Mrs. Moore for the use of their Outer Banks vacation home for a very enjoyable week; and Mrs. Kucera’s tireless efforts while we were enjoying our summer vacation, working diligently to find better solutions to the seemingly-inexorable financial/insurance debacle (oh, for the good ol’ days, when “mandated insurance” used to be called “a protection racket” — where is the A-Team when you need them?). Another important hero for 2014 is our own Mr. Emry, whose tireless efforts in restoring one of my self-crashed computers has enabled me no longer to pack one up and take it to school every day, an enormous boon indeed.
One remarkable aspect of 2014 is we did not grill out one single time. Usually those are important moments in an enjoyable summer, but we managed to get through a summer without any grilling and still managed to stay comparatively trim and healthy. We’ll have to work on that for next summer, if the Lord tarries.
Another remarkable aspect of 2014 is not only did I buy a pair of drumsticks for the first time in over a decade (finally found a pair of Neil Peart signature ProMark wood tips! — which means we are basically best friends), but also for the first time in about a decade or so my drum set has seen the light of day (at least, it has been set up and played inside). I admit freely I am still as rusty as the old set of grilling tongs hanging in the shed, but that is working itself out bit by bit. I noticed the other day when playing I was channeling my inner Greg Nichols (or at least the Greg Nichols within all of us), mainly in that my ride cymbal stick hand was perpendicular to my arm in the same way he always played in jazz band. Ah, good times. Speaking of Greg, out of nowhere recently (California, to be more precise), Greg contacted me on a social networking Web site asking how I was and all that and asking for a replacement copy of the book I wrote back in the halcyon days of 1997-98. Of course, I was more than delighted not only to hear from Greg but also to fulfill his request. That series of communications, combined with writing up that exploration of Hold Your Fire has made this a rather reflective conclusion to 2014.
Well, friends, it’s about that time once again. Jack Benny and Co. are rehearsing their annual allegorical fantasy “Goodbye ’14, Hello ’15” (it’s been too long; we’ll need to add “listening to Jack Benny again” to the schedule for 2015). Have you any big plans for the New Year? Having rediscovered in 2014 what snacks taste like, it may be time again to break out the Wii Fit and see if I can’t regain that boyish figure, by which I mean as a boy I always figured I’d play video games my whole life, so I should get back to that. I have been hearing the call of Final Fantasy VI lately, and it’s awfully difficult to resist that call … though it may be easier depending on what games arrive (if any) for me under the Christmas tree.
I mentioned as well I want to read good books next year. I plan to finally read Euripides, Aristophanes, Herodotus, and Thucydides, at least (in translation, of course), some more Nero Wolfe adventures, and maybe some Marvel comics again (new to me and some old friends like Operation: Galactic Storm and Age of Apocalypse). I need to finish some longstanding works as indicated in previous summer reading lists, but we’ll see where the mood takes us. Keep it fresh, as the kids say.
As you’ve noticed by now, another concerted effort for 2015 is our Death to Cynicism campaign. Join us, won’t you? as we extirpate cynicism from our lives by walking in faith and caring about the world and living with openhanded and openhearted generosity. If nothing else in these troubled times, the decrease in gasoline prices alone should remind us (perhaps in Al Michaels’s voice) we should still believe in miracles. Chesterton reminds us pessimism occurs not when one gets tired of badness but when one gets tired of goodness. While pessimism and cynicism are not tantamount, the sentiment is still valid. Let us all eagerly await what wondrous gifts God is gearing up to lavish upon us in 2015!
Yes, the Christmas time feeling is in the air again!
Hello, friends. As you know by now, I tend to lean in favor of Marvel over DC, though I have certainly spent a fair amount of time in the DC Universe (not that there is such a thing as “the” DC Universe, of course) and began in the DC Universe (for a short time, at best) and don’t feel any need to declare one comic universe is somehow superior to another. Though I’m not a “die-hard” DC fan, having never subscribed to a series for example, I would consider myself a decent DC fan of some long standing. I own a number of DC issues and TPBs, I grew up watching (and recently owning) Super Friends, and Batman Returns was the first movie I saw twice in the theater. I regularly read the Death of Superman 3-TPB storyline and have for a couple of decades. I am thrilled beyond repair the Adam West and Burt Ward Batman series is finally available on DVD, and I hope with intense passion I will be receiving it for Christmas (though I’ll be fine if that doesn’t happen). So I believe I may say with some DCU authority “The New 52” is a total humongous pile of nonsense.
Supporting that declaration I have actually read a fair amount of it — certainly not all 52 series, and not every single issue of even the major “flagship” series, but thanks to my semi-local library I have read a respectable amount of this palaver in the past year or so, and almost all of it has been a tremendous disappointment. Yes, the Batman “Court of Owls” story had some fine points, and while I am willing to allow many of the series I haven’t experienced could be quite spectacular, what I have read of it so far has demonstrated The New 52 is a disorganized, purposeless shambles.
The “purpose” behind it, purportedly, is to give a new generation of readers the chance to jump aboard with a brand-wide re-launch (apparently the term “reboot” is verboten) without feeling burdened by ignorance of the last 70-some years of character development, plotlines, conflicts, and other interfering story elements. One suspects the memo to the faithful readers of the last several decades went something along the lines of “Get Bent.” If I had been a loyal fan over the decades, having weathered Crisis after Crisis after Crisis, origin rewrite after origin rewrite after retcon, I would probably feel a little betrayed. Then again, it’s possible I might have thought, “Yeah, figures.”
Below I have included the reviews I wrote for my Goodreads.com account for each of the New 52 TPBs I read in the past year, in the order in which I read them. In order to avoid plot spoilage, you won’t get too much of the stories, but I think they will be helpful enough to see the imbricating failures and even the infrequent successes. The main theme that develops by the end of my to-date experience with The New 52 is, as you shall see, the apparent absence of a unified goal or creative guideline beyond “make it young and sassy.” Despite the advertised “you don’t have to worry about the last 70 years of issues, supporting characters, and anything at all,” most of these series expect the reader to know a great deal about the DC Universe, its history, its supporting characters, and an almost ludicrous amount of arcane knowledge in direct violation of the stated goals of the re-launch. Either that, or it’s all a lavish tribute to the Easter Egg, making the audience more irritated with a nagging feeling of “I’m missing something, aren’t I” more than “yeah, this is new and fresh! Whoopee!” (or whatever the kids are saying these days). I hope these don’t come off as cynical — especially as I am trying to extirpate that in my life quite intently — though I admit now many of them are filled with disappointment. Anyhow, here’s my experience with The New 52.
Batman, Vol. 1: The Court of Owls, Scott Snyder and Greg Capullo ⭐⭐⭐⭐ (read in late 2013, several months before I got to any other New 52 TPB, so enjoy the optimism while it lasts)
I thought I wouldn’t get a chance to read this until I found it on the shelf at a local library. Unfortunately, this library doesn’t like to get volumes after 1, so this may be my only experience with the New(est) 52 Batman. Snyder impressed me fairly well with The Black Mirror, so I suspected going in this would be fairly good, but I’m glad I read this second, since I would have gone into TBM without as much enthusiasm. Not that this was bad, it just leaves you wanting more, since it’s not the complete story and little is resolved even in 7 issues. Positively, Snyder treats us to a reminder he knows of the Batman history and isn’t completely rewriting it with this relaunch (at least at first), and he even gives us some nice humorous moments (a refreshing change for me, since Black Mirror had about 0 lighthearted moments). Soon, though, Snyder starts making Batman his own, thanks to the freedoms of relaunching the character and his corner of the DCU. He doesn’t do it heavy-handedly (in these issues, at least), but he does it earnestly — so fans will have to experience that and react to it for themselves. He does create a sensible and fitting new nemesis for Batman, which is rather an impressive feat, considering the myriad nemeses Batman has accrued over the decades. The danger, though, as is so often the case, is the villain seems almost too powerful: how can Batman (and Snyder) overcome a cabal older than his great-grandfather, who own the city far more authoritatively than he does? I sense a Locutus “sleep” sort of resolution, but I may never know (I’m sure you all do by now, though). It probably has something to do with newly-coined too-good-to-be-true? Gotham shining knight Lincoln March. The artwork is impressive and increasingly gritty, especially as the story progresses from the safe, shiny, futuristic world Bruce Wayne wants Gotham to be to the dirt, ancient, downtrodden world Gotham really is. I was a little confused at the beginning since Bruce, Dick, Tim, Damian, and Lincoln all look exactly alike (minus height differences), but I got over it and allowed Snyder to tell his story (the first half of it, anyway). I’d like to know how it ends, but I don’t need anyone to tell me here. For those who like shiny, computer-generated comics and don’t mind the casual violence of contemporary comics, this is not too shabby a place to start. It’s not the Batman you may remember from the days of old, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. If you like those days, as I do, you can probably go back to them without too much hassle. If you want something newish, check this out.
Batman, Vol. 2: The City of Owls, Scott Snyder and Greg Capullo ⭐⭐⭐ (read about 10 months after volume 1, admittedly, but the rest were read in short order after this)
Well, that was easy. Taking a lesson from “Best of Both Worlds, pt. 2,” Scott Snyder decides the best way to conquer a centuries’-old unstoppable secret force is to have it self-destruct, giving our hero nothing to do but wonder (and doubt), really. I suppose there wasn’t any other way to stop this threat, given the head-scratching notion of Batman being able to discover, rout, and extirpate a 200-year-old secret cabal in 36 hours, but be prepared to be a bit disappointed. That’s the trouble with stopping unstoppable foes. Supplementing the explosion-filled semi-conclusion to the Owls saga, we have some reprinted stories from Night of the Owls, the best being the Mr. Freeze story, wholly unrelated to the rest of the collection. We also have a “slice of Gotham life from the commoner’s view” story, which isn’t quite as bad as it could be, but we are also left wondering why our hero isn’t as nice as he could be to some of the downtrodden he supposedly loves. After all, one of the major themes of the Owls story and its epilogue (driven home by the end of the of Death of the Family storyline coming up in volume 3) is Bruce Wayne loves Gotham City — not just the idea of it or the sentimentality of saving something because it makes him feel powerful and accomplished, but he truly cares for the city, its people, and he wants to make it a better place. So why does he treat the people he is apparently doing all this for with such semi-disdain? We may never know. Or, we’ll find out two issues before DC launches the Newer 52 in a couple of years. Stay tuned.
Batman: The Night of the Owls, Scott Snyder, et. al. ⭐⭐⭐
As the whole “Owls ruling Gotham” thing starts to wear thin, we are presented with one slam-bang night of bloody action as the almighty Owls let loose their centuries’-old Talons against all the powerful people of Gotham … only to fall to the inevitable, more or less. Apparently, the Owls want to secretly rule a city populated mostly by the world’s craziest psychopaths, corrupt politicians, and police officers, and eliminating all the decent, hardworking policy and decision makers who bring order and stability to the city will somehow make that a more enjoyable experience. On the surface, this is a touch confusing. Adding to the confusion, some of the early entries in this collection give us “flashbacks” into the history of Gotham and the Owls, though most of them go nowhere and don’t relate in any significant way to the present story. Additionally, as with many crossover collections, unless you are familiar with the characters/supporting stories going on in the other series, some of the issues will be confusing. This is exacerbated at times by this collection’s refusal to let you know what issue you are currently reading: some of the early stories tell us we are reading Nightwing or Birds of Prey, but most of them just start, giving us no cover artwork or series title/number (as if knowing what we are reading would somehow detract from the momentum or enjoyment of the story). Another detraction here is some of the failed emotional moments: if the girl is going to leave Hiroshima in a few months, why are we supposed to be emotionally moved by the bombing several years after she leaves? especially since the A-bomb bombed a city that made devastating bombs that bombed the USA. Instead of a pointed and poignant attack on America’s political decisions, we are given even more reasons to cheer on President Truman’s decision. Anywho.
Apparently the most effective way to defeat the almighty Talons is to get them to talk about their past, and as fast as you can say “Bob’s your uncle,” they will give up their quest to destroy you. The first issue with Jonah Hex is confusing and almost wholly unrelated to what is going on, but apparently the mention of the word “Owl” is enough to include it here. Some issues are out of order, which one supposes could have been better planned out by the development team, but sometimes “making sense” is a luxury comic makers just can’t afford. Still, this series does have some interesting moments, especially the Mr. Freeze story and the story about Alfred’s father. The “Gray-son” idea is also an intriguing notion, but we get no payoff with it here, since that thread is perhaps taken up in a different series. It’s worth reading if you are really into the New 52 or the Court of Owls thing, but be prepared for some confusing rabbit trails and a lot of tension that gets resolved rather quickly.
Detective Comics, Vol. 1: Faces of Death, Tony S. Daniel ⭐⭐
Somewhere along the way, “Batman” became an excuse for “excessive violence” and über-violence, perhaps because DC was jealous of Punisher MAX or something. I do not deny Batman (as an idea/world) has a dark side — as much as I enjoy the Adam West Batman, the “Dark Knight” aspect to the character is just as true. But that does not mean we need this much blood: removed faces, blown-out brains (Night of the Owls), etc. As Daniel even proves himself by the end of this collection, he can tell decent Batman stories without grotesque indulgences appealing only to the base visceral impulses of man. I’m sure many of you will disagree with me and my weak tummy — that’s fine. Part of my frustration with the violence in the Dollmaker story was the sheer absence of any meaningful payoff: it goes nowhere, delivers predictable moments of “detection” and suspense, and stops. The second group of stories is a little better, but it also either expects too much of us, or just assumes we know what is going on, or uses too much flashback with Batman knowing too much to be very believable — or possibly a combination of all of them. I know Daniel didn’t stay long on the series, but he did show a little bit of promise — it just doesn’t go anywhere meaningful here.
Batman, Vol. 3: Death of the Family, Scott Snyder and Greg Capullo ⭐⭐⭐⭐
I am willing to give this 4 stars for a graphic novel, though I don’t agree with Goodreads’s “4 stars means ‘really liked it.’” I would probably give Joyce’s Ulysses 4 stars, but I don’t really like that. I would probably give Joan Miro 4 stars without liking what he does, either. It’s a goofy thing, art. Perhaps it’s being overly generous to call this “art,” especially with its preponderance toward unnecessary graphic violence at the beginning of the work (too much red-shirting at the beginning), but the challenge of creating a meaningful, fresh interaction between Joker and Batman certainly demands a high degree of difficulty after 70-some years of their “relationship,” but Mr. Snyder does a fine job, especially toward the end of the collection here, telling an edgy Joker/Batman story with genuine menace and an allegiance to Batman’s high ideals (his version of them, at least). The pacing is a bit off, mainly because of the misplacement of some of the supporting stories (the commitment to reprinting the issues in their published order is sweet, but for a collection such as this I’d be happier getting the bits and pieces in the proper overall story order, something the Night of Owls collection failed at quite impressively), but the ending of the story is quite well achieved. The Joker’s appraisal of many of his “colleagues,” especially the scene between him and Two-Face, is a welcome group of “character moments” (I don’t mean that in the patronizing way it always sounds when people say “good character moments”).
The final confrontation is not unexpected (I was expecting Joker to shout “MacGyveeerrr!” as he fell), but the actions of the supporting Family during that scene is a nice testament to their moral centers (despite DC’s frequent attempts — and Marvel’s — to make all “heroes” gray, morally ambiguous anti-heroes). I was a tad disappointed by the epilogue, everyone’s desire to be alone, though I suppose if they all re-gathered to talk it out it would have come across more like a Star Trek: The Next Generation wrap-up (or early ’90s Avengers or X-Men finale). That’s fine, provided they don’t believe the Joker. They don’t, do they? Bruce doesn’t, does he? Let’s hope not. If he does, what would he really be fighting for all this time? As Snyder tried to teach us with the Owls thing, Bruce Wayne truly does care for Gotham City. He wants it to be a good place to live. Similarly, Bruce Wayne must truly care about his family, dysfunctional and manufactured though they may be. They better believe that, too. If you don’t, I hazard to suspect you may be reading/enjoying Batman for the wrong reasons. Thank you, Mr. Snyder, for encouraging us to care about Batman for the right reasons.
