One of the more irritating aspects of literature is the continuing portrayal of parents as doddering, clueless old fools. Sadly, this isn't a new phenomenon, but the literature of the 20th century up through today seems to take a special pleasure in creating mothers and fathers that lack all manner of comprehension or understanding of their offspring's behavior, and, if they weren't portrayed with so much seriousness, one would be hard pressed to believe these people weren't solely used for comedic purposes and a deliberate slap in the face of anyone over the age of fifty.
Taking a survey of current writers, Franzen or Eugenides for example, one encounters parents who are so out of touch with reality that they're incapable of having civil discussions with their children on all manner of topics, but the coup de grace is the topic of sex. Parents have no concept of this and are wholly unskilled at anything resembling an adult discussion on the topic. The lifestyle choices of their children, whether college age or young adults, present such a radical departure from the norm, that you'd think these characters had been plucked from the mid 1800s and transported to the otherworldly 21st century.
Franzen is a particularly horrible offender, and a repeat offender at that considering The Corrections and Freedom are nearly identical novels. Parents suffering through the throes of dementia are given a free pass, but the others are so baffled by modern life that it's almost as if the author is striving to suggest that parents become their children's children much earlier in life than anyone ever anticipated. The children are given this complex mental background steeped in coolness and dilemma that simply defies explanation and can not be summed up for anyone of an older generation.
What's even more unnerving is when one encounters a writer like Philip Roth, who portrays parents in such a revered way that it's hard not to believe that they are incapable of coming to terms with modern life. Roth gives the fathers and grandfathers a classically educated, working class veneer that just oozes respect. However, since the children are mostly concerned with their extramarital affairs and impending death, this type of reverence is, again, lost on the reader. It's a shame that the older generation, who is on the verge of death and should be consumed with their impending mortality, are portrayed and gossipy busybodies and uncomprehending foils for modern life's ills. Roth is capable of giving fathers a proper amount of respect that is in of itself timeless and old fashioned at once, but he loses any sense of credibility when writing about the fact that a son would desecrate his marriage in favor of bodily temptation.
This temptation resurfaces in Franzen's work, but it's explained away as being revolting to the character instead of titillating. In other words, the fathers are intrigued by the idea of mistresses but choose not to act based on some antiquated moral code. The sons, on the other hand, have no such qualms.
It's a shame that writers today can't seem to find the ability to create more independent and well rounded characters when it comes to parents. What they're instead choosing to portray is a world without direction in the hands of a youth without any means to rely upon the history laid out before them.
My Own Personal 6 a.m. A vast wasteland where word bombs explode with ferocity and provoke rage, sadness, and glee.
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Sunday, November 11, 2012
End of the Road
Philip Roth has announced that he's retiring from writing novels. Normally, this type of announcement would fill me with utmost sadness and despair at the prospect of yet another artist I love ceasing to produce new works. With Roth, though, I think the writing has been on the wall for quite some time. His output over the last few decades has been some of his most highly praised of his career, but I've found much of it to be redundant, repetitive and wholly lacking anything new to say about the human condition.
Roth has spent much of this period writing an extended eulogy of sorts for many of his characters and in many ways seems to be mirroring his own life as it winds down into the twilight. Any sympathy one might have for these characters as they enter their final days is extinguished, however, by the fact that much of their time is spent on bizarre recollections of sexual conquests past and present and rings untrue. I've written about my disappointment in Roth before and this holds true now that I know that these last few novels, or novellas to be more exact, are now serving as the coda to a long career that has produced some incredibly beautiful writing.
Human sexuality is certainly a fact of life and one that I accept as being a necessary component to the arts, but Roth's obsessions, for they truly are his when one considers the fact that most if not all of his characters are extensions of their creator, truly ruin what could be seen as a very provocative, thoughtful rumination on the end of one's days. Characters reflecting on the intellectual aspects of existence are much more interesting to ponder than any graphic description of oral sex. Roth is a classicist in the truest sense. He's steeped in the greatest works ever produced, so it's doubly baffling that he would choose to totally ignore these influences in favor of whipping a already dead horse.
I'm sad to see someone like Roth give up on the novel, because he's certainly got the skills to produce tremendous work, but if he doesn't have anything to say or is incapable of saying anything new about the human condition, perhaps it's best that he does throw in the towel.
Philip Roth has announced that he's retiring from writing novels. Normally, this type of announcement would fill me with utmost sadness and despair at the prospect of yet another artist I love ceasing to produce new works. With Roth, though, I think the writing has been on the wall for quite some time. His output over the last few decades has been some of his most highly praised of his career, but I've found much of it to be redundant, repetitive and wholly lacking anything new to say about the human condition.
