http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Fri, 8 Jul 2005 14:26:18 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/07/08/142618.php RachelDavid Gerlernter's comparison of Woody Allen to Natan Sharansky manages to elevate Allen and denigrate Sharansky. Whether you agree with his politics or not, Sharansky is a towering figure. Read Fear No Evil, his memoir of life in the gulag, if you don't believe me. Woody Allen, on the other hand, not so much.Gerlernter is reacting to Allen's statement to Der Spiegel here, in which Allen says he doesn't make films about history--specifically 9/11--because it's not "profound enough" for him.The history of the world is like: he kills me, I kill him. Only with different cosmetics and different castings: so in 2001 some fanatics killed some Americans, and now some Americans are killing some Iraqis. And in my childhood, some Nazis killed Jews. And now, some Jewish people and some Palestinians are killing each other. Political questions, if you go back thousands of years, are ephemeral, not important. History is the same thing over and over again.Stupid? Absolutely. But who outside of his interlocutor was waiting for Woody's word on the subject of 9/11?I suspect Woody was so juiced at the idea that the great minds at Der Spiegel were calling him a European filmmaker that he overdid it. He could have said something about how history is not his metier. A perfectly reasonable position. If he were really honest he might have said: "You know what happens when I try to tackle profound? Interiors is what happens." Gerlernter's point was that the two "Jewish intellectuals" represent radically different worldviews that are fighting for purchase on the American mind and how we Americans view the war against terror. But it's overkill, really. Woody Allen is the Dominick Dunne of intellectuals--a namedropper: "I was thrown out of college for cheating on the metaphysics exam; I looked into the soul of the boy sitting next to me." That's about as profound as Allen gets. Culture32262@blogcritics.org Fri, 8 Jul 2005 14:26:18 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/22/113245.php RachelDoes series fiction inevitably run out of steam?Sarah Weinman points to this article about the marketing machine that is Janet Evanovich and adds, [It] doesn't really get to what's likely the bottom line: that as the marketing hoohah has increased (and so too have her sales) the quality of the books have dropped off rather sharply.But then, does it really matter when the publicity works so well?I've only made it through number nine of the Stephanie Plum series, To The Nines and I'll probably read the two most recent installments eventually, but I noticed a drop off in quality a while ago. They're still enjoyable, mind you. Just not as much as before.I didn't grow up in New Jersey, but I lived there for a long time and I know people who grew up in the milieu Evanovich depicts: Ethnic working class types who still live within a few blocks of where they grew up&#8212if not still at home. Evanovich did a great job making the world of the burg, the neighborhood of Trenton where Stephanie lives, come alive. She also showed a great affection for the place and portrayed the characters without condescension.The first few books also had this great antic quality, as our herione zipped along from one embarrassing incident to another. But as the series progressed, the antic quality became forced, more high strung than hilarious.So I wonder, is it possible to sustain a series like this for any length of time? Or is it inevitable that such series will jump the shark like their TV counterparts? Books31430@blogcritics.org Wed, 22 Jun 2005 11:32:45 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/20/130918.php RachelSteve Antler at Econopundit blogs about the first episode of Morgan Spurlock's new show (also here), 30 Days.In that episode, Spurlock and his fiancee try to eke out a living in Columbus, Ohio on minimum-wage jobs. As Econopundit points out, all those minimum wage jobs are scarcer than the producers apparently thought. All the easily-found jobs pay more than minimum wage. Spurlock signs on with a temp agency at $7/hr; his companion Jamieson dickers her wage down to minimum so as to not cheat the show's premise." The story follows the couple through the vicissitudes of living as members of the working poor, with special attention to health care problems encountered during their month of seeing how the other half lives. The problem is, as Econopundit points out, Spurlock deals with the health care issue less than honestly.For whatever reason he moves "up" the ladder and easily finds higher-paying work landscaping. And then his wrist immediately starts hurting, allowing the script to once again show the horrors of the American health care system as seen by the working poor.But two important words are left out: "worker's compensation." The first thing you're asked in any emergency room