Superman, Vol. 1: What Price Tomorrow?, George Pérez and Jesús Merino ⭐⭐
Fun — excitement — interesting — fresh — engaging — and other words that don’t apply to this volume. No offense intended to the great George Pérez and his lifetime of fine work, but this was just dull. We’ve seen this in most every science fiction show already, and if it was dull on Babylon 5, it was dull in the “New” 52. I guess the point of this relaunch was to shake it all up, make it all different, and by that they meant break up all the good relationships that took 60-some years to develop and frustrate all the loyal readers (because OLD = BAD and NEW = GOOD, and loyal readers = useless detritus and new readers = the best thing ever). The Daily Planet is gone, Perry and Lois and Clark are all separated, the Kents are dead, and no one likes Clark, really. In order to make the Superman world “fresh and relevant,” the Daily Planet has been sold to arch-villain Morgan Edge. Doing things the old-fashioned way (with honesty and integrity) are as buried as Jonathan and Martha, but only Perry seems to care (maybe Clark, too, but he spends so much time dazed and confused we don’t get to know this version of him much, other than he cares about the poor and displaced and his old apartment building doesn’t exist anymore). Also, for no explicable reason, Pérez has Superman narrate all his thoughts, but his thoughts are more like stage direction and ultra-obvious commentary, nothing truly insightful or worthwhile. Pérez seems stuck in the old days of having characters narrating all their motions. Oh well.
Like Alex Ross’s Justice, this volume has the potential gem of “what if Metropolis lost its faith in Superman?,” but like Justice it gets sidetracked with all its other things (though the other things here are far more confusing and old hat than Justice) and sort of abandons that idea by the end in very rapid and unbelievable “oh, sorry, Supes, we love you and always did” epilogue panels. This story just doesn’t know where it wants to go and takes a long, dull journey to prove it to everyone.
Superman, Vol. 2: Secrets and Lies, Dan Jurgens and Keith Giffen ⭐⭐
I like the Death of Superman story (not that Superman died, just the whole story, all three parts). I read it fairly regularly. I even like the Hunter/Prey followup. Zero Hour … meh. See, this is what I’m not quite getting about this New 52 thing. Why are we bringing back guys from 20-some years ago to contribute to something supposedly new and fresh for this present generation that thinks conversation is done with thumbs? I’m not saying Pérez and Jurgens don’t have it anymore, but if they do, they didn’t share it with Superman New 52. Part of the failure with this series is Jurgens continues Pérez’s “what if Metropolis thought of Superman the way Gotham thinks of Batman, like he is the problem?” But Superman is not Batman. Don’t try to transplant that sentiment over here — it doesn’t work. Maybe this is why Mr. Morrison’s All-Star Superman gets so much love, because it doesn’t try too hard to be a fresh Superman story. Secrets and Lies, here, is just dull.
Jurgens also feels the need to have Superman narrate his actions and obvious commentary. I don’t need that. Granted, I must admit, I rarely pay much attention to the artwork. No offense to the great pencillers and artists and colorists and the whole gang, I just usually read for the story and character development/moments/lah-de-dah. But even I notice what the characters are doing — I don’t need stage direction telling me “I must break free from these chains and now I will punch this villain!” I can see it. The whole Daemonite thing is also a letdown: stop giving us acerbic, witty villains who take nothing seriously. I can’t take Superman’s turmoil seriously if he is trying to escape from Stalag 13.
The “revelation of Superman’s secret identity” thing could have made for an interesting, drawn-out storyline, but it occurs as a backdrop to a nowhere-going combat between Superman and some girl who wants a locket and can’t be touched (but she can hold a locket) and gets wrapped up quickly and obviously. Then there’s another unstoppable alien who is wiping out people left and right and suddenly we’re on a lesser-quality episode of Step By Step and we find out his problems and feel sorry for him and say goodbye. Blah.
At the end of this volume I suppose we have switched to the annual (since the editorial team can’t be bothered to let us know what issue we are actually reading at the time), which is a total embarrassment, not only for the way Superman looks but also for the way women are drawn (literally — why are we still doing this, people?), and the whole Daemonite nonsense twaddle bushwa. It can’t really be this difficult to write Superman stories. It can’t. It’s been happening for 80 years. Why is The New 52 Superman so dreadful? Someone please help me understand this.
Justice League, Vol. 1: Origins, Geoff Johns and Jim Lee ⭐⭐
If the creative team got paid by amount of work done, Jim Lee earned about 18x more than Geoff Johns did. Apparently DC’s motto for New 52 was something to the effect of “Since Old People are Worthless!” Making all the superheroes young and brash may have sounded good on scratch paper, but it doesn’t read well on glossy paper. Fortunately, Johns gives us almost no dialogue to read, though most of what he gives is petulant ranting, petulant whining, and self-evident observations of actions and whatnot. Virtually none of these beings are heroes: they are almost all self-indulgent jerks, with the exception of the Flash and Batman. I suppose Cyborg isn’t much of a jerk, but I have no idea why he is popular enough to warrant being a first stringer instead of Green Arrow. The basic premise of this volume called “origin” is … hold on, I’ve got it … wait … no, I just had it. What was it? Oh, that’s right: look at giant, mostly meaningless and overly-complicated splash pages by Jim Lee. Perhaps it’s the “origin” of Jim Lee’s diminutive pencil collection. Saving the day, as I said, are Flash’s decency and Batman’s maturity. Almost wholly out of character with the rest of this mess is Batman sounding like the more mature Batman, not the “this is supposedly five years ago Batman.” But, we’ll take it.
Since all the old people (and authority figures in general) are presented as worthless idiots (in contrast to all the valuable idiots we all know and love), it’s odd the young “heroes” are doing their best to prove they aren’t worth knowing — most of the time they (including Superman) are trying to prove the people’s fear and mistrust of them are warranted. Except Batman. Ironic, especially since he does want their fear. It’s just mostly a mess. It moves fast, says very little, and gets the job done more or less, but it takes six issues. X-Men #1 does it in one. As usual, though, we are left wondering “what is the point of the New 52?” All this does is make the heroes young and jerky, all the while tossing things from the supposedly rejected canon at us like grapeshot (too much?). Is this “new” or just an admission “we aren’t nearly as creative as the old teams, so we are just going to do their stuff our way”? and for a new generation that values worthless “heroes”?
This could have been so much better.
Justice League, Vol. 2: The Villain’s Journey, Geoff Johns and Jim Lee, et. al. ⭐⭐
2.5 stars, how’s that? We finally have the beginnings of a story, and Mr. Johns finally beginning to attempt to earn his paycheck. Yet, the main premise for this villain and his motivation is rather disgraceful: having given us a reason to care about these heroes from the regular guy perspective, instead of developing that line or character it is immediately shattered with a puff (or sniff, rather) of magic smoke. Johns attempts to prove he knows as much mythology as Joseph Campbell, but he certainly falls short, even shorter than JMS (who certainly knows his fair share of myths), and the failure makes the story that much thinner. Once again the series seems to be mainly a vehicle for Jim Lee splash pages. The dialogue is less insipid, which is surprising considering there’s more of it, but a few mildly enjoyable comments and asides do not make up for belabored plot resolution and pedantry. We are timeshifted back to the “present,” five years after the so-called origin series, and we haven’t missed anything except Steve and Diana breaking up (and our “villain,” who is treated more like a poor, misguided, product of his environment, not a responsible being who acted out of malicious volition, starting on his eponymous “journey”).
Finally Green Arrow shows up, but he is treated horribly by most of the JL — no doubt because they are jealous of him getting younger and slimmer (like the rest of them, since old, stocky people can’t be heroes in the New 52) — though Aquaman hints at something we are supposed to know about, as if they had an altercation in the past. But I thought the point of the New 52 was we aren’t supposed to care about the past or even be bothered by it: not only is the New 52 disregarding the Old 52’s past, it can’t even be bothered to cement a believable New 52’s past. Oh well.
In an continuing effort to make humanity seem wholly incompetent, the politicians in the New 52 universe are wholly embarrassing specimens (well, perhaps that part is realistic) and, even worse, military families are presented as over-reactionary crybabies. I seriously doubt Steve’s sister would blame WW for him disappearing, especially since he has been a top-line military soldier for years, even before the JL appeared. The military families I know would certainly not react that way. Fairly offensive characterization, really. There’s no way a 38-second clip of the JL fighting amongst themselves (plus a nonsensical talk-show interview) would suddenly turn worldwide opinion of the JL 180°. Everything is done too chaotically and suddenly (like Cyborg’s instantaneous acceptance of everything from last volume). Oh well.
Plot Convenience Playhouse will return in Volume 3 — a new Justice League, new villains, and certainly no resolution to the “why are we supposed to care about these mysterious beings and their inscrutable soliloquies into thin air?” epilogues. Green Lantern is gone (in a wholly unbelievable change of heart), Green Arrow is still who knows where, Martian Manhunter is a badguy (nonsense), and, well, I just really feel sorry for the people who not only had to wait 6 whole months to read these issues but also had to pay, what, $24-some dollars for the privilege of being let down? What a world.
Justice League, Vol. 3: Throne of Atlantis, Geoff Johns and Ivan Reis ⭐⭐
Just when you think a cohesive story is about to occur, we are given a crossover without all the pieces, a villain that’s 12 years younger than he looks with his villain mask on, a surprise twist that gets ruined by the rest of the story, and further mistreatment of poor Steve Trevor. Once again we are expected to have read every other single New 52 issue along with this so we can understand the missing pieces and the rest of the new characters and who the mysterious villain behind other things is. It’s hard to sustain interest in this series, especially with the puerile writing of Mr. Johns. He continues to have characters narrate what we can see, as well as spell out things we have already figured out. There is one great moment toward the end, but Aquaman’s treatment of Vulko feels out of character. His entire resolution of the conflict is likewise nonsensical. Most of how the Justice League behaves during this is confusing: if Wonder Woman’s family were really attacking she’d side with Earth instead of finding a solution to save everyone? Doubtful. It’s another example of the confusion everyone is under with the New 52: do we ignore everything before this? do we assume everyone knows all the supporting characters and events? do we ignore the need for characterization because of the mysterious 5-year jump? Apparently the answer to all of them is “yes,” even though these questions contradict each other.
The two-part Cheetah story is a nice respite between forever-earth-changing four-to-six-parters, but it doesn’t quite work as a Justice League story, since it’s mostly a Wonder Woman story. The Cheetah’s ability to stop the Justice League singlehandedly is no testament to the strength and power of this disunited League. And it all ends with further mistreatment of poor Steve, who has done nothing except give and give and give. Perhaps Steve represents the audience: DC has taken everything away from you, acted like the first 75 years of character growth and storylines never happened, and is now charging you high prices for the pleasure of giving you poor work. DC Fans: you should expect better. That the best sources of praise the makers of the TPB can find are made-up Web Log sites that didn’t exist two years ago and won’t exist in two years should give you enough warning — this is not good enough.
Justice League, Vol. 4: The Grid, Geoff Johns and Ivan Reis ⭐⭐
Now we know what “DC” stands for.
Should we give the audience a complete story? DC.
Should we include all the issues so they get their money’s worth? DC.
Should we tell people what they are missing from the skipped-over issues? DC.
Should we introduce the “bonus” material so the audience knows why it’s there? DC.
Should we explain the differences between the old and New 52 versions of the characters, especially the ones who are different genders? DC.
Should we charge less for this trade since it has fewer issues? DC.
Should we be consistent in what we sell in the TPBs within the same series? DC.
Should it matter to us if we tell stories that make sense and/or are any good? DC.
Should we be respectful to or honor readers who have been with us for decades? DC.
Should we try to give meaningful payoffs to the nonsensical super-secret characters we have been polluting all our issues with? DC.
Should we come up with a name that is impressive or should we go with “Crime Syndicate”? DC.
I guess Johnny from Time of the Apes grew up to take over the creative direction of DC. “Crime Syndicate” is really the best name we could come up with for the all-powerful, super-menacing döppelgangers the entire New 52 has been heading toward, huh? Why haven’t I heard about The Great DC New 52 Reader Revolt? Are you people just passively accepting this? Storylines rehashed, even from recent memory? Characterizations that make no sense? Plotlines that have more holes than a whiffle ball? Conflicts that exist for no reason other than to make large splash pages? Stop settling for sub-mediocre work, DC fans. Maybe they “don’t care,” but you should care.
Batman: The Dark Knight, Vol. 1: Knight Terrors, David Finch and Paul Jenkins ⭐⭐⭐
This really should be 2.5 stars, but I’ve rounded up just because it was better (sort of) than most of those not-that-great Justice League collections. The artwork is both impressive and nauseous together: the impressive parts remind us of Neal Adams’s way of revitalizing series with real movement, fine detail, and believable action. The nauseous parts are the over-abundance of blood and gore. That truly is not impressive. The depiction of the female characters is also insulting to every human being, but I guess you can’t take the Image out of the artist.
The writing is likewise a confusing combination of rambling internal monologue and decent storytelling. Nothing is a surprise, but at least some of the character moments are good. But then again, just when one thinks things are going to run intelligently, along comes another “I’m going to take down Batman and Gordon!” I.A. guy … I mean, honestly. Don’t these two have enough to worry about? Is writing for Batman truly that difficult we have to rehash this nonsense? Finch teases us with potentially enjoyable moments only to snatch them cruelly away, such as the potential enjoyment of seeing Batman and Flash together only to sidetrack the Flash immediately and send him away. This could have been better without the blood and violence — I know this is the “Dark” Knight, but subtlety and implied violence would work far better than showing it, especially so frequently. If offstage violence worked for Aeschylus and Sophocles, surely it could work for crafters of Batman tales. I acknowledge this review does not apparently mesh with 3 stars, but as it was on the whole better than most JL tales of the New 52, and the potential of storylines such as Gordon at the psychiatrist office and The White Rabbit (despite her embarrassing visual appearance), I’ll say “decent effort.” Faint praise all around, on me!
Batman: The Dark Knight, Vol. 2: Cycle of Violence, Gregg Hurwitz and David Finch ⭐⭐
Most of these 2 stars (which I feel even now is too many) are for moments of what is I suppose issue #0. In DC’s TPB commitment to hiding from you what issue you are actually reading at the time, I can only guess the final origin-like story at the close of this volume is issue #0. While that issue doesn’t tell us much we don’t know, as the continuing uncertainty over reason for The New 52’s existence provides an “origin” for Bruce Wayne — not Batman — we already knew. It’s nice to see the origin of Bruce Wayne on paper, I suppose, as well as the confrontation with Joe Chill (strangely reminiscent of Minority Report).
The majority of this collection is the overly-long Scarecrow story. Having just seen Scarecrow in the last TPB, his return is bizarre. I understand a new writer has taken over, though David Finch is still around to draw unnecessarily bloody fight scenes and other grotesqueries — but still, this is a wholly different Scarecrow from whom we just saw. Even in the dark world of the “Dark Knight,” this story is probably too dark. For some inexplicable reason, the library has labelled this “YA” — I’ll probably show them this is not in any way the case. The world is already dark enough, why must we keep adding to it with stories like this? Batman can be effective without this. I’m not saying we have to return to Adam West’s Batman, but even Neil Gaiman was regretful for the “24 Hours” issue of Sandman. While there are interesting moments in this story, such as Scarecrow’s reactions to the brave girl who stands up to him, the Light vs. Dark scene, and Bruce’s gratitude for Damian’s rescue, it’s overall just a barbaric appeal to the base and the visceral. We are given too few redeeming moments in this to make it worth owning or reading again (or for many even reading the first time).