Roth has spent much of this period writing an extended eulogy of sorts for many of his characters and in many ways seems to be mirroring his own life as it winds down into the twilight. Any sympathy one might have for these characters as they enter their final days is extinguished, however, by the fact that much of their time is spent on bizarre recollections of sexual conquests past and present and rings untrue. I've written about my disappointment in Roth before and this holds true now that I know that these last few novels, or novellas to be more exact, are now serving as the coda to a long career that has produced some incredibly beautiful writing.
Human sexuality is certainly a fact of life and one that I accept as being a necessary component to the arts, but Roth's obsessions, for they truly are his when one considers the fact that most if not all of his characters are extensions of their creator, truly ruin what could be seen as a very provocative, thoughtful rumination on the end of one's days. Characters reflecting on the intellectual aspects of existence are much more interesting to ponder than any graphic description of oral sex. Roth is a classicist in the truest sense. He's steeped in the greatest works ever produced, so it's doubly baffling that he would choose to totally ignore these influences in favor of whipping a already dead horse.
I'm sad to see someone like Roth give up on the novel, because he's certainly got the skills to produce tremendous work, but if he doesn't have anything to say or is incapable of saying anything new about the human condition, perhaps it's best that he does throw in the towel.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Travesty
The ongoing suffering in New Jersey and New York is unbelievable on so many levels. I find it baffling that we live in such a technologically advanced society, but we're unable to adequately respond to a major storm that provided as much advance notice as could possibly be expected in terms of a disaster, and, yet, there are still people missing and others living in the dark, afraid to leave their homes for fear that looters might help themselves to their belongings. How is this happening?
Musical Observations
We live in such an advanced technological era that it's easier than ever to make your own music and distribute it. Why isn't any of it very good?
The internet, blogs, Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook and any other social media make it easier than ever for artists, especially musicians, to produce and distribute their work. At face value, this should mean a lot to self professed audiophiles. The problem, however, is that without a filter, it's only so much noise in an avalanche of media bombardments. You wouldn't know this from looking at any recent issue of Rolling Stone or websites like Pitchfork. According to these tastemakers, albums of five star or 8.0-10.0 ratings are routinely released. Either standards have fallen, or, really, we are enjoying a renaissance in terms of musical quality that's never been seen in the history of music, except for maybe the late '60s and early '70s. This is problematic.
Indie bands that produce albums that are even remotely competent are hailed as innovators and are featured on weekly playlists far and wide. It seems like all you have to do is sprinkle in some references to Springsteen and other rock icons in your music and interviews, and, presto, you have some immediate cache that lends relevance to your music that it might not otherwise have. This isn't the fault of the artists involved; there is a formula that garners immediate respect, and it's hard to blame anyone from following it. Imitation may be the most sincerest form of flattery, but it's also easier to produce than something fresh and original.
On top of the assorted acts that seem to be shaped from the same mold, you also have many others that really have no business producing albums worth of material, and it's more than likely due to the fact that there is no barrier between production and distribution. Labels, while still important, aren't the pinnacle of a career that acts strive for. Why sign away your soul to distribute your material when you can either do it yourself very cheaply or find any number of lower rung indie labels, of which there seem to be too many to count, and have your music still reach a fair number of people? If you have an album out, chances are someone can find it easily, on Amazon for example, and not have to search far and wide for some independent record store. However, perhaps it shouldn't be that easy.
Getting signed to a label used to be hard. One only needs to look back at the history of the Seattle scene to see how difficult it was for bands to get signed, even in the face of a scene which seemed to be flourishing only due to the fact that everyone was trying to sign any one who had even a slight claim to being from that area. Ever hear of the U-Men? Probably not, even though they were one of the first influential acts on the scene. Obviously, labels signed a lot of acts that never panned out in order to cash in on a fad. Why I think this matters is because there was at least the semblance of someone looking at the bigger picture. Sure, profits were important, probably the most important aspect, but there's also the idea of producing a legacy and a back catalog filled with worthy acts. The music mattered, and its quality was important, regardless of what the corporate suits at the top of the chain were concerned about.
Nowadays, it seems like anything and everything is released, regardless of quality. Why is that a good thing? Do you really believe that the newest album by those indie sweethearts will stand the test of time and rank up there with the icons of the industry? I've done my fair share of griping about the fact that the top albums and acts of all time seems to be frozen in some sort of stasis, but there's something to be said about a discography that stands the test of time and doesn't lose any of its relevance. There are newer, or at least more recent, acts that are producing some tremendous material, Radiohead and Wilco to name two, that will be around for a long time and influence a generation to come. I just don't see the need to drown that influence out with a ton of music that won't be around that long. Sometimes more isn't better.
We live in such an advanced technological era that it's easier than ever to make your own music and distribute it. Why isn't any of it very good?