is whether the injury is work-related. (I know not only because I'm an educated economist but also because I've been there myself a few times.)One can only conclude it interfered with the script's political message so it was omitted, but the simple fact is even in his second, no-benefits job, Spurlock's wrist injury was fully covered by his employer's worker's compensation policy. The problem I had with the show, which I started to watch but then turned off in disgust, is the assumption that people who take minimum wage jobs are condemned to work at minimum wage jobs for the rest of their lives. This assumption is shared by reviewers of the show.They subsist in an ant-riddled hovel, share a single bus pass, endure medical crises made worse by their poverty and take to sniping at each other. The point: This is no way to live. But in the land of plenty, this is the fate of too many who suffer on an hourly minimum that hasn't been raised since 1997.Minimum wage jobs are the fate of young, inexperienced, unskilled workers. After some time earning minimum wage, people graduate to higher paying jobs. They're not stuck forever in a minimum-wage hell. Witness the experience of one of Econopundit's readers:As a two-time college drop-out who worked low skilled, low paying jobs for several years to eventually gain the skills and experience for decent paying work which I love, I'm always interested when people like Spurlock or Barbara Ehrenreich make claims about what can or can't be done on low or minimum wages. The first year I supported myself (1994, at age 18) my gross income was less than $8000.00, with no credit cards and no car, and the only times I ever went hungry were when I decided to buy a novel or CD instead of dinner. I lived "paycheck to paycheck" only because I blew money on stupid crap like collectible card games. I believe it's called paying your dues.Via Instapundit. Video31321@blogcritics.org Mon, 20 Jun 2005 13:09:18 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/13/160048.php RachelDevraDoWrite can't put a book down, even if she doesn't like it very much.I have trouble giving up on a book, especially if I spent money to buy it. Sometimes, if I "can't get into it," I put it aside for awhile and try again later. Sometimes it's just my mood, or level of concentration that makes reading difficult. Sometimes, however, a book is simply not very good, or not meant for my tastes, and I should just give up. But all too often, a combination of guilt and the fear that I will miss something keeps me going. I used to suffer from this same compulsion. No longer. Though I suppose it depends upon how much energy I've already put into a book: If I manage to get halfway through something I'm not particularly interested in, I'll probably stay to the bitter end. Anything less and I'll just put the thing down. As for books that I "can't get into" at the time, I've discovered that these often turn out to be favorite literary experiences. For example, I had avoided in college reading Ford Madox Ford's The Good Soldier and it sat for years by my bedside. One day, when I was sick in bed, I picked it up and read the whole thing in the space of a weekend. I had a similar experience with David Copperfield. For whatever reason, for years I would pick up the book and read the first paragraph and immediately put it down. I remember the paragraph well:Whether I shall turn out to be the hero of my own life, or whether that station will be held by anybody else, these pages must show. To begin my life with the beginning of my life, I record that I was born (as I have been informed and believe) on a Friday, at twelve o'clock at night. It was remarked that the clock began to strike, and I began to cry, simultaneously.I'm not sure what it was about that paragraph that put me off, especially since I already loved Dickens, but it just did. Then one day, I picked it up and read it nonstop.Currently sitting by my bed awaiting the mood: Pepys' Diary, which, I discover, someone has been putting up online. Books30965@blogcritics.org Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:00:48 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/05/074323.php RachelStart with a series of ritualistic murders of prostitutes; throw in a beautiful, wildly successful prostitute who's written a tell-all book about her rich and famous clients; add a sex therapist whose explorations into her clients' dark sides has led to her own sexual frigidity; and an exotic NYC detective who cooks, composes and plays jazz and you've got The Halo Effect, the latest thriller by M.J. Rose.Sex therapist Dr. Morgan Snow becomes alarmed when her client Cleo Thane goes missing shortly after the police have found the first in a series of dead prostitutes. Detective Neal Jordain has asked Morgan for help in profiling the murderer but he can't take time off from his investigation of the murders to find Cleo, who may or may not be one of the muderder's victims. Morgan, for