It’s like the first TPB didn’t even happen — none of the storylines there are picked up here, none of those new characters return, and new ones are introduced here as if we should already be familiar with them! I can see the idea Hurwitz + Finch wanted to present, but it fails — as evidenced by the anticlimactic wrap-up to the story. It may not be my place to say, but I don’t consider this a respectful treatment of Batman and his world (as dark as it is and may “need” to be).
Batman: The Dark Knight, Vol. 3: Mad, Gregg Hurwitz and Ethan Van Sciver ⭐⭐
As with the previous TPB, most of these 2 stars are for the atypical issue, the annual. At least, I assume it is the annual at the close of the volume, since we are still not allowed to know what issue is which throughout the TPB, given instead an exciting repetition of cover issues two pages in a row (sadly, it’s not nearly as thrilling as I’ve just made it out to be). Hurwitz’s relaunching of the relaunch continues, with the second new version of the Mad Hatter in this storyline. Again Hurwitz tries to make Batman seem more of a “bad guy” than the supervillains are, since the new backstory of the Mad Hatter places all of his evil on experimental medication and societal rejection — he was a sweet, wonderful guy, really, so none of his badness is his fault. Bruce Wayne, however, chose to go to the darkness when his parents were killed. Pretty shoddy writing, overall.
Making it even more infuriating, Hurwitz takes the low road for pathos. Now we know why Hurwitz ignored the new characters from the previous writer — well, actually, no, we still have no idea why Hurwitz wants us to pretend none of those things happened (other than perhaps he realizes how fatuous most of them were) — but at least we know why he invented a new girlfriend for Bruce. Cheap. (Hurwitz’s writing, not the girl.)
The Mad Hatter story has plenty of holes (Gordon and Batman had identified the criminal organization before they instigated their plan — surely they would have announced that before the terror began). Hurwitz even rips off himself: the story opens with more kidnappings, just like the Scarecrow story did. And even though we have new artists, the violence and gore are far more graphic and “onstage” than they should be: less is more, people — implied violence is stronger than going through four red markers each issue (or whatever they are using to paint the blood on every panel these days). Three easily forgettable TPBs so far.
The only interesting story, as mentioned above, is the annual story: seeing three villains outsmart themselves with a clever and humorous payoff. This is much closer to a good Batman story. It really shouldn’t be this difficult to write well for Batman.
Batman and Robin, Vol. 1: Born to Kill, Peter J. Tomasi, Patrick Gleason ⭐⭐⭐
As with most of the New 52, this volume has a lot wrong with it, but it is better than most of the other Batman titles I’ve been reading lately, so by sheer novelty (or its rehashed version of novelty, at least) it deserves a slightly higher rating. Unlike the dialogue-sparse Geoff Johns volumes, the absence of dialogue in parts of this collection is aided by quality artwork and better dialogue when it occurs. True, some of it is stilted and obvious, but by the end it gets better.
Even with the violence, it is not as over-the-top as The Dark Knight, even with a killer in the title, and the tensions between Bruce and his son drive the issue more than violence. Nothing in the story is groundbreaking. We get a “secret” look at some of Bruce Wayne’s missing years, which to no one’s surprise comes back to break him. But this is another volume in which the success of the ending makes up for a fair amount of lackluster and obvious moments, and the better painting-like artwork and better writing make this a better Batman series than many of the others.
Batman and Robin, Vol. 2: Pearl, Peter J. Tomasi, Patrick Gleason, ⭐⭐
A bit of a letdown after the decent first volume — seems almost like the basic idea was fully played out in the first series and now they were getting a bit desperate. Zombies? That’s the best we could come up, zombies? Did I miss the “teenage vampires in love” crossover? As potentially great as the final moment of this collection could be, it comes out of nowhere and seems forced and majickally convenient. Also, the story just stops. Batman and Robin go home and we are left wondering, “wait, what about all that stuff you said you had to go do? Is this halftime?”
The first story in the collection has some very fine moments, especially with all the Robins together, but the basic premise for it is irritatingly tiresome: another “Batman is the real menace and we are all victims of him!” story, with a main nemesis whose origin is unclear, motivation is murky, and grief with Batman is unexplained. Feel free to tell me how he was back in issue #3XX of Detective Comics waaay back when — I picked up “The New 52” because I was promised I wouldn’t need to know all that stuff.
Stop trying to get us to feel sorry for the villains, Bat-writers. Stop giving us “will Batman lose his cool and finally kill?” stories. Do better at your overly-paid positions. And stop giving us cover art that has nothing to do with the content of the stories. This series promised more than it delivered here.
Justice League of America, Vol. 1: World’s Most Dangerous, Geoff Johns ⭐⭐
Someday, the intelligent among you must explain Geoff Johns’s popularity. In the New 52’s concerted effort to play foully with our affections and intellect, this ball of confusion exists. True, it would be nice if we knew what issues we were reading, where they occur in connection to other series, who these characters are, and other mundane trivia, but that would make too much sense. Why be helpful when you can be inscrutable? This started out with such promise, but it doesn’t take too long to devolve to the usual depths of sub-interesting New 52 shenanigans. On the off-chance the unstoppable superheroes go rogue (despite being okay for everyone for 5 mysterious years), the B-squad is gathered led by poor Steve Trevor and some stereotypical tough-as-nails-no-nonsense-I’ve-earned-it-of-no-substance-female-character. Somehow these unskilled, untrained ragtags will be able to take out the A-squad. If necessary.
Shockingly, “necessary” shows up almost immediately. But first, some “getting to know you” story with as many surprise twists as a candy cane. It could have been good, but as it’s all part of the Master Plan for The Trinity War, well, it doesn’t make much sense, especially to new readers who don’t know who these characters are (which seems counter to the basic premise of the “New” 52). Then we get a few pieces of the Trinity War, which won’t make a lot of sense if you are reading these series in the TPBs the way they are published. Finishing up seems to be a separate issue about Martian Manhunter, but apparently it was a B-story series in the first few issues (which you can’t learn simply by reading the collection as it is printed). This could have been better. But it’s not.
Justice League, Vol. 5: Forever Heroes, Geoff Johns ⭐⭐
I give this 2 stars because of the Metal Men. Without them toward the end of this collection, I’d probably give this 0 or negative 1 stars. This is quite possibly the worst Geoff Johns writing I’ve read yet, which is rather an impressive, if stomach churning, achievement for him. This is really abysmal. We totally get from panel 1 that these alternate-universe versions (or parallel-dimension versions, if you prefer) of the Justice League are villains — cold-hearted, ruthless villains. We completely understand that. However, to drive the point home, Johns gives us four mind-numbing and utterly extraneous issues to underscore this point. Nothing new is revealed in these “when they were young” issues we couldn’t have already filled in with our own imaginations. Oh my, the bad Superman (Ultraman) killed his parents! … So what? Oh my, the bad Batman (Owlman) killed his family including Bruce Wayne! … Why should we care? Even the “Creative Teams” got tired of giving backstories to these new villains, since Wonder Woman (or is it the other Lois Lane? they say both, which is probably just shoddy editing) and Firestorm don’t even get stories. I’m thankful for that, of course, but it’s just another exemplar of the sheer lack of meaningful direction in this New 52 universe. Oh, I’m sure they have their multi-year storylines all figured out and storyboarded and what not, but that doesn’t mean they are being executed with any amount of finesse or skill.
So you want to “shake up” the New 52 Universe, eh DC Masterminds, after an eternity of 24 issues? Howabout you hire writers who can write quality stories! with engaging dialogue! that are not insulting piles of rubbish such as this mess! Yes, the Metal Men are in it toward the end in what appears to be their own spin-off issue, and that was enjoyable because it was the Metal Men, but after that the insensible palaver returns.
Finally, Cyborg confronts Grid, his rogue, sentient computer self! And Cyborg has an EMP but does not use it! Surely the only reason rebuilt Cyborg even has a built-in EMP is to stop rogue, sentient computers! How ridiculous. Instead, Cyborg just tricks the Grid into feeling sorry for himself … and we know the feeling.
Consider, in final reflection, the masterful work given to us 20 years ago: The Age of Apocalypse. In that brilliant, effectively 4-month-contained storyline event, we have a compact, well-structured “alternate universe” look at the X-Universe totally believable and understandable even when given to us in its final moments. Yes, it had a couple issues of prequel stories, but they were additional things not main title issues. This masterpiece is 20 years old, and the supposedly “even better generation of creative writers” in the “young, hip New 52 Universe” can only give us this attempt at an interesting alternate universe cross-over. Forever Heroes? Forever Boring.
Detective Comics, Vol. 2: Scare Tactics, Tony S. Daniel and Ed Benes ⭐⭐
Not much to this rambling collection of sub-quality issues, really. The extra star is again for what I assume to be issue #0, since as with all New 52 TPBs, we are not allowed to know what issue we are reading at the time (too much information might clue us in to an awareness nothing important is happening). I’m not sure why this is called “Scare Tactics” — yes, the first issue is called that, but the collection contains longer storylines, though as I said none of them are really impressive. The longest story concerns a nonsensical excuse for drawing yucky melted bodies under the guise of time-travel and villainy, but while there is all the appearance of scientific credibility sprinkled throughout, most of the scientific application is “Batman pushes a button and majickal things happen.” It’s just a boring mess that ends abruptly without any closure.
Following this is a potentially interesting conflict between Black Mask and Mad Hatter, which likewise ends with the “majick plot-stopping button” being pressed and the story just ending. I suppose we should be grateful for that. The #0 issue flashback is the most interesting in the collection, despite its rather obvious ending. The epilogue between Bruce and Alfred is certainly the highlight, even if it is yet another version of the Batman mythos (the point of the New 52, I know).
The ending of this collection is a worthless series of Two-Face vignettes that are so poorly lit you’d think they were sponsored by the color “invisible.” It tries to make us interested by dangling a few lines of “the secrets of Two-Face’s moral struggles” out there, but nothing comes of it and instead we are given grotesque violence, banal dialogue, and no reason to care about any of it after all. Another disappointing collection of half-baked Batman and Co. ideas.
Justice League Dark, Vol. 1: In the Dark, Peter Milligan, Mikel Janin, ⭐
I solemnly promise I am not reading these hoping they will be bad. I’m not looking for a frustrating time. Nor can you really say I’m not giving these a fair shake: reading over a dozen New 52 volumes is quite generous, considering how unimpressive they are. Take this pail of hogwash, for example. Admittedly, beginning with a nominalization is poor writing, but there is no story here. Truly no story. Instead, we have a jumbled mess of pseudo-introduction stories masquerading as a typical “gathering of heroes for a new team” story — but get this! It’s “dark”! Apparently that makes it new and fresh, or at least it did in the minds of the people who gave this project the proverbial green light (no doubt a dark green light). Perhaps “dark” is New 52 talk for “draw lots of grotesque things and the people won’t know nothing meaningful is happening.” Even X-Files had generally good narrative reasons for its grotesqueries. This palaver has nothing substantial to tie its nonsense together. Panels happen in whirly-gig order, as if we are supposed to have some intuitive guide to discerning how this is supposed to be read. Oh, and apparently we are already supposed to know who these characters are, since we are never told who they are, even the ones who are possibly new, except Deadman. We are told his origin every issue.
This jumbled mess has some potentially interesting ideas, but none of them come to fruition and we are not given any reason to hope they will mature in future issues. Characters all basically look alike (which is not impressive), and most of the poses and outfits of the ladies are apparently designed to evoke ungentlemanly responses within the male readership. Characters show up, leave, wide gaping holes of what poses as a story rip through and no one bothers to explain why (not that we need moment-by-moment spoonfeeding, but an absence of meaningful continuity is not tantamount to “quality storytelling”).
Horrible things happen throughout these pages (children murdering one another, towns caving into madness), but none of these “heroes” care. Then we are to believe it was all a test to get this ragtag group of jerkweeds together. It’s impossible to empathize with any of these characters until John Constantine says he wants no part of this.
If this is the best this series has to offer, it’s hard to disagree.
If it makes you feel better, I have read very high-quality DC trades recently (especially the Knightfall trilogy). One of my key goals for 2015 is to read fewer books but books I just know are going to be good. I’ve read too much tripe lately, and I know it has all been volitional, but still I need to improve my literary diet. In my vast munificence, I will likely give The New 52 more chances to disappoint me, but that does not necessarily mean you won’t enjoy them. It’s likely it’s not as bad as I have made it sound. Somebody out there must think these are worth making again and again, and since several of them are available for free from the library (perhaps the best part of that is you don’t have to feel obligated to keep them — you can’t actually give them back!), this is as good a time as any to try The New 52 (I don’t want that to sound like a threat, of course). If not, fair enough. In either event, I wish you and yours good reading.
“What is the greatest film ever made?” This is a question that continually challenges film enthusiasts throughout the world. For with this question comes a greater question — how are we to evaluate greatness and excellence in a film? The answers to both questions vary from person to person, as standards for art critique are vastly subjective. But beyond individual response, there is also a cultural response to these questions — for fifty or more years, Citizen Kane (1941) was hailed as the greatest film ever made, holding the top spot on polls taken by multiple film institutions. Only just recently was it ousted from the #1 position on Sight & Sound’s “50 Greatest Films of All Time” list. The film that replaced it was Hitchcock’s colorful and haunting masterpiece Vertigo (1958). Is Vertigo a better movie than Citizen Kane? Absolutely; though at the moment it’s best not to explain my reasons for believing so. But is Vertigo the greatest movie ever made? Most likely not. Vertigo is a perfect movie, in many senses — but in order for a movie to be given a ranking that places it above all others it must be more than perfect — it must be quintessential, “quintessential” meaning in this context a film that portrays key facets of the human experience, relating them to classic archetypes while staying within an original and consistent aesthetic, in short, the purest example of a film.
When I was stirring this question around in my head about a year ago, searching for the “quintessential” film, I was trying to find something that would have artistic excellence, unique ideas, popular appeal and cultural significance. Then I saw Fight Club. My immediate response was confused, but elated — I felt in a way I had found the greatest film I had ever seen because it was “quintessential,” but at the same time, was it “perfect”? No. The pacing seemed off in some parts, and the plot was so insane and twisted at times the film appeared to lose its own coherency; even the framing and the aesthetic could have been a bit more finely mastered. Could a film that is quintessential but flawed be better than a perfect one? Perhaps. But then I had to wonder, could the film ever be considered as one of the greatest films of all time by any respectable institution? Despite all the good questions of ethics and sociology a film like Fight Club raises, it was marketed as a violent blockbuster and will hence be viewed as such. And yet some films on many lists were once seen as nothing more than simply really good blockbusters. Does age change a film? In the future, will Fight Club be looked at with the same fondness with which we look at films like, say, The African Queen? No one can really say — but why are films like Fight Club brushed aside by many respectable critics? Why not put Fight Club in the top 10? I am not saying the film is the best film ever made, that it deserves to outrank films like Vertigo, Apocalypse Now, or Aguirre: The Wrath of God. However, I do aim to encourage you to challenge your own conceptions of what a perfect film looks like. The argument I hope to make here is as a film, Fight Club is the a keystone example of the union between thought-provoking artful cinema and popular mass-market action-suspense cinema and therefore is a culturally valuable piece of art that deserves more recognition within the world of film analysis. I will do this through examining first: the storytelling and narrative, second: the use of aesthetic, and third: the philosophical themes presented within the film.