The internet, blogs, Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook and any other social media make it easier than ever for artists, especially musicians, to produce and distribute their work. At face value, this should mean a lot to self professed audiophiles. The problem, however, is that without a filter, it's only so much noise in an avalanche of media bombardments. You wouldn't know this from looking at any recent issue of Rolling Stone or websites like Pitchfork. According to these tastemakers, albums of five star or 8.0-10.0 ratings are routinely released. Either standards have fallen, or, really, we are enjoying a renaissance in terms of musical quality that's never been seen in the history of music, except for maybe the late '60s and early '70s. This is problematic.
Indie bands that produce albums that are even remotely competent are hailed as innovators and are featured on weekly playlists far and wide. It seems like all you have to do is sprinkle in some references to Springsteen and other rock icons in your music and interviews, and, presto, you have some immediate cache that lends relevance to your music that it might not otherwise have. This isn't the fault of the artists involved; there is a formula that garners immediate respect, and it's hard to blame anyone from following it. Imitation may be the most sincerest form of flattery, but it's also easier to produce than something fresh and original.
On top of the assorted acts that seem to be shaped from the same mold, you also have many others that really have no business producing albums worth of material, and it's more than likely due to the fact that there is no barrier between production and distribution. Labels, while still important, aren't the pinnacle of a career that acts strive for. Why sign away your soul to distribute your material when you can either do it yourself very cheaply or find any number of lower rung indie labels, of which there seem to be too many to count, and have your music still reach a fair number of people? If you have an album out, chances are someone can find it easily, on Amazon for example, and not have to search far and wide for some independent record store. However, perhaps it shouldn't be that easy.
Getting signed to a label used to be hard. One only needs to look back at the history of the Seattle scene to see how difficult it was for bands to get signed, even in the face of a scene which seemed to be flourishing only due to the fact that everyone was trying to sign any one who had even a slight claim to being from that area. Ever hear of the U-Men? Probably not, even though they were one of the first influential acts on the scene. Obviously, labels signed a lot of acts that never panned out in order to cash in on a fad. Why I think this matters is because there was at least the semblance of someone looking at the bigger picture. Sure, profits were important, probably the most important aspect, but there's also the idea of producing a legacy and a back catalog filled with worthy acts. The music mattered, and its quality was important, regardless of what the corporate suits at the top of the chain were concerned about.
Nowadays, it seems like anything and everything is released, regardless of quality. Why is that a good thing? Do you really believe that the newest album by those indie sweethearts will stand the test of time and rank up there with the icons of the industry? I've done my fair share of griping about the fact that the top albums and acts of all time seems to be frozen in some sort of stasis, but there's something to be said about a discography that stands the test of time and doesn't lose any of its relevance. There are newer, or at least more recent, acts that are producing some tremendous material, Radiohead and Wilco to name two, that will be around for a long time and influence a generation to come. I just don't see the need to drown that influence out with a ton of music that won't be around that long. Sometimes more isn't better.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
End of an Occupation
The Occupy Pittsburgh encampment on Mellon Green was officially vacated this week, due to a court order demanding the removal of all protestors and their belongings. All that remains of the months long protest is the dead grass of a once beautiful park and chain link fencing installed to keep everyone out. Rumors abound that the protestors are planning on returning in the spring to set up shop once again, which would probably coincide with the reopening of the park itself to the general public that has had to do without the luxury of having a green space within walking distance of their offices for four months, albeit these were winter months when the park would not likely have been used much, but the point remains that it was, for all intents and purposes, occupied and off limits.
That said, it should come as no surprise that the occupation ended not with a bang but a whimper. The protestors were mostly nonexistent throughout much of their stay. Those that were present seemed more intent on spending their time huddled in masses and rarely, if ever, engaging the very public they were trying to get their message out to. Their ramshackle assortment of tents were the main occupiers and provided the symbolism of a public space that had been taken over in the name of economic justice or any other variety of issues. This lack of a coherent, agreed upon message is another matter altogether that did not help this movement and may have done more harm than good.
Much can be said about the merits of a non-confrontational approach to protesting. Signaling not only to the business community but to the very corporations that own and maintain the very space which you seek to occupy that you're not going to present a threat is a smart idea that can only generate goodwill and may engender sympathy and a willingness to take the issues at hand into consideration. There is no need to let the occupation spiral out of control into a daily confrontation with law enforcement. However, this very lack of passion or guile is probably what doomed this incarnation of the Occupy Wall Street movement from day one.
The meekness on the part of the protestors and their unwillingness to actually get their message out into the open other than through the simple activity of scrawling words on to a sign signaled to the public that these people were kind and well mannered. They may have issues with the current economic structure of the United States, but at least they aren't going to be bothering anyone on their way to work. However, when you refuse to try to engage anyone in conversation and your daily activities are decided on an obvious whim, then you're more than likely to not only fail at your primary mission but also wear out your welcome. What would most likely have been dismissed by those inclined to either not care about the issues or who are part of the problem, in this case the 1%, is now seen as nothing more than an eyesore and a problem that should be taken care of. When the most common remarks made are the fact that there doesn't seem to be anyone there and the incoherent message being espoused, you know your protest is not going well and is about to expire.