her part, can't reveal what she's learned from Cleo and her unpublished manuscript without breaking patient/client confidentiality. So Morgan decides to go undercover.The whodunit comes second to the sexual quirks Morgan uncovers as she races to find the missing Cleo: Astute readers will solve the crime sometime around the halfway point. At times the catalogue of fantasies and fetishes reads like so much sexual boilerplate. But the book picks up in the second half. Books30575@blogcritics.org Sun, 5 Jun 2005 07:43:23 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/01/150721.php RachelWhile flipping through Women's Day magazine today in the Jiffy Lube waiting room, I wondered: Where do they get these stories? Each issue features a first-person account by a woman suffering from a disease. The disease is usually rare and the account is a heroic one, outlining the struggle and suffering of the woman who, inevitably, goes from doctor to doctor unable to find relief. Eventually, the cause is found. But not before the woman starts a support group for fellow sufferers and becomes the world's foremost authority on her particular ailment. The moral: Take charge of your life, Never give up, Win one for the gipper. The story is heavy on sidebars: "See your doctor when..." "Alternative therapies," etc., etc. This week was a twofer: A first-person account of a woman suffering chronic pain (from I don't know what, those Jiffy Lube guys are fast), and Cindy McCain discussing her stroke.It's not just Women's Day that has a weekly disease; all the supermarket women's magazines have them. Where do they get them? Do they approach women on the street who look ill? Troll MEDLINE for strange syndromes? Plant agents in doctors' offices?Inquiring minds want to know. Culture30434@blogcritics.org Wed, 1 Jun 2005 15:07:21 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/31/142019.php RachelSabrina--The original was a vehicle in which viewers got to see Audrey Hepburn wear clothes, beautifully. How can you hope to substitute Audrey with Julia Ormond? Or Harrison Ford with Humphrey Bogart. Bad idea.The Women--The 1939 original starred Norma Shearer, Rosalind Russell, Joan Crawford, Paulette Goddard and a host of others. The big schtick is that although the movie is all about men, not one man appears in the film. Bitchy, feisty and brittle, The Women was very much of its time. It was remade with June Allyson as The Opposite Sex. June Allyson, I ask you. And, the movie featured men. My Man Godfrey was the screwiest of screwball comedies. Carole Lombard plays a ditzy socialite who hires William Powell to be her butler. Once again June Allyson remakes the movie. Is there no end to this woman's perfidy? What was the point of June Allyson anyway?From Here to Eternity--Replace Burt Lancaster, Montgomery Clift and Frank Sinatra with William Devane, Steve Railback and Joe Pantoliano for a six-hour miniseries. What were they thinking?I'm sure there are more remakes that shouldn't have been. But I can't think of them right now. Feel free to leave your own nominees in the comments. Video30375@blogcritics.org Tue, 31 May 2005 14:20:19 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/22/211448.php RachelAfter a recent presentation someone approached me to tell me how glad she was that I used the word "orient" instead of the word "orientate." The two are interchangeable but the latter really is unnecessarily clunky.Akaky of Passing Parade went on a rampage about writers who use "discrete" when they really mean "discreet." Not the same thing at all.I remember reading an essay a couple of years ago in which Joseph Epstein lamented writers who substitute "intrigue" for "interest." I've done this--and continue to do this--but not without thinking of Epstein.I personally can't stand it when people use "disinterested" when they really mean "doesn't float my boat," or just plain "boring." Have these people never read Jane Austen?Another trend I've noticed: People who use "notoriety" when they mean "fame." Saddam Hussein is notorious; Britney Spears merely famous. (Actually given her recent exploits--her marriages, her reality TV show and the Madonna kiss--she may be notorious, too. But the fame came first.)On a related note, Christopher Hitchens bemoans a magazine editor who wanted him to change the word "promethean" on the grounds that most readers wouldn't know what it means. (Hat tip: Sheila O'Malley) I said, "Maybe they won't. I'll cut it out if you give me another synonym for it. You give the words that would stand in for it and I'll change it." "There doesn't seem to be one," they said. "No, there isn't, is there?" You either know what "Promethean" means or you don't. If you do, it saves you about 50 words. And if you don't, then you can look it up!Exactly.How about you? Spotted any violations of language laws lately? Books29943@blogcritics.org Sun, 22 May 2005 21:14:48 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/19/130808.php