Narrative. The film captures our suspense from the opening shot. It begins through a stunning visual effects sequence of painstaking CGI — the nerves of the brain, electronic impulses passing back and forth through a tense mind. Immediately this tells us what to expect — this is going to be a film of the psychological, perhaps of the psychotic. The camera pulls back further and further until it passes out through the skin pores and pans back to show us the narrator of the story, sitting in a chair in a dark room, with the barrel of a gun stuck inside his mouth. We are soon informed he is being held hostage by one Tyler Durden — we are also informed through another visual effects shot there are vast quantities of explosives surrounding the foundation pillars of several skyscrapers surrounding. Now that the stakes have been placed on the table, the narrator feels it’s safe enough to take us back to the beginning of the story and explain all the events that led to this moment. We are hooked, and then very abruptly reeled in, held in curiosity until the end of the film. Chronologically, the story really begins with the main character’s insomnia. Note that the narrator and protagonist is never named — he is the hopeless everyman on the quest for truth and enlightenment — a truth that constantly eludes him. Though, for the sake of convenience, we shall call him Jack, as he is called in Jim Uhls’s script.
Through clever uses of visual montages and special effects, we are shown the protagonist’s world — he is living in a state of apathy, trying to give his life meaning through his IKEA purchases — to quote the film directly, “Like everyone else, I had become a slave to the IKEA nesting instinct. If I saw something clever like a coffee table in the shape of a yin-yang, I had to have it … I flipped through catalogues and wondered: what type of dining set defines me as a person?” He consults a doctor about his insomnia, where he complains he is in pain because of his sleep loss. The doctor’s response: “You want to see real pain? Swing by First Methodist Tuesday nights. See the guys with testicular cancer. That’s pain.” Having nothing else to do, he takes his doctor’s suggestion and visits “Remaining Men Together.” This phrase resonates throughout the film: remaining men. The character Tyler Durden’s entire fight against society is built upon the idea society is slowly emasculating us — the struggle is to not sink into apathy, but rather to feel the vibrancy of life, the feeling of freedom and strength men are intended to feel. Our unnamed protagonist becomes addicted to these support groups, to people sympathizing with him because they believe he’s been through some tragic circumstance. This is his first experience of “hitting low” — another theme that resounds throughout the film.
What disrupts this empty bliss? Marla Singer — a cigarette-smoking, punk-goth, neo-noir femme fatale. We get a picturesque image of her face as she smokes indoors, while wearing sunglasses — her mouth is an empty abyss, we are staring into the endless darkness of something that looks, by all appearances, utterly hollow. Marla brings chaos into our hero’s life because she reflects the lie he is living — she exposes him to himself, his deception. He has an attraction toward her he is afraid to admit, and he feels inadequate because of her presence in his life, she is a reminder he doesn’t stand a chance with her.
Now he feels empty, powerless. Hence a new force steps into his life — Tyler Durden, a charismatic stranger he meets on a plane, who claims to make a living by selling soap. Tyler claims the oxygen masks on planes are to make passengers high so they don’t panic in an emergency situation, and equal parts gasoline and frozen orange juice concentrate can be made into an explosive. Strangely enough, that very night Jack’s apartment explodes. Having nowhere else to go, he calls Tyler up using the number on his business card. The two share a drink, after which Tyler invites Jack to his house. On their way out of the bar, Tyler asks him to hit him as hard as he can. “You never know yourself until you’ve been in a fight,” Tyler says. Neither of them have been in a fight before. They fight, with no reason between them for doing so — and they find it strangely therapeutic. Soon it becomes a group activity: other people join in, and before long, a fight club is started. People meet once a week, fight, and then go back to their normal jobs, pretending like none of it ever happened. This becomes a new therapy group for Jack, his second “Remaining Men Together”; at one point he compares the group of hollering men to a Pentecostal Church.
As Jack lives with Tyler in his dilapidated house, Tyler slowly begins influencing him with his principles — the life they embrace is so disconnected from the rest of civilization their behavior and ideals become closer and closer to a naturalistic animal-instinct state. They go out and start “sizing things up” with their life-or-death survival-of-the-fittest logic, looking at people and wondering how well they’d fare in a fight. The fight club is compared to “a Pentecostal church”… the experience of hitting the ultimate low is described as “enlightenment.” There is a very masochistic nature to Durden’s philosophy — it is only from giving up and realizing there is absolutely nothing left to live for that true knowledge of the human condition comes: to Tyler, this is “enlightenment.” “Self-improvement is [self-stimulation],” to quote/paraphrase Durden, “now self destruction.” Durden slowly evolves Fight Club into something beyond a therapy group, something resembling a fascist terrorist organization, through which he wreaks anarchist havoc on the city’s symbols by destroying corporate art, smashing car windows, blowing up computer displays, etc. As the chaos caused by Tyler’s organization “Project Mayhem” increases, Jack tries to distance himself from Tyler — only to discover he and Tyler are the same person: Tyler’s aggressive personality was his own mental projection. Tyler is the person Jack secretly wishes he could be. Now Tyler has evolved into a threat to himself and others, and he must find a way to seize back control before Tyler takes over his life entirely. Jack discovers Tyler plans to demolish all the buildings belonging to major credit card corporations, in an attempt to set everyone’s debt back to zero. Jack has a final climactic confrontation with Tyler, during which he diffuses only one of the bombs. He finally finds a way to rid himself of Tyler, by putting the gun in his mouth and shooting through the cheek — the bullet does not kill him, despite the physical damage it causes the trauma of the gunshot is enough to give him the mental shock he needs to restore his sense of objective reality and bury Tyler down in his subconscious forever. In the final moments of the film, he is reunited with Marla, brought back to him through unfortunate circumstances. They stand on the balcony of the building, looking out the window. “Everything is going to be fine,” he says. No sooner has he said this than the buildings in the background explode, and the song “Where is My Mind” by the Pixies begins to play as the skyline crumbles. The narrative choice to end the film on a note such as this indicates while his life is back to normal, Project Mayhem continues. Does this mean Tyler’s philosophy was correct? Society needs to be destroyed and rebuilt? Not necessarily. It meant Tyler was, in a way, successful — not that he was necessarily correct. The film presents the opposing views objectively and asks you to interpret the events and decide for yourself whose side you’re on.
Style/Aesthetic. The director David Fincher (known for Se7en, The Social Network, and most recently, Gone Girl) was highly particular on the aesthetic to his film — it’s a look that’s hard to describe. When the film prints were sent to the studios, there were complaints about dirt and smudging on the film. This was intentional. The film was tinted to become darker, browner, greener, or bluer in some sections — all to establish a neo-noir effect; that the frames are smudged, shaky, intercut establishes a sort of grunge. “Fight Club presents Tyler’s stylized, designer-grunge-aesthetic as the alternative to Jack’s erstwhile affluent IKEA-appointed environment and constructs an excessively squalid mise-en-scène as a lifestyle choice. Tyler delivers an agitational address to a large Fight Club residency that meets illegally in a dank basement during the midway plot-point discussed above” (Bedford 8). The settings and mise-en-scène, especially in the basement where the fights take place and the house on Paper Street, are consistently associated with low-key lighting and the feelings of wet and dry. As it rains, water drips through the floorboards of the house. Dust cakes in the windows on a hot day. In the fight club, puddles of blood form on the floor — yet later we see Jack looking at the dry floor and thinking of the feet that scuffled there the night before.
Fincher’s work on the project gives it a distinct out-of-the-box feel: there are bizarre and surreal moments like the meditation scene, where Jack imagines himself in a cave of ice, confronting his chakra animal, a penguin that looks at him and says nothing but “Slide!” in the voice of a child and then slips away. Strange moments like this would not happen were it not for Fincher’s unique touch; his creative insanity. The film is full of odd moments like this, little treats for the audience, that give it a multi-flavored and zany feel. The best of these are what Fincher calls the “subliminal Brads” — moments before Tyler Durden is introduced, he appears five times in the film, for one frame only. This subliminally introduces the character to the audience before they even meet him (Smith). This parallels the film editing Tyler does when he works as a film projectionist and splices single frames of pornography into children’s movies — it is as if Tyler himself is editing the movie we are watching.
This is not the only instance in which flash-frames are used within the film. The use of brief and passing frames are used to great effect in the “chemical burn” scene in which Tyler pours lye onto Jack’s hand and forces him to deal with his pain. The narrator attempts to retreat into meditation to imagine away the pain, but Tyler tries to awaken him back to reality. “The excruciating bodily pain caused by the chemical burn immediately catalyses a visceral thought-image montage that vies for prominence amongst the action images,” writes William Brown, “The narrator initially attempts to apply meditation to escape the intense pain, and viewers are presented with serene images of a green forest. After returning to a close-up of the hand, now bubbling as his flesh chemically dissolves, mental images of fire and intertitle-like images isolating words like ‘searing’ and ‘flesh’ intermix with sounds of intense burning and crackling. These compete with Zen-like images of trees, birdsong and the narrator’s healing cave as he attempts to escape these overwhelming feelings and sensations” (288). The pain and mental urgency of Jack’s situation is communicated effectively into the minds and hearts of the audience through stark imagery we are forced to process very quickly.
Philosophy. The film discusses a wide variety of philosophical topics, namely consumerism, authoritarianism/fascism, Übermensch/nihilism, masculinity/gender roles. All of these tie together into one unifying theme — as humans living in the 21st century, what do we find our identity in? What do we use to define ourselves? The essential problem presented in the film is we have a society that bases self-worth on achievement, that encourages us to communicate our identity to other people through what we buy, that having a job is the end, not a means to some higher goal. While this is not always true, it is largely accurate and therefore concerning. The fight clubs Tyler starts are attempts to solve this problem; when people connect to their primal selves, they come alive. To quote Tyler, “In the world I see, you’re stalking elk through the damp canyon forest around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You’ll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You’ll climb the vines that wrap the Sears Tower. And when you look down, you’ll see tiny figures pounding corn. Laying down strips of venison down on the carpool lanes of some abandoned superhighway.” In the film, Tyler performs what he calls a “human sacrifice,” in which he points a gun to a small-time store clerk’s head, asks him what he studied for in college, what he wanted to be in life. He responds saying he wanted to be a veterinarian. Tyler takes his license and says, “I know where you live. I’m going to check back on you in six weeks. If you’re not on your way to becoming a veterinarian, you’re going to die.” The scared man runs off, promising to pursue a degree in biology again. The narrator stands befuddled, looking at Tyler and asking why he did that. Tyler responds, “Tomorrow will be the best day of that man’s life. Tomorrow, he will eat breakfast and it will taste better than any meal that you and I have ever tasted.” Tyler’s goal is a destruction of society, but what will he profit from it? What are his ideals? From these two scenes, it seems what is important to Tyler is people look at themselves and feel they are doing something important. As Christians, we derive our sense of worth from our connection to God, our purpose in living comes from His mission to us. Christ is our identity. What Fight Club demonstrates, albeit unintentionally, is deriving a personal sense of worth from anything else will lead to disastrous results.
Tyler is a poster-child of nihilism — Nietzche’s Übermensch. “Our fathers were models for God, and they bailed on us. Now what does that tell you about God? We are the middle children of history — God’s unwanted children.” Thus is Tyler’s perspective on reality. The schism with the father figure and the mother figure is what defines the entire subversion quality within the film (Gunn 287). Jennifer Barker makes the connection between Tyler’s “Project Mayhem” and fascism in her article “A Hero Will Rise”:
[Jack] becomes addicted to submission, first finding the freedom of “losing all hope” with self-help groups and then replacing this with the freedom of losing all control with Tyler. He destroys his past and his identity upon Tyler’s arrival and submits completely to the meaning Tyler creates. This experience, not only of submission, but the feeling of freedom through submission is a process required of fascism’s political agenda. Hitler, in Mein Kampf comments that the masses, by giving in to the strong man, engage in a complex game of denial: “They are equally unaware of their shameless terrorization and the hideous abuse of their human freedom, for they absolutely fail to suspect the inner insanity of the whole doctrine. All they see is the ruthless force and brutality of its calculated manifestations, to which they always submit in the end.” Or, as the narrator points out: “Sooner or later, we all became what Tyler wanted us to be.” This process is fundamental to fascist subjectivity, requiring a misconstruction of the self in terms of an ideal other, and for the narrator, manifests itself in a literal misrecognition of Tyler Durden.
It is only through the loss of identity the authoritarian submission-based state Tyler starts is possible.
Critical reception of Fight Club can go to one of two extremes — critics have either lauded it or hated it. It would not be a lie to say it is one of the most controversial films of the past twenty years — the mistake to make while analyzing the film is to believe it advocates the violence and rebellion it portrays. “In one of the more apoplectic slams, Rex Reed, writing in The New York Observer, called it ‘a film without a single redeeming quality, which may have to find its audience in hell.’ More than one critic condemned the movie as an incitement to violence; several likened it to fascist propaganda. (‘It resurrects the Fuhrer principle,’’ one British critic declared.) On her talk show an appalled Rosie O’Donnell implored viewers not to see the movie and, for good measure, gave away its big twist” (Lim). The film does not advocate violence — in fact, the entire point of the ending of the film is to laugh in the face of Tyler’s agenda and beliefs — it is those beliefs that are destroying us, that must be opposed. The film complains about the consumerist apathetic society, yes, but it is just as much about the counter-reaction to that society, and it shows how both are wrong. Who we are is something for ourselves to decide. When we simply allow ourselves to be defined by the material and the physical, we degrade from humans and become more like machines or animals.
To conclude, if Fight Club is not one of the greatest films of our time, it is one of the greatest films of our era — I have not seen another film made since 1999 that has equaled it in sheer impressiveness. Why is it great? Because it is important, because it provokes heated discussion amidst the film world. The movie is analyzed extensively, so surely it is finely crafted. And it is also debated extensively, so it must have left an impact. Dare I even mention its massive cult following? It has become an icon of popular culture. Unlike many critics, I do not believe it is pseudo-intellectual. Though it is clever, it is not as pretentious as some would argue. It does not market some new panacea-philosophy, but rather encourages us to look around us and rethink things. Are we allowing ourselves to be deceived by the popularly conceived notion of masculine ideal? What do we find purpose in, in a world caught between a deluge of marketing and a violent counter-culture? Where is the world going from here, as a new millennia begins and the world becomes more and more populous and more and more technology-inundated and culture-inundated?
Having nothing more to say, my final urge is this: if you have seen this film, I encourage you to pay attention to these things if you choose to see it again. And if you haven’t, I hope I’ve helped you to rethink your ideas about what you’ve heard about it. And as a last safe reminder: keep hydrated. It’s cough & cold season.
Bibliography
Barker, Jennifer. “A Hero Will Rise: the myth of the fascist man in Fight Club and Gladiator.” Literature-Film Quarterly. July, 2008, Vol. 36, Issue 3, 171.
Bedford, Mark. “Smells Like 1990’s Spirit: The Dazzling Deception of Fight Club’s Grunge Aesthetic.” New Cinemas: Journal of Contemporary Film. 2011, Vol. 9:1, 49-63.
Brown, William. “Deterritorialisation and Schizoanalysis in David Fincher’s Fight Club.” Deleuze Studies. 2011, Vol. 5:2, 275-299.
Gunn, Joshua and Thomas Frentz. “Fighting for Father: Fight Club as Cinematic Psychosis.” Western Journal of Communication. May/Jun 2010, Vol. 74:3, 269-291.