No one was clamoring for a standoff or a prolonged confrontation with law enforcement or drawn out legal proceedings, especially when the impetus for the original occupation withered on the vine long ago. It's a shame, though, that there wasn't at least a little spark that lingered, because the issues themselves are important. At the peak attendance, however, you had so many signs signaling that they were there protesting everything from income inequality of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to UPMC in general to numerous other causes. The experience of seeing all of these issues thrown at you at once is both mindboggling and exasperating. A deluge of issues is the only way to describe the bombardment.
One can't help but think that Pittsburgh got caught up in the moment and decided to try its hand at jumping on the Occupy bandwagon. However, no one seemed to put any thought into how this was all going to play out. It seems likely that the highest level decision consisted of where exactly to occupy. I don't know how the organizational structure of the various other Occupy movements that are still active operate, but there surely is a very basic rubric that they're following that's devised by some sort of hierarchy. Pittsburgh's, on the other hand, was leaderless from the start and quickly descended into a ragtag morass with little or no one to claim responsibility and, in the end, hardly anyone left to care. And now with a court ordered eviction and an off limits park, the movement comes to an end.
The Occupy Pittsburgh encampment on Mellon Green was officially vacated this week, due to a court order demanding the removal of all protestors and their belongings. All that remains of the months long protest is the dead grass of a once beautiful park and chain link fencing installed to keep everyone out. Rumors abound that the protestors are planning on returning in the spring to set up shop once again, which would probably coincide with the reopening of the park itself to the general public that has had to do without the luxury of having a green space within walking distance of their offices for four months, albeit these were winter months when the park would not likely have been used much, but the point remains that it was, for all intents and purposes, occupied and off limits.
That said, it should come as no surprise that the occupation ended not with a bang but a whimper. The protestors were mostly nonexistent throughout much of their stay. Those that were present seemed more intent on spending their time huddled in masses and rarely, if ever, engaging the very public they were trying to get their message out to. Their ramshackle assortment of tents were the main occupiers and provided the symbolism of a public space that had been taken over in the name of economic justice or any other variety of issues. This lack of a coherent, agreed upon message is another matter altogether that did not help this movement and may have done more harm than good.
Much can be said about the merits of a non-confrontational approach to protesting. Signaling not only to the business community but to the very corporations that own and maintain the very space which you seek to occupy that you're not going to present a threat is a smart idea that can only generate goodwill and may engender sympathy and a willingness to take the issues at hand into consideration. There is no need to let the occupation spiral out of control into a daily confrontation with law enforcement. However, this very lack of passion or guile is probably what doomed this incarnation of the Occupy Wall Street movement from day one.
The meekness on the part of the protestors and their unwillingness to actually get their message out into the open other than through the simple activity of scrawling words on to a sign signaled to the public that these people were kind and well mannered. They may have issues with the current economic structure of the United States, but at least they aren't going to be bothering anyone on their way to work. However, when you refuse to try to engage anyone in conversation and your daily activities are decided on an obvious whim, then you're more than likely to not only fail at your primary mission but also wear out your welcome. What would most likely have been dismissed by those inclined to either not care about the issues or who are part of the problem, in this case the 1%, is now seen as nothing more than an eyesore and a problem that should be taken care of. When the most common remarks made are the fact that there doesn't seem to be anyone there and the incoherent message being espoused, you know your protest is not going well and is about to expire.
No one was clamoring for a standoff or a prolonged confrontation with law enforcement or drawn out legal proceedings, especially when the impetus for the original occupation withered on the vine long ago. It's a shame, though, that there wasn't at least a little spark that lingered, because the issues themselves are important. At the peak attendance, however, you had so many signs signaling that they were there protesting everything from income inequality of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to UPMC in general to numerous other causes. The experience of seeing all of these issues thrown at you at once is both mindboggling and exasperating. A deluge of issues is the only way to describe the bombardment.
One can't help but think that Pittsburgh got caught up in the moment and decided to try its hand at jumping on the Occupy bandwagon. However, no one seemed to put any thought into how this was all going to play out. It seems likely that the highest level decision consisted of where exactly to occupy. I don't know how the organizational structure of the various other Occupy movements that are still active operate, but there surely is a very basic rubric that they're following that's devised by some sort of hierarchy. Pittsburgh's, on the other hand, was leaderless from the start and quickly descended into a ragtag morass with little or no one to claim responsibility and, in the end, hardly anyone left to care. And now with a court ordered eviction and an off limits park, the movement comes to an end.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)