Rachel WTF did they do to Penelope Cruz? Take a look at this magazine cover. I picked it up in the beauty salon yesterday and if I hadn't read the headline next to her photo, I never would have recognized her. The first time I remember seeing Cruz was in All About My Mother. She played a nun, wore a minimum of makeup and dowdy clothes and looked fabulous. She looked like a beautiful woman with an unconventional nose, big dark eyes and lustrous dark wavy hair. Now she looks like everyone else. Look I know they're going to erase the zits, fiddle with the hair and change a shadow or two, but her face doesn't look real anymore. It looks like a mask (the full effect of which you probably can't see in this reproduction). The gripe against the fashion/beauty/industrial complex used to be that ethnic girls weren't allowed in. Then came Iman in 1975 and the barriers broke down. But at some point in the intervening years, Christie Brinkley, Cheryl Tiegs, Iman and Naomi Campbell were all put in a blender and the ideal became some sort of a composite and the reality is you can't tell one from another.Part of the problem seems to be the ease with which flaws can be erased via computer, so that editors can "correct" any deficiencies that might distinguish one face from another. Nose too wide, let's narrow it a little. While you're at it, do something about those cheeks. Plastic surgery has played a role, too. (And I'm not even going to get into the improbable bodies this has created.) But the real culprits are the stylists. It was as though a memo came down 10 years ago that decreed all women should have long stick-straight hair. And so it was. Andie McDowall, Julianna Margulies and Julia Louis-Dreyfuss suddenly were blown-dry to within an inch of their lives. Now the memo has decreed that big hair is back--and everyone must have blonde highlights. Beyonce, meet Penelope Cruz. And so it went with fashion, too. Movie stars, no longer schooled by the studios on dress and deportment, took their cues from Vogue and Women's Wear Daily and hired stylists to ensure that they didn't look foolish come the Oscar's. Now one year they all wear vintage, the next they all wear white. Gone are the days when Cher showed up looking like a chandelier and while there are missteps, mostly it's just boring. It wasn't always this way. Audrey Hepburn didn't look like Katherine Hepburn or her contemporary, Grace Kelly. Claudette Colbert didn't look like Jean Harlow. Rita Hayworth didn't look like Lauren Bacall. And what the heck would the beauthy/fashion/industrial complex have done to Gene Tierney's overbite?You get my drift. Culture29750@blogcritics.org Thu, 19 May 2005 13:08:08 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/11/140838.php RachelScott McLemee confesses to loving encyclopedias even though academia generally shuns them.It might be okay to "look something up" in an encyclopedia or some other reference volume. But read them? For pleasure? The implication that you spend much time doing so would be close to an insult -- a kind of academic lèse majesty. I love them, too. Not surprising, I suppose, given my background as a librarian. Growing up, we always had an old copy of the one-volume Columbia Encyclopedia, now available online, and I consulted it regularly. When was the Spanish-American War? What year did Jane Austen die? What's the defenestration of Prague?The first encylopedias sought to collect all the world's knowledge, categorize it and make it accessible to others. The most famous of these works is Diderot's Encyclopédie, which is available in English translation here. Have a look at Diderot's Map of the System of Human Knowledge (below). Don't you just love the grandeur--or hubris--of the idea?The Encyclopedia Britannica continued in that tradition. But Britannica really hit its stride in the 19th Century with entries by Sir Walter Scott, Thomas Malthus, David Ricardo and James Mill. In the 20th Century contributors included Sigmund Freud, Albert Einstein, Marie Curie, Leon Trotsky, Harry Houdini, H.L. Mencken, and W.E.B. Du Bois. Later editions lacked the intellectual firepower of those editions and the encyclopedia languished for a while. Here's a snappy history of Britannica.More encyclopedia trivia: Mussolini wrote the entry on facism for the Italian Encyclopedia. You can read a translation here.The encyclopedia is still going strong. And while generalist encyclopedias are still around, most of the newer works are more specialized. (Here's a list of some online encylopedias.) We no longer believe we can take all of knowledge and slap it between two covers. Though A.J. Jacobs read the entire Encyclopedia Britannica and wrote a book about it, Know-it-All. Full disclosure: I have written for an encyclopedia, The Encyclopedia of New York City, on topics as weighty as the egg cream, Cosmopolitan magazine and the Happy Land Social Club Fire. You could look it up. Books29365@blogcritics.org Wed, 11 May 2005 14:08:38 EDT