Lim, Dennis. “Fight Club Fight Goes On.” New York Times. Nov 8, 2009, Vol. 159:54853, 18.
Not quite seventy years ago (sixty-six to the day of this printing, to be precise), Henry Zylstra, the late great Professor of English at Calvin College, published in The Banner another pithy, enjoyable essay entitled “What Is Fiction For?” collected in the posthumous tribute anthology Testament of Vision. I intentionally did not read it until after finishing my address entitled “Art: The Imprint of God, The Signature of Man,” published last issue. Most of that address was “informed” (as my colleagues say) by Frank E. Gaebelein’s work collected in The Christian, The Arts, and Truth: Regaining a Vision of Greatness. (I’m not sure why my experience with these great Christian educators began with their posthumous collections — just one of those things, I suppose.) I knew (perhaps more of a top-notch gut instinct) before reading any of Professor Zylstra’s work I would feel a strong compulsion to work most of it into my address, and since I knew I was running long on content already, I waited. My suspicions it would be a challenging, worthwhile read saw fruition, and that compunction to share Professor Zylstra’s work has hoven into view again. As this is a non-profit enterprise charging nothing, existing in part for educational purposes, I operate here on the belief it is not a violation of copyright laws to include the brief work in its entirety, since I’m basically making copies for students in my classes (more or less). My goal here is to increase awareness of the quality and necessity of delighting in the work by Professor Henry Zylstra. Surely that is acceptable to Eerdmans and the Zylstra Estate. Here is “What Is Fiction For?”
On a day you come upon your boy reading a novel, and you say, “What — reading stories again? You always have your head in those novels. Why don’t you read something useful, something improving, something edifying?”
I understand you, I think. I understand your concern when you say that you want him to read something useful. You are yourself a working man. You have a job to do and are called to do it. You find that life is a practical affair. Subduing the earth and having dominion over it did not come easily for Adam, does not come easily for you. You honor the virtues of industry and thrift. Now you come home, tired by the labor of your calloused hand, and you find your boy sunk in an easy chair with his head in a book. It is all a little disturbing. And such a book! Fiction, of course. Another novel. Just a story. I understand you. If he must read, why can’t he read something useful?
Or something improving? There too you are rightly concerned. Your interest in the boy’s character is a real, almost an anxious, interest. You have been busy with the nurture and discipline of it these many years. You hoped he would be intelligent, but you could do without that. You hoped he would be efficient, able to get things done. But you could do without that also, that is, if he were not lazy. Laziness would be something else. It would be a fault in character. And for his character you have an anxious concern. For his Christian morality you have a deep-seated, heart-felt concern. For this you have prayed, though you had not prayed for those other things. So I understand you when you wish that your boy would read something improving, something that will count in his character.
Again, I understand you, I think, when you use that other word — edifying. It is a good word, the word you use there: edifying has the idea of edifice in it, and it seems to me that the edifice behind your use of the word is a church. Good. You want the boy to read something constructive, something uplifting, especially in a spiritual, a religious sense. The spiritual and religious come first with you. You have a concern, consequently, for his devotional reading, for books that will assist him in worship, draw him nearer to God. You have not missed that emphasis of the Bible: “Seek ye first the Kingdom … sell all that thou hast … if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out.” You want him to have a care for this above all. The spiritual, the religious, is first. It stands higher with you than even the practical and the moral. And it ought to.
So I understand why it is that you should be zealous for and even jealous of the religious and spiritual development, and thence for practical and moral concerns. What I wonder at is that this should make for indifference to the artistic concern. Something in your remark at least suggests that if only you could make fiction serve practical, or moral, or religious purposes you could honor it, but that since you cannot you wish your boy would read something useful, improving, or edifying. You suspect that novels, when they are innocent, are trivial. At best, you feel, they constitute mere entertainment.
I wonder at this because I know that you are not Catholic in your insistence on the primacy of the spiritual. You do not cultivate the esoterically religious in isolation from life. The saint in you is not developed at the expense of the man; it is indeed the man renewed who is the saint. And it is that man, the religious man, if you will, who finds himself called upon to be moral, social, scientific, philosophical — yes, and artistic also.
When you come to think of it, you will perhaps acknowledge that the aesthetic, the artistic, although interdependent with them, has a claim upon you distinct in kind from the practical, the moral, or, in the narrower sense only now, the religious claim. Then you will perhaps acknowledge also that the artistic need in you can be satisfied only by art and not by some other thing. The practical, the moral, the scientific, and those other worlds, do not exhaust God’s reality as it is revealed in himself, in life, and in you. There is the artistic world also. You can look at a tree and reckon how useful it would be to build a house with. You are then being practical about the tree. You can look at a flower and discover that it consists of stem, stamen, petals, and the rest. You are then being scientific about the flower. But you can also look at a tree or a flower without a deliberate practical or scientific thought, see it as it is, and simply enjoy it. You may call this mere entertainment if you want to. But it is not trivial. It is important.
Now, it is the artistic in him, the aesthetic, that your boy responds to when he finds that the novel he is reading is delightful. It satisfies a need in himself, corresponds to a world and life, that is, a God’s reality, outside of himself, and pleases him. Fiction makes this possible for him. In a way, the novelist is doing what Adam did in Paradise. I do not mean the pruning and the trimming. I mean the naming of created things. Words are poems really. This name-giving is artistic work. Adam was called to it. The artist in you, in all of us, is called to at least the appreciation of it. To see God’s reality in the real world and beyond it, to see the ideal in and behind the actual, and so to reproduce it that all may look and enjoy, that is what happens in fiction. Art — the art of fiction also — is man’s acknowledgement and reflection of the divine beauty revealed in and beyond nature and life. That is what fiction is for. Its function is in its own aesthetic way, not in a deliberately practical, or moral, or esoterically religious way, to disclose God’s glory for God’s and man’s delight.
When you come to think of it, therefore, you will not so far want to deny your humanity, created and renewed in you, as not to give this world of art, of fiction it due. It has a claim on you distinct from any other. No practical bias, or moral anxiousness, or religious exclusiveness should lead you to neglect this world, or to belittle it. That would be unbecoming to the confident Christian in you.
I see that you let the boy go on with his novel. What I hope is that you read one too. A good one, of course—there are so many bad ones. And a real novel, I mean, not just a fable, or a parable, or an allegory, indirectly again doing practical, or moral, or religious work. I hope that you get one for Christmas. I hope you will read it, and not for mere entertainment, although a good novel is, of course, very entertaining. I hope that you will read it also to discover God and life in it. So that you may enjoy Him forever.
There you have it. It’s an interesting sensation, let me tell you, discovering just about everything you think you have to say has already been said decades before you were born and said better than you can say it. True, that can be said about most of us in the 21st century, but that does not mean we should give in to cynicism. Instead, delight in rediscovering what the past has to offer, the beautiful and other important things not yet wholly forgotten.
Art, especially good fiction, as we have seen before and will again, is important — far more important than just the practical and useful things with which we can fill up our days and nights. May this Christmas, as Professor Zylstra said, be filled with good art.
Work Cited
Zylstra, Henry. “What is Fiction For?” The Banner (17 Dec. 1948). Rpt. in Testament of Vision. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958. 45-47. Print.
One of the most exciting things about growing up, after Christmas and trips to Walmart, is learning about the way the world works, and so many things go into creating that excitement. Parents tell you, “don’t touch the hot stove; you’ll get hurt.” Granddad says, “bake flour and sugar and eggs together, and you’ll get cookies.” Your backside says, “don’t yell at your sister, or I’ll get spanked again.” Eventually, you come to understand patterns in the world, and you find there is a cause and effect tendency in the universe. You come to expect certain things in certain situations, and you discover in those expectations, you have an exciting power over your circumstances. You can plug “x” social tool into “y” social situation to invariably come up with “z” desired social outcome. But there has been a questioning among the literary minds, a wondering about whether cause and effect is actually a valid way to understand the world. They wonder whether we shouldn’t unlearn those patterns we grew up into, whether we shouldn’t toss our expectations for anything and everything, perhaps, out the window. Absurdist literature is a great challenge to readers’ expectations, calling into question their means of knowing anything. In their plays Waiting for Godot and The Importance of Being Earnest, Samuel Beckett and Oscar Wilde present a challenge to their audiences, asking them especially to examine their assumptions about the universality of words, by creating radically different meanings in different contexts, despite using the same words.
The primary underlying understanding when reading absurdist literature, the only universality granted by absurdists, is relativity. Nothing can be assumed to be the same for separate people, times, situations, places, etc. Although extreme relativism is accepted as a universal in the absurd, it cannot be understood to be a set down rule, a binding law governing all that happens in the world. It is simply a coincidence. Like a scientific theory, it is an observed pattern — or lack thereof, in this case — helping us understand the world and the limits of our understanding of the world.
When we happen upon them, Vladimir and Estragon are sitting there, “waiting for Godot,” not quite sure he will ever come, discussing a scattered montage of topics, progressing from suicide to taking off boots to painful suffering to buttoning one’s fly. Vladimir ends the scene, saying concerning the maintenance of one’s fly, one should “Never neglect the little things of life” (Godot, Act I). In other words, he is saying, the little things are too important to be overlooked, and in doing so, he makes an interesting word choice. In my personal experience, “little” things are just … small. He seems to be comparing buttoning his fly with a bigger, one might say, more important, weightier issue. But that’s exactly the point. That is my experience. One might say that. The problem for the absurdists is we can’t say anything about Vladimir’s experience. We haven’t lived it. To Vladimir, buttoning his fly is a valuable thing, despite being called “little,” despite my understanding of the word “little.” He also does an interesting thing with the language style. This is said in the style we often associate with proverbs, pithy sayings meant to be applicable to just about everything, everywhere, and in all times. But, my experience is not the same as Vladimir’s. The proverb works for him, but it does not work for me, which totally defeats the point of a proverb. We can’t expect one proverb, Beckett’s work shows us, to apply to all times and places and people. The proverb, as a literary device, has been subtly attacked and its readers and writers asked to reevaluate its use entirely, because Vladimir wants to button his fly and I don’t see the big deal about it.
Wilde also uses his play on the Significance of Being Sincere (wait…?) to ask his audience to reconsider their expectations of absolutes. Algernon and his dear friend Jack are calmly discussing their complicated marriages over an afternoon snack, and, as they often do, things get a little tense. Jack is annoyed with Algernon for continuing to calmly eat muffins, Jack’s muffins, when they are in such a terrible heap of trouble. “I say it’s perfectly heartless your eating muffins at all, under the circumstances” (Earnest,Act II). Jack then goes to eat a muffin, and Algernon retorts.
ALGERNON: But you have just said it was perfectly heatless to eat muffins.
JACK: I said it was perfectly heartless of you, under the circumstances. That is a very different thing (Earnest, Act II).
Algernon sees an incongruity in Jack’s logic, as did I when I read this (although, I cannot speak for anyone else who reads this, as per absurdist suggestion). It is heartless for Algernon to eat muffins. It is not heartless for Jack to eat muffins. They are in exactly the same situation. The rules for eating are arbitrary. There is no reason behind their existence, and that does not create any problems in the absurdist universe. They are also performative to a degree. It is heartless for Algernon to eat muffins because Jack says so. This does not follow any of the social patterns we’ve learned as children. There is no cause and effect here. He simply says “so,” and it is “so.” Words are used here to create arbitrary value. Jack is free to say whatever he choses, to create whatever kind of values he choses, because he is using words: “I said it was perfectly heartless of you…” (Earnest, Act II, emphasis added).
Beckett’s fake proverb and Wilde’s arbitrary value assigning change the way we read absurdist drama. We must now understand, language is versatile. It can apply to many situations or only a few. It is powerful to create and change the world. It is itself only regulated by use, so must therefore change as its use is changed. This is a freeing idea, they say. With the versatility of language in mind, there is freedom to read without the need to expect universality. We are free to simply be delighted by the author-creator’s (hopefully) clever uses of the language. In speaking and writing, the absurdists claim there is freedom to discard the expected patterns, the rules that must regulate his creation (which are fairly arbitrary themselves). Absurdist literature must be read as a challenge to discard patterns and accept the freedom of relativity.
Works Cited
Beckett, Samuel. Waiting For Godot: A Tragicomedy in Two Acts. The Norton Anthology of English Literature. 9th ed. Vol. 8. Eds. Jahan Ramazani and Jon Stallworthy. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2012. Print.
Wilde, Oscar. The Importance of Being Earnest: A Trivial Comedy for Serious People. Project Gutenberg, 2006. Ebook.
Thirteen years before the boys from Ireland refocused their attention and output back on the transcendent, the boys from Canada did the same thing on one of my favorite Rush albums, the oft-overlooked Hold Your Fire. It might be a bit of a stretch to call this a Forgotten Gem, since it is one of the poorest-selling albums of Rush’s career, and thus it strikes me as more accurate to use this solid album to kick of a new, though related, series, Overlooked Gems. In retrospect, some of the albums we examined under “Forgotten Gems” may have been similar stretches, but we are nothing at Redeeming Pandora if not flexible. Anyway, though I speculated last issue if we might bring Forgotten Gems back, this present moment is calling for something else (though I am not unwilling to return to that series should it strike my fancy), and thus we turn to Overlooked Gems.
Hold Your Fire was created in 1987, and while it is often ignored as a whole, it has given us at least two memorable hits: “Force Ten” and “Time Stand Still.” Like most people (other than the die-hard Rush fans), “Time Stand Still” was the main reason I acquired the album. I was pleasantly surprised at the rest of the album. The album is at a transitional period for the band for several reasons: notably it is the last of the “Mercury Era” albums, the beginning of a (short-lived) lighter lyrical output from Neil Peart (here and there), and the beginning of more electronic percussion sounds from Peart (and a new drum set). It is also a much more pop-rock sounding album than most Rush albums (especially in light of later ’90s releases such as Counterparts and Test for Echo, which are predominantly very heavy rock albums).
In his “making of” snapshot entitled “Fireworks,” Neil Peart highlights many of the changes just mentioned, framing them and more in the general impetus within the band to experiment, grow, and improve their musical and lyrical range. Sometimes growth and change work in a band’s favor (Achtung Baby), sometimes not (Concerto for Group and Orchestra). Here, it works far better than most were likely expecting. The optimistic turn of most of the songs, the pop/Asiatic/keyboard emphases, the gentler, softer feel for much of the album likely threw off much of the public. So while it is somewhat understandable the initial reaction was bemused disappointment, no such response is warranted yet today. For some of us, the leaning toward religious ecumenism and naturalistic lyrical underpinnings may detract from our enjoyment, but one never goes to Neil Peart for doctrinal verities. We can appreciate the journey, the questions, the musical brilliance any way, and take their questions and leanings to the fullest higher place with our Biblical worldview (and aesthetic sensibilities) intact.
“Force Ten” was almost an “afterthought,” Peart says. Sometimes following those afterthoughts are choices of wisdom. This is a great song. It is also an ironic introduction to this album, as the lyrical impetus of the pre-chorus (whatever one calls the initial lines) does not presage an album of “tough talk.” It’s a fairly encouraging, open-hearted album, as intimated earlier. Additionally, though memory may mislead as sentimentality and nostalgia tag-team to override veracity at this moment, 1987 wasn’t all that tough a time, at least where I was living it. Perhaps it was more difficult in Canada, though it is doubtful things were all that difficult for a band with such success (and dosh) as they. Likely, then, it is not so ironic: as is their wont, Rush sings about timeless matters not kairotic hot topics. The fire we are to hold is an eternal flame (easy, Bangles fans). No matter our current circumstances, tough times do indeed demand tough talk, hearts, and songs.
The “tough talk” of the song is truly a litany of encouraging enjoinments. Whether we are owners of “too-tender hearts” or toughies with “skin as thick as thieves,” we can weather the storms of life. Life is not an unconquerable enemy, nor is it an unsolvable puzzle. We can “look the storm in the eye” and be hurricanes ourselves. The best way to do this is to be aware of life around us: “look in, look out, look around.” Don’t be so mindful of yourself and your problems: care about others and their life struggles as well.
Some may be turned off by the potential Whitman-like “anything is viable” bent of some lyrics. While Peart does say “be vain and smart, humble and dumb,” one forgets the helping verb from the beginning of the verse “can” — we can be these things, but that doesn’t mean we should be all those things. If we are looking out and around, we won’t be destructively vain or dumb. It is not a stretch to believe Peart prefers the “smart and humble” combination. Similarly, the “savage grace” line of verse two adds to the quality of the song without promoting relativism. Man is and likely will be noted for his “savage grace,” this side of eternity. Man is capable of many things, good and bad, which is exactly what this song portrays. But thoughts like wearing the “rose of romance” and embracing a joie de vivre likely lean toward living life fully and correctly, living a life of generosity and concern for others, even while the force-ten gales of life storm around us. Our lives are not just for ourselves.
“Children Growing Up — Old Friends Growing Older”
It’s fair to consider this, “Time Stands Still,” the best song of the album. Accurate, also. Like all great works of art, its truth does not change but our experience of its truth increases and improves. Another irony for this album, the desire to pause in a moment of time succeeds on one level, thanks to this artistic medium: we will be enjoying this song in some form (vinyl, tape, disc, digital, ?) for one hopes a long time (perhaps forever, if one’s desires for the way eternity shapes up come true). So the song succeeds on one level, though we know the passage of time has a pernicious way of swallowing up all our temporal victories.
Of course, this song means more to us as we live out its lyrics. When young, we are invincible, time seems to move so slowly, no one could possibly understand what we are going through … Heavens, but we are idiots. But Peart’s point here is not to reflect upon the past (better we don’t that often, anyway). Instead, knowing as we do now time is not nearly as lethargic as we want it to be, slow down and look around at now. Enjoy the moments as you are living them, stop valuing the moments yet to come (that may never happen, and certainly won’t happen the way we intend them to) more than the moments here now. Oddly, the call to stop and look around is likened to “some captain, / Whose ship runs aground.” One would think a ship running aground would be a bad thing worth avoiding, and so the comparison appears to stumble a bit — until we realize the actions are not being compared but simply the situations, the effects: the captain isn’t going anywhere, now, all he can do is think and wait. How much better for us it would be if we could get to the point of a life of contemplation without running the ship of our lives aground first. (For another fine example of this point, see the best episode of The Andy Griffith Show, “Man in a Hurry.”)
This is unquestionably the best song on the album and thus needs no further comment or explanation from me. Though, it certainly is a heck of a thing to think about my friends growing older. Glad that’s not happening to me.
“Time Will Do Its Healing / You’ve Got to Let It Go”
The theme of “time” continues in “Open Secrets,” another solid song many will easily dismiss. I say “easily,” only because many “fans” only like the songs the radio tells them to like (or whatever source of taste and popularity the independent thinking kids are hearkening to these days), not because it’s an album filler. Like with so many of the good, solid Rush songs, it’s the sound of their music. Peart’s lyrical talents are always a rollercoaster, but there is no doubting the musical supremacy of this power trio. The lyrics of this song are on one level inferior to the two tour-staple “greatest hits,” and the basic idea of paying attention to those with whom we are, their needs, their value is a regular occurrence in the post-Mercury years (especially coming up next on Presto) and thus nothing unusual in the band’s oeuvre … but then comes the bridge.
This album is partly about time, partly about searching for meaning. We have noted already the tendency toward ecumenism, but the bridge of this song is remarkable in its rejection of pure ratiocination: “I find no absolution / In my rational point of view.” Even if the thought is limited by its context of “mere” social interaction and willingness to open our hearts to others, casting aside our pain of past hurts and fears of further scorn, and even if the only response is not “seek divine revelation” but “maybe some things are instinctive,” we should take what we can get. That he is willing to acknowledge man’s reason alone will not solve all our problems is a good start. That is one way to start building quality relationships, the kind that risk pain and share secrets. It takes time. We all have things of which we have to let go. If we can, if we are willing, that is one way “You could try to understand me — I could try to understand you.”
“We Fight the Fire — While We’re Feeding the Flames”
You might be tempted to think this is the source of the album title, but it isn’t, not immediately. Certainly the fire imagery (or motif, perhaps) contributes to it, making this a much more unified album than the casual fans who only want digestible radio hits will see. “Second Nature” continues the potential for instinct begun in “Open Secrets,” but it is admittedly hampered by the threatening cynicism throughout the number. Certainly the narrator has much to be righteously antagonistic concerning, and while he does a mostly impressive job of avoiding bitterness and sarcastic anger, a tinge of vitriol may discolor the song as a whole for some. It depends what sort of mood I’m in, personally. That’s usually why I like to listen to this album when I’m already in a positive, optimistic mood. (See our “Death to Cynicism 2015” ad in this issue.) The music attempts to buoy the song up to more than just irritated political antagonism.
One wonders, though, what the actual source of antagonism is actually under scrutiny. Is it the absence of “voices” among the people? Surely that has been remedied to some extent with the advent of the Information Superhighway. Is it the “Too many captains / Keep on steering us wrong”? by which one suspects the leaders of the Free World making decisions one doesn’t like? Which direction is “wrong”? We aren’t precisely told. Perhaps that’s part of the point: pick your own source of antipathy and fill in the blanks with it. One tirade fits all. Though, musically, it is a delightful tirade.
The cynicism rears its head quite boldly in what may likely be considered the tail end of verse two (unless it is pre-chorus two): the rejection of perfection (though, if it were perfection achieved solely by Franklin-like Enlightenment rationality, we could applaud it), the willingness to compromise for the sake of general amity (making the decade-later “Resist” that much more impressive).
The two choruses, though, may likely prevent the song from being outright cynical in the end. We are “feeding the flames”; we are not “blameless.” We are culpable, even if we didn’t start the fire (you don’t mind, do you, Mr. Joel?). We may have inherited a messy world, but cynically complaining and laying blame while we walk around “without shame” belies our mistaken self-image. The guilt we see in the mirror does not mean we are looking in someone else’s mirror: we have some ’splainin’ to do as well. Being bitter makes the problem worse. Pessimism, says Chesterton, comes from being tired of truth, not falsehood. Slinging mud at mudslinging politicians doesn’t majickally make the world pristine. Perhaps it’s an “open letter” not so the “powers-that-be” will see it but so we, the real powers-that-could-be will wake up, slough off our comfortable blankies of blamelaying and start fighting the fire without feeding it. Fight it with compassion, understanding, humility. (Is it too much of a stretch to translate the “second nature” of the song as a Biblical “new nature”? That’s fine. I’m limber.)
“The Point of Departure is Not to Return”
This jaunty little number gives us an optimistic perspective on life flying in the face of pure materialism, a growing undercurrent of the album, and while it has its flaws (which shouldn’t surprise us), it provides a great song, first and foremost (as “great” as a song of its ilk can be, sure), and a great collection of lyrics about which to have meaningful conversations. Songs such as this boggle my mind — not of itself, of course, but that an album such as this could go mostly neglected and a band such as this could be denied entrance into a musical hall of fame for so long.
The opening of the song is as follows: “Basic elemental / instinct to survive / stirs the higher passions / thrill to be alive.” A seeming jumble of contrary ideas, the verse continues: “Alternating currents / in a tidewater surge / rational resistance / to an unwise urge.” We have seen already on this album both a call to rationality and a caution against uxorious devotion to reason. Here we now have a call to balance. The song is called “Prime Mover,” and while the opening lines intimate the eponymous mover is the Darwinian (and potentially Freudian) war against death, with forestalling death being the ultimate value and thus the “prime mover” of all humans do, the “thrill to be alive” sponsored by “the higher passions” surely cannot be a product of simply “trying not to die.” The “higher passions” bespeak a life far richer and meaningful than the base materialism of Darwinian (or Spencerian) existence. Admittedly, the “unwise urge” against which “rational resistance” fights could be a spiritual life — but if those “higher passions” are a good, and just being alive is not enough (and surely it isn’t, given not only the tenor of the entire album but Rush’s entire output), a “rational resistance” could not possibly be in favor of embracing solely materialism. What good would “higher passions” be then? Since, as the verses say, “anything can happen,” it would truly be “an unwise urge” to dismiss categorically the possibility of the miraculous, the supernatural, the divine.
Some may upbraid such an interpretation, especially in light of the chorus, which says, in part, “the point of the journey is not to arrive.” Surely this is saying the end goal of life is simply to have a good life, right? and that isn’t in any way a Christian message. Easy, now. I’m not trying to foist a Christian message upon this song (as far as I can tell, consciously). Even so, if the point of the Christian life were (using the subjunctive instead of the past tense; we are living in … never mind) — I say if the point of the Christian life were simply to “go to Heaven,” surely we would all be translated at the moment of justification anyway. The point of the Christian journey is not (just) to arrive, either. I don’t see a negative doctrinal frisson here.
Some may then chafe against the more overt deistic sentiments of the last verse. Well, you may have me there. Indeed, the song is called “Prime Mover,” not “The God Who is There.” This isn’t a Dr. Schaeffer work. Still, as with most of the album, it’s better than an outright rejection of spiritual things. We can work with this.
Anything can happen.
“It’s Not a Matter of Mercy — It’s Not a Matter of Laws”
Undoubtedly the darkest song on the album (and definitely a top ten all-time dark Rush songs), “Lock and Key” honestly examines the evil within all of us. The music, though, betrays the sinister elements of this song, being yet again another up-tempo, musically-pleasing number. Really the song discusses the fact people almost never want to discuss: the destructive, anti-social, downright evil side we all have. We would call it our “sin nature,” but Peart is not at that point here. Still, that he is talking about it as if it’s a fact and (perhaps mildly) upbraiding all of us for keeping our badness under “lock and key” instead of discussing it, acknowledging it, and seeking a remedy is noteworthy. Sure, we know the remedy, but it is difficult trying to share the remedy with people if they aren’t even willing to discuss or even acknowledge the existence of the disease.
I don’t think the line “Plenty of people will kill you / For some fanatical cause” needs to be taken as an assault against Christianity, especially since it is a true statement about so many “tolerant,” peaceful” groups of world denizens outside of Christianity. Besides, since Christianity is true, it’s not a “fanatical cause,” anyway.
“A Spirit with a Vision is a Dream with a Mission”
Finally we get to the most direct source of the album title with the opening lines of “Mission.” Underscoring Peart’s lyrical skill (which, yes, does at times fly afield), all this time we’ve likely been thinking “Hold Your Fire” is the typical “stop shooting bullets at those people” idea. And while that sentiment has certainly undergirded a good deal of the album, in its general “promote peace and unity” sort of way, it is far more clever than that: we each have a flame, a unique fire of spirit, identity, gifts, talents, what have you — don’t hide them under a bushel basket. No longer the consumptive devastating force, fire transforms into a transcendent symbol of optimistic hope. “Keep it burning bright / hold the flame / ’til the dream ignites. / A spirit with a vision / is a dream with a mission.” Truly an uplifting song, literally.
We are again cautioned against inactive, dreamless existing — another enjoyable current of the album advocating the “higher passions” instead of acquisitive materialism. Additionally, Peart gives us an intriguing possibility the life of a dreamer, the passionate hopeful life of meaning and delight in the Realms of Gold, is only given to those who will make the most of it, who will truly enjoy it. If such a vivid, vibrant imaginative life were given to the dullards, they would not be able to appreciate it or use it wisely — instead they would try to exchange it for the humdrum life of simply existing. An intriguing and almost disquieting notion. Don’t let this happen to you!
This may be the most musically diverse song on the album, which again highlights the importance of diversity and creativity — two ideas essential to a quality life for all of us and neither of which are antagonistic to unity or meaning. Pursuing the “higher passions,” the gospel, the “finer things” as Brother Steve puts it, does come with a cost: “We each pay a fabulous price / for our visions of Paradise” warns Peart, “but a spirit with a vision / is a dream with a mission.” No one ever said the quality life worth living would be safe and comfortable. But unity, meaning, and quality are worth pursuing and fighting for all the same.
“How Can Anybody be Enlightened? Truth Is After All So Poorly Lit”
Perhaps the album is so poorly received because the songs are quite similar. We have here again another straightforward song enjoining us not to disengage from the social life of caring about other people. Don’t hide behind excuses of “I have my own problems.” Don’t dismiss the detrimental behavior of those we love with “it’s just a stage.” Don’t excuse the popular voices of falsehood with “it’s just the age.” We have a role to play, a responsibility to care for others with genuine empathy. Don’t “turn the page” (the song’s title) and move on as if history and its forces are inexorable and individuals don’t matter. Certainly we do, but we live better in community. If life is indeed a powerful wind tunnel, we would certainly do better at surviving it together instead of alone. Sure, you could shake your head at the line about truth being “so poorly lit,” as if Peart is refuting the light of the gospel and all that … but we are seeing in a mirror darkly, after all, aren’t we? At least, again, he is not siding with the “light” of the Enlightenment and its outright rejection of divine revelation. I told you this was a good album — good, at least, as a conversation starter on important things that matter.
“Somewhere in My Instincts the Primitive Took Hold”
I don’t understand why Geddy Lee regrets putting this song, “Tai Shan,” on the album. It’s musically a lovely, calming song. Sure, it’s a tribute to China — what’s so bad about that? It does rebuff earlier songs on the album a smidge, advocating instinct … but, then again, most of the album has been about abjuring pure rationalism, so if there is a rebuff it’s against the willingness to give in to primal instincts, the instincts not of “Lock and Key” but of spirituality, the instincts of the imago dei, perhaps somewhat confused as it might be in this song in the thin air at the top of Mount Tai. The only thing really “wrong” with this song is it’s too short; we want to hear the unique musical strains more. Take this song for what it is, a good song about a positive spiritual experience. Turn it into something later, after you’ve enjoyed and appreciated it for what it actually is.
“In a Driving Rain of Redemption the Water Takes Me Home”
“High Water,” the final song of the album, does have a pervasive “we evolved out of the water” sort of notion (or does it?). Well, at least he’s not saying “we just came from apes.” Again, our purpose here is not to try to transmogrify Peart’s lyrics into proto-Christian talk (though much of the album does tend to allow us to lean in that direction, as we have seen), so instead of trying to remake the song into what we want it to be, we’ll just take it as it is (or appears to be).
Looking at this last jaunty tune on the album, it draws many of the ideas of the album together: time, transformation, memory, social community and responsibility, the value of the individual — all come together in an optimistic conclusion. The optimism again betrays its attempts to reconcile man’s supposed biological evolutionary history with the primal experience of “higher passions”: “We still feel that elation / when the water takes us home.” If we are truly biologically evolved, why would returning to our primordial watery roots give us a positive feeling? Surely Peart is not arguing for a sentimental homecoming feeling like returning to the home of our youth at Thanksgiving or Christmastime. Darwinian evolution (biological, psychological, and sociological) demands we look at our past with contempt: we should be grateful we have escaped the water or the trees or the whatever. Looking back at our earlier, lesser existence should not inspire elation. So the song can’t be simply a call to align with and magnify biological or social evolution.
The song praises the paradoxical notions of a) the courageous explorative breaking away from the ancestral watery home and b) the redemptive benefits of returning to said ancestral watery home. Water’s concomitancy with civilization is not a new concept, nor was it new when Langston Hughes wrote about it for his community almost a century ago. Peart relates the communal connection of memory and water quite well in only a few lines, yet the tension of that paradox still remains. All the lyrics about water itself breaking away from its locations, “springing from the weight of the mountains,” bursting from “the heart of the earth,” “flowing out from marble fountains,” on seashores or rainforest — every instance of water moving and escaping is positive, yet no mention of water returning to its source is mentioned, let alone praised. Thus, statistically, the song praises leaving one’s home/source far more than returning. So why is the refrain always about the greatness and elation of the water taking us home?
If the water is taking us home, the water is not, as initially seemed, itself our home. Fair enough. Throughout the song the water is lifting us up, the water rises (yes, it crashes and flows, too, but mostly it is moving up) and so does whatever is leaving the water. Up is the dominant direction — but never in a biological, psychological, or sociological sense: it’s never about growing complexity or evolution. If returning is up, then, away from the muck and mire of the earth, and it’s not the mountains, where else could “home” really be? If “driving rain” is “redemption,” redemption must come from above, and since even the driving rain takes us home, home must be where redemption comes from — and surely it is not just the clouds! Home is where redemption comes from. above and beyond Earth.
Well, what do you know. I told you this was a good album.
Welcome Home
Thus our first exploration of an Overlooked Gem draws to a very satisfactory conclusion, even if we have stretched it more than Lee, Lifeson, and especially Peart intended. Ever the optimistic band, Rush has given us a much more solid and enjoyable album than just “the one with ‘Force Ten’ and ‘Time Stand Still’ on it.” Considering all the changes going on in their professional lives at the time, that they gave us a calming, musically-uplifting, thought-provoking optimistic album that encourages us to seek spiritual truth and abjure pure materialistic rationalism as the solution to life’s challenges is truly remarkable and worthy of far more appreciation on our part than the album and the band has received. So go get your own copy and enjoy it, paradoxes and all.
The Victorian era produced great authors, such as the Brontë sisters, William Thackeray, and George Eliot. However, the most well-known Victorian author is Charles Dickens. Dickens’s work was heavily influenced by the poverty he had experienced.
Charles Dickens was born in 1812, the second of eight children. He had a rather idyllic childhood, and his parents were even able to pay for him to go to private schools. He read constantly, burning through books such as Robinson Crusoe and The Arabian Nights. This time came to an end, however, at the tender age of twelve, when poverty grabbed ahold of his family. His father, who had been living beyond his means, was forced into debtor’s prison. Dickens had to leave school, as he could no longer pay for it. Instead, he worked ten hour days in a shoe blacking factory. He and his older sister worked hard to support their mother and younger siblings, who had moved in with their father in prison, and pay off dad’s debts.
His life in the factory greatly influenced his future works. He is quoted as saying “How I could be so easily cast away at such an age.” This thought can be seen in many of his works, as he shows good people, children especially, who are caught in the grips of poverty and cannot escape. He struggles with the idea those who could have helped, like the upper and middle classes, did nothing even for little children. Dickens became interested in social reform and labor conditions. As stated in the previous essay, factory conditions were poor, resulting in medical problems and death, and no doubt Dickens saw these happen at his work.
The sights young Dickens saw in the factory and around the deplorable conditions the poor lived in heavily influenced his fiction and other works. The view middle and upper class Victorians held was poor folk were all criminals, but Charles Dickens’s books challenged this.
While working and living as a poor person, Dickens loved people who were poor, and he himself was desperately poor. This poverty pushed him to succeed in later life. Dickens knew he was a person, and there was no difference between him and middle class people, except their income. Just because people were poor did not automatically make them criminals.
In Oliver Twist, Dickens confronts the realities of child labor and orphans. Orphanages were rough places, often cold, disease-ridden, and brutal. In one famous scene, Oliver Twist is chosen to ask their caregiver for more food. For this, he is beaten. In Great Expectations Dickens challenges the view people’s social status makes them who they are; rather, people’s characters define their worth. Pip, the main character, is a poor boy whose mind is messed with by a manipulative old woman and her protégée.
A Christmas Carol shows the dire consequences of ignoring poverty and is probably his work that demonstrates poverty’s effects most clearly, especially poverty involving children. Tiny Tim is a crippled child, whose father works for Scrooge. Scrooge is told unless Tiny Tim gets help, he will die soon. Children back then were imprisoned by the poverty they were experiencing, and most would never escape this life.
This could be representing Dickens himself in his earlier years of poverty. In the A Christmas Carol Scrooge ends up helping Tiny Tim and his family, but Dickens knows not all children are so lucky. Both Dickens and Tiny Tim were lucky to escape. Dickens wanted the public to realize the awful life of children stuck in poverty, so, hopefully, they would become enraged and do something to change the conditions.
In A Christmas Carol, Tiny Tim’s father works for Scrooge. He struggles to make enough money to feed all of his children and give them a good Christmas. Although he never goes into debtor’s prison, he works for a man who makes his living putting others into debt, so he sees the drastic effects. Dickens’s father went to debtor prison, and he uses his experiences to show why people did not want to go there.
Also in A Christmas Carol, Scrooge encounters two ragged street children. One is Ignorance and the other Want. The spirit tells him although both are dangerous, Ignorance is the more dangerous. On his forehead is written “Doom.” This symbolizes Dickens’s view on poverty: if the middle- and upper-class people never learn about the deplorable conditions poor folk live in, then they will never do anything to change it because they don’t know something is wrong.
Charles Dickens was the most well-known Victorian author, and his books were heavily influenced by the poverty he had experienced. This poverty drove him to succeed in later life and also made him challenge the popular beliefs about the poor in his books. Charles Dickens was heavily influenced by poverty, and in return, poverty is heavily featured in his works.
Amber Richardson, Grace Livingstone Tyler, Schyler Kucera, and Elise Lang Mahan
Movement One: “Risks for Love in Romeo and Juliet,” Amber Richardson
Romeo and Juliet is the story of the forbidden love of Romeo Montague and Juliet Capulet. Their love is forbidden because of the hatred between the Montagues and Capulets. One major theme of this play is risk. Risk is seen throughout the entire play and builds up most of the storyline to a story of unconditional love.
The first instance where risk is seen in Romeo and Juliet is when Romeo attends the Capulet masquerade in order to see Rosaline. This is a risk because Romeo is a Montague and the Capulets hate the Montagues. He is risking his well-being and his emotional state, since Rosaline did not return the feelings Romeo had for her. The most obvious risk in this play is Romeo’s and Juliet’s love for each other. Their love is practically forbidden because their families hate each other and would not approve of their actions. In this they risk their families finding out and harming one another.
An earlier risk Romeo takes comes before he goes to the masquerade. Romeo has a feeling the following fateful events will lead him to his undeniable death. He ignores this feeling, though, and continues with plans. This shows a risk because he has a feeling he will lose his life but continues anyway.
Romeo seems to be the person taking the most risks in this play, especially with his relationship with Juliet. When Romeo tells the friar he wants to marry Juliet, the friar warns him of the fickleness of young love. He worries about the fact one day he loves Rosaline and the next Juliet and marriage is a big step for someone who met their lover the night before. Romeo, though, ignores this and insists he marries Juliet anyway. Trying to marry Juliet is probably the biggest risk he takes for their relationship. He has his life and the peace between their families at risk. Disturbing the peace between their families could end in death for members of their families, since the Prince has already warned against their quarrels. Disturbing the peace is something Romeo was successful at. Romeo kills Tybalt, a Capulet, and he is banished from Verona by the Prince. This is a considerably graceful punishment because the Prince’s original punishment for disturbing the peace is death.
Juliet also takes risks as well. A risk she takes is professing her love about Romeo to her nurse and using her a messenger for them. The nurse could choose to tell her parents about their love, and Romeo and Juliet would get into trouble for this. The Nurse is also risking her job by hiding this love. She could lose her job if the Capulet parents find out she didn’t tell them and be accused of helping a Montague. The friar could also lose his position as a friar if the Montagues find out he married Romeo and Juliet without the permission of their parents. The biggest risk Juliet takes is when she hides in the coffin and is surrounded by other dead people.
The play gave a great example of unconditional love. No matter what obstacles were thrown in their way, Romeo and Juliet found a way around them (until the tragic climax, of course). Their love for each other was shown through the risks they took to be with each other. From meeting each other in the middle of the night to risking their own lives, risk can be seen as the major theme of this play.
Movement Two: “Romeo, Juliet, and the Effects of Immaturity,” Grace Livingstone Tyler
In William Shakespeare’s most famous play, Romeo and Juliet, are two families feuding, the Capulets, to whom Juliet belongs, and the Montagues, to whom Romeo belongs. Romeo is madly in love, or so he thinks, with a young lady named Rosaline, who does not reciprocate his feelings. Benvolio, Romeo’s cousin, encourages Romeo to find another woman to love. Romeo and Benvolio attend a ball at the Capulets’, because Benvolio wants Romeo to find someone else. Romeo only agrees to attend because he knows Rosaline will be there. Romeo is immediately captivated by a young woman who is not Rosaline: Juliet. It is what we would call “love at first sight.” They share a kiss, and later that night, Romeo sneaks into the Capulets’ orchard, and the two profess their love for each other, not caring their families are enemies or feuding.
Juliet’s family want her to marry a man named Paris, but Juliet does not love him. Romeo and Juliet go behind their families’ backs and get married, only for Juliet to find out the next day she is to marry Paris in three days. Romeo gets banished from the land for killing Tybalt, Juliet’s cousin, in a fight. A plan is constructed to reunite the lovers. Romeo is to return, and Juliet is to drink a potion that makes her appear dead. Juliet will then be delivered to her family’s crypt, where the friar will reunite Romeo and Juliet. However, the plan never gets to Romeo, and he only hears Juliet is dead. Distraught and depressed, he kills himself over her “corpse.” When Juliet awakes and sees her lover dead, she, too, kills herself.
The first glimpse of immaturity and its effects on the characters in the play is at the ball. Romeo is so madly in love with this Rosaline he will do anything just to see her. He agrees to go the ball to get his mind off her, knowing she will be there. However, when he lays eyes on Juliet, he falls in love with her. It takes him about two seconds to fall out of love with one girl and in love with another. This shows a lack of emotional maturity. Romeo is around sixteen, and he doesn’t even know Juliet. He doesn’t even know her name, yet he is madly in love with her. Really, all he knows about her is her beauty, and that is what he is in love with, at least for the time. However, beauty is not something that can sustain a relationship or a marriage. It takes so much more than that, and that is all Romeo knows.
The next time we see the issue of immaturity return is when Romeo and Juliet decide to get married. Romeo is around sixteen and Juliet is not yet fourteen. A thirteen-year-old girl and a sixteen-year-old boy running off behind their parents’ backs to get married because they’re “in love,” when they’ve known each other less than 24 hours, oozes immaturity. You cannot be in love with someone you do not completely know. You can be in love with the idea of them, but not them themselves. There is no possible way Romeo or Juliet truly knew the other when they had only met less than 24 hours before the marriage.
The third and final time we see Romeo and Juliet act immaturely is when they both commit suicide over the idea of being alone. When Romeo thinks Juliet is dead, he is so saddened by the idea of a life without her he thinks he cannot bear it, and he commits suicide. When Juliet wakes up and sees Romeo has killed himself, she, like him, does not think life is worth living because she cannot bear the world without him, and she, too, kills herself. The two “lovers” kill themselves over “love” when they have known each other maybe a week. If Romeo can fall out of love with Rosaline and in love with Juliet in less than a minute, what’s to say he couldn’t fall out of love with Juliet and in love with another girl after Juliet was supposedly “off the table” because he thought she was dead? Romeo makes an immature snap judgment to kill himself because his immaturity fails to let him see all the other things life has to offer. He doesn’t think life will have anything to offer except Juliet. Juliet is also extremely immature because she reacts the exact same way Romeo does. Juliet is only thirteen, and she kills herself over “love.” Most thirteen-year-olds honestly don’t fully understand love and all its implications, as evidenced by Juliet.
These two teens essentially lose their lives due to their closed mindset and immaturity. They have absolutely no control over their emotions, they do not obey their parents, and they commit suicide at the thought of living without one another. Had Romeo not been so immature he could’ve lived the rest of his life with Juliet, although it is highly unlikely their marriage would’ve even lasted because the two hardly knew each other. The effects of their own lack of maturity are seen in their deaths.
Movement Three: “Marriage in the 16th Century Compared to the 21st Century,” Schyler Kucera
Marriage has greatly changed between the 16th century and the 21st century. New Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines marriage in the 16th century as “Legally recognized personal union entered into by a man and a woman usu., with the intention of living together and having sexual relations, and entailing property and inheritance rights.” Merriam-Webster defines marriage in the 21st century as “the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law; the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.”
Couples in the 16th century did not marry each other out of love, and they were married young. It was believed to be foolish to marry for love. In the 16th century, one you would not choose whom you would marry. Your friends and family sought out a good spouse for you. It was done this way because they believed your friends and family were better set to look for whom you would be a good fit. Because of this, they believed one would have a happier marriage.
People got married because they were ready to have children and run their own home. Wives were property of their husbands and obeyed them because they were the head of the house. In some cases, a husband would abuse their wives. Even if they had an unhappy marriage, the two would stay together. Divorce was not an option.
Same-sex marriage was banned. Guys did not have intimate relations with other men, and women did not have intimate relations with other women (legally). It was not accepted; those who did were cast out and shunned by the society.
Today, in the 21st century, couples are not getting married as young. People want to get their lives together before they start a family. Women are now allowed to do more in society, and their roles are not limited to just being a wife. Because of that, women want to be successful and prove they can succeed without a man.
There are no more arranged marriages in the West; people marry whom they want. Couples also marry for love instead of family or economic reasons. Another big difference between the 21st century and the 16th century is interracial marriages. People can marry between races and not be looked down upon by the entire community.
People marry whom they want. However, divorce is also very common. When a couple isn’t happy together anymore, they just get a divorce. The biggest difference between then and now is same-sex marriage. Today, same-sex marriage is accepted and several states have passed bills allowing same-sex marriages.
In Romeo and Juliet, Romeo is a Montague and Juliet is a Capulet. Their families do not get along and Montagues and Capulets are not allowed to associate with each other. Since both families are high in society, marriage for their children are arranged by their parents. Wealthy children often would be married into other rich families. One night however, Romeo and Juliet meet and fall in love. Going against their families, society, and the rules, the two marry for love.
This play displays a mix between both past marriage customs and today’s marriage customs. Examples of past marriage customs are the expectation of an arranged marriage, being married young, and the expectation for children to obey their parents. The similarity to today’s customs include marrying for love, marrying whom one wants, and doing everything possible to be with that person. The penalty for not following the customs, keeping secrets, and disobeying is their deaths.
Marriage has changed drastically over the years. People have become more involved in doing what they want, marrying whom they want, and if things work out they work out, but if things don’t work out then divorce is an easy opt out. Women also have more rights and opportunities today, which really affects the marriage structure. Marriage customs between the two centuries are significantly different but are both seen in Romeo and Juliet.
Bibliography
Coontz, Stephanie. “Past, Present, Future of Marriage.” The Examiner. 25 Nov. 2005. Web. 9 Dec. 2014.
Ros, Maggi. “More Wedding Customs.” Life in Elizabethan England 62. 22 Mar. 2008. Web. 9 Dec. 2014.
Stritof, Sheri. “The Future of Marriage and Its Past.” About. 18 Nov. 2010. Web. 11 Dec. 2014.
Movement Four: “A Tragic Example in Shakespeare,” Elise LangMahan
Containing Kings and noblemen, deceit and rage, and war and love, King Lear is noted for tragic suffering and deception. Regarded by many as “the best written tragedy,” King Lear is considered one of Shakespeare’s “supreme achievements.” Shakespeare drafted King Lear between 1603 with the play’s first performance in 1607. After the Restoration of the English monarchy, beginning in 1660, Shakespeare’s tragedy of the nominal King of Britain was revised. This happened in such a way the play ended with a more appealing, happy event other than the one of suffering and death provided by Shakespeare himself.
The horrid ending portrayed in King Lear is not the only reason as to why the play was placed in the same category as other Tragedies. For four specific elements explored in English class, this widely known play is considered a tragedy.
The first characteristic states there is primarily one hero; it is seen in King Lear Lear himself is this hero. Tragedies typically have the kind of “tragically-flawed hero.” For Lear, there are three noticeable observations allowing him to be considered one of these tragic heroes. The Hero must have flaws, be a victim of others’ greed, and be the cause of the audience’s sympathy. Lear, although a royal protagonist, is prideful, blind, and has the inability to cope. These flaws are noticed in three separate examples in the play.
After deciding to generously divide his kingdom evenly between his three daughters, King Lear demands to be shown, by his daughters, how much, if at all, they love him. This pride of seeking affection and love from others eventually leads to his downfall after the youngest daughter is unable to express, in words, her love and appreciation for her father. It is because of his blindness the King disowns his youngest daughter and forces her to leave. He is unable to see the false affection and praise the eldest daughters shower him with.
Along with pride and blindness, King Lear is unable to cope with his royalty. He wants to possess the title of King but does not wish to have the responsibilities that come with it. Because of this inability to use his authority wisely, the eldest daughters usurp that authority.
King Lear is a victim of the greed of his own daughters through their manipulative effect on him. They manipulate Lear and, as a result, he goes insane and wanders in the heath during a terrible storm. Despite these flaws and manipulations, the audience has slight sympathy for him knowing he was initially a generous and fair ruler by dividing his land into three sections for his daughters. Because King Lear is a victim of others’ greed, he is still considered a hero and from his dramatic downfall, a tragic one.
A second element of a tragedy is the depiction of a troubled part in the hero’s life. King Lear, being the established tragic hero, has noticeably troubling areas of his life. For starters, Lear has “lost” all three of his daughters. He disowns the youngest out of rage and then flees from the two elder daughters, knowing they are betraying him. Lear is eventually captured and brought to Dover, where two armies, the French army fighting to save Lear and the English army trying to prevent that rescue, battle each other. The French army, led by the youngest daughter, is defeated by the English, resulting in the recapturing of King Lear and his daughter. With all this suffering, it is no surprise when Lear, the hero of the play, dies from grief at the passing of his faithful youngest daughter.
Relating to the suffering experienced by King Lear, the third element of the tragedy is the exceptional suffering. Not only does the troubled King experience this pain, but so does the despairing nobleman Gloucester. The quarrel between his two children, illegitimate son Edmund and legitimate son Edgar, is unbearable for the elder as Edmund tricks his father to think Edgar is trying to kill him. After Edgar flees, Gloucester finds King Lear, who is in distress from his daughters. Gloucester offers him help and assistance, but it isn’t to last as the two eldest daughters find this as treason. The unlucky suffering comes to Gloucester when he is blinded and turned out to the countryside to wander alone. All this pain is put to rest when Gloucester dies toward the end of the play. With all this suffering, the tragedy is exceptional as there seems no end to it , and it even is included in the major scenes of the play.
As a final element of Shakespearean tragedy, chance or accidents are able to influence actions of the characters. This is noticed after Edgar flees from his father and disguises himself to avoid the search party trying to locate and kill him. It isn’t until after Gloucester is blinded and thrown to wander by himself that Edgar finds him alone. Being the faithful son he is to his father, Edgar serves as the caretaker of Gloucester, leading him to the city, Dover. Edgar allows this chance, reuniting with his blind father while disguised, to help Gloucester from committing suicide and by taking him to Dover where Lear is also.
There is far too much anguish and deceit among the characters for the play to be considered as anything but a tragedy. Although the other eleven elements we learned of tragedy were not mentioned, enough examples from the play are given to persuade the reader King Lear belongs in the category of Shakespeare Tragedy.
The Titan War marks a great event in Greek mythology. It, in many ways, is like the origin stories for our superheroes explaining how and why things came to be the way they are. It shows how the gods came to be. A story consistent with other Greek mythology depicts the gods with very humanlike qualities and flaws. This war depicts the battle between the Titans, the older gods, and the Olympians, their children.
Some brief background information helps to better understand what’s going on and who’s on what side. Gaia, one of the three original beings, who is the goddess of earth, and Uranus, her son, and who is the god of the heavens, had Oceanus, Coeus, Crius, Hyperion, Lapetus, Theia, Rhea, Mnemosyne, Phoebe, Tethys, and Cronus, who became the original Titans. The other Titans, Atlas, Prometheus, Epimetheus, Metis, Dione, Thea, and Themis, were sons and daughters of the original Titans. In addition to the Titans, Gaia and Uranus also had three Cyclopes: Brontes, Stereopes, and Arges; and three Giants: Cottus, Briareos, and Gyes, who had fifty heads and one hundred arms each. The Giants came to be known as the Hecatonchires because of this.
Uranus, fearing and despising the Cyclopes’ and Giants’ power, locks them up when they are born deep inside the earth. Gaia, their mother, cannot stand to see such cruelty done to them, so she calls upon her first born, the Titans, to bring justice upon their father. Accounts vary, but it is generally believed Cronos answers the call by defeating his father, casting him into the sea. Cronos then takes the throne and marries Rhea. Rhea gives birth to Hestia, Demeter, Hera, Hades, Poseidon, and Zeus: the first Olympians.
Here is where the conflict really begins. A prophesy is spoken. The prophesy reveals Cronos will be overthrown by his own children. In an effort to prevent this from happening, Cronos swallows each of his children whole at their birth. Despairing, Rhea asks her mother for help. Taking pity on her, Gaia rescues her next child, Zeus, and hides him in a cave in Crete. She gives Cronos a rock in Zeus’s place, which Cronos swallows whole assuming it to be his child (babies apparently taste like rocks).
Upon reaching maturity, Zeus seeks out vengeance upon his father. He gets a potion from the Titan Metis that induces vomiting. Rhea arranges for Zeus to become Cronos’ cupbearer. Zeus pours some of the potion into the cup and serves it to his father, causing Cronos to vomit up his siblings, who had apparently just been waiting around. Cronos then starts a war to destroy them all for good.
Cronos calls for the Titans to join him in his battle against the Olympians. None of the female Titans join him, and Prometheus and Epimetheus actually join the Olympians. Of the remaining male Titans who join him, Atlas is elected their leader.
The following ten years ensue in a battle with neither side gaining any advantage. Gaia, having secretly been supporting the Olympians, advises Zeus to free the Cyclopes and Giants. So Zeus goes down into Tartarus, kills the monster standing guard, and frees the Cyclopes and Giants. In return for their freedom, they pledge their support to Zeus. The Cyclopes give Zeus the power over thunder and lightning, Poseidon a trident, and Hades a helm of darkness.
Later in an ambush against Cronos, Hades uses his cloak to steal Cronos’ weapons. Poseidon charges Cronos to distract him, which allows Zeus to strike Cronos with a lightning bolt, subduing him.
With Cronos down and the Cyclopes and Giants having joined the fight, the Olympians subdue the Titans. The Titans who participated in the war are sent to Tartarus. For his particular role in the war, Zeus requires Atlas to hold up the sky.
As was the custom, Zeus ascends to the throne upon their victory. He would later wage wars against the Giants and the Typhon to gain total control of the heavens and the earth. For now, though, there is peace with the new king on the throne.
The Titan War marked Zeus’s ascension and a change in the world. The Olympians’ victory also marks a change in ages in Greek mythology. It signifies the passing of the Golden Age. Seasons change, order and justice are still intact, but mercy is lacking. Times are harder. As with the real world, there are different ages. “For rarely are sons similar to their fathers: most are worse, and a few are better than their fathers” (Homer). Is it a change for the better or worse? That question can only be answered by the reader.
Bibliography
KET Distance Learning, LLC, 2014. KET. Web. 7 Dec. 2014.
Rymer, Eric. History Link 101, LLC, 2000-2014. Web. 7 Dec. 2014.
After a painfully long five-year wait, U2’s latest album, Songs of Innocence, burst on the scene like no album before (and possibly likely since). For no rational reason, this upset a great number of people for a variety of self-serving reasons. While we advertised an objective review of the album, we first need to examine the tempestuous piffle that arose about the album’s very existence and entrance into our lives. Next issue in part two, we will examine the content of the album itself, certainly a much happier exploration.
Not being a mindless consumer erotically devoted to whatever soul-syphoning piece of technological pap advertisements and other minions of Beëlzebub tell me to worship with God’s money, I do not have a cellular phone or a tablet (yes, I have a computer, but it’s used mostly for the performance of my job and manufacturing beautiful things such as this issue, so I’m not wholly opposed to technology qua technology). Yes, people I love have cellular phones and tablets, and that’s fine for them. I know from personal experience and interaction they aren’t the mindless cyphers about whom Wordsworth, Johnson, Auden and so many others have written for centuries in the post-Industrial Revolutionary ages. And certainly you aren’t like that, either. You, surely, are not addicted to social media or screen fondling of any kind. It’s them, really. Those poor saps out there who need our pity and our love. These are the, well, for lack of a less accurate word, imbeciles who ranted and groused and bloviated about Songs of Innocence appearing unbidden and at no cost whatever to them in their iTunes accounts and on their iPhones and on their iPods and on their iPads. “How dare U2 put their new album on my device for free!” or words to that effect. What a world.
I admit freely I have an iTunes account, and I even have an “old” iPod, so I am not trying to hypocritically decry the existence of these things in our lives. If anyone needs a detailed explanation of the veracity of the topic sentence of the prior paragraph, perhaps we can address that in a future objective, calm exposition (similar to the calm, objective exposition we are experiencing together presently). I have used my iTunes account infrequently of late, though I admit I have used it in the past for many things such as Intro. to Humanities and personal use in days gone by. The only time my iPod sees any action is two-fold: a) as an alarm clock (so about 12 seconds a day) and b) when I need to go out and do yard work (so not very much). I’m not bragging; these are simply the facts. Like everyone else in the entire universe, when I am instructed to click on the “accept these terms” dialogue box with the option of reading the terms themselves, I click on the box without reading the actual terms. Before you accuse me of being a “mindless consumer,” please know I don’t have a credit card saved on my iTunes or PlayStation account, so I’m not worried when the countless litanies of account hackings occur, nor am I all that concerned about whatever terms can do to me and my information. I don’t post any pictures, I don’t have a “smart” phone (preferring, instead to try to be a smart person), and a comment from me on my Facebook page is a wonderfully rare as an album from Boston. Or, until recently, an album from U2. If any hooligans want my information, they are probably going to get it without me making it easier on them. If you want to store bank accounts on your iTunes account, go for it. The point at present, though, is those “terms of agreement” no one ever reads. Apparently, one of those terms we all agreed to was letting Apple put an album in our accounts whether we wanted it or not. You and I agreed to it. Getting mad at something you agreed to allow happen does not say much for you (not “you,” of course, but those people).
A few issues ago, Rolling Stone (not the most reputable bastion of meaningful discourse or aesthetic opinion, of course) ran a mildly-intriguing cover story about U2 and this hullaballoo. Adam Clayton, as is his wont, gave us the most helpful insight into the situation. It was never U2’s intention to foist the album upon every single iTunes and iThis and iThat account. The band simply wanted to make the album free for download to whoever wanted it. It was all Apple’s idea to force the album unbidden into your account. So getting mad at U2 for a) something that isn’t their fault and b) something you agreed to allow Apple to do in their terms of agreement to which you agreed without reading is puerility at its zenith (in this context, at least). Here was U2, one of the greatest bands of all time, willing to give their latest, long-awaited album to the digital world for free, and much of the digital world responded with vitriol. What a world.
Some people complained about the apparent “arrogance” of the band and its infatuation with media spotlight. We have not heard from the band in 5 years! The 360° Tour ended over three years ago. If you people know of other appearances by U2 in any significant fashion since then, please let me know — I’d be glad to experience that. Strange how the same people who own iTunes accounts, iPods, iPads, and other things complain about U2 “selling out” to Apple. Take a moment and ponder the irony of such a situation. Sure, the U2-loaded iPod a few years ago may have been a bit extreme, but would the response of an iPod loaded with Disney tunes have received the same backlash? Doubtful. A band that does not release music or appear in public until its members are satisfied with their album after over three years of dedication and tinkering and experimenting and soul-searching cannot accurately be labelled “arrogant” or “attention seeking.” I’m sure they popped on some talkshow or event here and there, but certainly not anything credibly worthy of “arrogant” or “attention seeking.”
Some lesser musician-like people (Nick Mason does not fit here) groused U2’s giving their music away for free was an insult and detrimental betrayal to the hundreds of thousands of struggling musicians who have to sell their music because they aren’t rich and famous like U2, and by setting a precedent of giving their music away for free U2 has permanently damaged the marketplace and all consumers will demand free music forevermore. First of all, “struggling musician-type person,” by opening your mouth in derision against U2 you have already done far more damage to your reputation than any action U2 could do. Try to realize you will never be anywhere near as good as they are: your lyrics will be inferior, your musical strains will be inferior, you as an “artist” will forever be inferior to them. Their actions do not devalue your music: your shoddy, sub-mediocre musicianship devalues your music. I suppose the complainers in this category made sure they didn’t have any music files they “shared” from anyone and certainly never downloaded any files according to royalty-eschewing methods. Complaining against a band’s generosity betrays one’s own absence of generosity, proving such complainers are quite likely in the “music business” for all the wrong reasons (perhaps that is too harsh: several of the wrong reasons, then). I guess they never read Lewis Hyde’s The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property. If you haven’t read that one yet, faithful reader, I urge you to.
Some complained because Songs of Innocence is not revolutionary like Achtung Baby or All That You Can’t Leave Behind; some complained about U2 because they think U2 is old hat. Well, you can’t please everyone. A band tries to break away and experiment with new sounds, new feelings, new content, and the “ol’ faithful” are up in arms. A band maintains its sound, its “tried and true” formulae, and the “ol’ faithful” are up in arms because the band is slacking off and regurgitating and repackaging old material (unless it’s AC/DC). Is U2 “old hat”? I tell you what. U2’s tripartite métier seems to me a) making the world a better place through quality music and thoughtful lyrics, b) advocating universal justice and equal rights, and c) providing for people an enjoyable musical-and-life experience. If these are “old hat,” the world does not deserve U2, even U2 for free. If truth and introspection and openhanded generosity of spirit are old fashioned, then we are all in far more trouble than we think we are.
I have been eagerly anticipating Songs of Ascent for over 1,000 days, longer than Anne Boleyn was queen of England. Out of nowhere, Songs of Innocence appeared. For free! 11 new songs from one of the best bands of all time. For free. 11 ultra-personal songs of soul-bearing, openhanded generosity. I don’t need another Achtung Baby or something “revolutionary.” A new album from U2 is revolutionary enough. And I didn’t have to pay for it.
Dear world: U2 has given us a wonderful gift. As we shall see in part two, it’s also a very good album. Don’t prove your utter undeserving worthlessness by complaining about it. Maybe that was too harsh. I take that back. Don’t be lump. No more cynicism. Be grateful. Be thankful. Be gracious.
Thank you, U2. I, for one, appreciate what you have given us.