|w e b l o g s
Wednesday, May 31, 2000
jocelyn has great existential moments. this is how she describes her website:
"...Sometimes I'm not sure I even have any friends. I may just have a large group of people that I tell everything to. It's like I've made intimacy a superficial gesture." -Postcards From The Edge, Carrie Fisher
matt rossi sez:
Now, at least I'm forced to deal with people as anonymous generators of concepts first, then and only then as bags of mostly water. It's a good thing, because anything that can change my world view can only help me change my world...
while anne describes the inevitable comedown from the online experience. (thanks tom!) i think she just needs to lower her standards (:)
You get hypnotized by the words, and, if you're lucky, so do they, but... if you ever meet, there is just inevitable disappointment. Absolutely inevitable. In person, no one lives up to the brilliance they possess with the written word -- assuming they do, indeed, possess brilliance.
Thursday, May 25, 2000
i watched the first couple of episodes of krzysztof kieslowski's decalogue (dekalog) series last night. the first one was awesome. it like cycled through the best scenes reminiscent of mindwalk, pi, searching for bobby fisher and sixth sense all within an hour and with the haunting sensibilities of kurosawa (in his later years). the second one was okay :)
it was weird, i got it from blockbuster but was surprised to see that facets multi-media was distributing it. what was a facets movie doing at blockbuster? they rock, the both of them!
which reminds me of my second favorite movie of 1999, the straight story! like you know it's going to be great when the title sequence goes, "walt disney presents,..." for the nonce, a slow dissolve, then fade in to, "...a david lynch film!"
hey, decalogue is one of ebert's great movies! here's another review off the facets site. and another one by james berardinelli :)
Wednesday, May 24, 2000
fake authenticity from hermenaut
woody's wit & wisdom
mike the headless chicken! (via carey!)
Mike was just an average Wyandotte rooster in September 1945 when his head was lopped off by Fruita, Colo., resident Lloyd Olsen.
After staggering around a bit, Mike shocked Olsen by returning to his normal chicken routine, hanging out with the other chickens and sleeping with what would have been his head under his wing. The legend of "Miracle Mike" was born.
Tuesday, May 23, 2000
i got this great impassioned plea by david eggers courtesy of brian who got this from the pavement mailing list.
From firstname.lastname@example.org Thu, 4 May 2000 00:51:55 -0400(EDT)
Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 00:51:55 -400(EDT)
From: dan email@example.com
Subject: [Pavement] Dave Eggers vs. indie cred
So Dave Eggers, the author of _A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius_ and the editor of McSweeney's (www.mcsweeneys.net) gave a reading here about a month ago, and myself and some others of the godawful campus literary magazine interviewed him (via email). And I asked him what he thought about the accusations that he'd sold out, and he sent us this rant. There was more of the interview too (email me if you'd like it), but as the issue of selling out and indie cred is of perennial concern on a pavement mailing list, I thought I'd send this. And Eggers has been mentioned here, no? Anyway, here's what he has to say on the matter, take it as you will. Reminds me oddly of a Huckleberry rant.
First, a primer: When I got your questions, I was provoked. You expressed many of the feelings I used to have, when I was in high school and college, about some of the people I admired at the time, people who at some point disappointed me in some way, or made moves I could not understand. So I took a few passages from your questions--those pertaining to or hinting at "selling out"--and I used them as a launching pad for a rant I've wanted to write a while now, and more so than ever since my own book has become successful. And the rant was timely, because shortly after getting your questions, I was scheduled to speak at Yale, and so, assuming that their minds might be in a similar spot as yours, I read this, the below, to them, in slightly less polished form. The rant is directed at myself, age 20, as much of it is to you, so remember that if you ever want to take much offense.
You actually asked me the question: "Are you taking steps to keep shit real?" I want you to always look back on this time as being a time when those words came out of your mouth.
Now, there was a time when such a question--albeit probably without the colloquial spin--would have originated from my own brain. Since I was thirteen, sitting in my orange-carpeted bedroom in ostensibly cutting-edge Lake Forest, Illinois, subscribing to the Village Voice and reading the earliest issues of Spin, I thought I had my ear to the railroad tracks of avant garde America. (Laurie Anderson, for example, had grown up only miles away!) I was always monitoring, with the most sensitive and well-calibrated apparatus, the degree of selloutitude exemplified by any given artist--musical, visual, theatrical, whatever. I was vigilant and merciless and knew it was my job to be so.
I bought R.E.M.'s first EP, Chronic Town, when it came out and thought I had found God. I loved Murmur, Reckoning, but then watched, with greater and greater dismay, as this obscure little band's audience grew, grew beyond obsessed people like myself, grew to encompass casual fans, people who had heard a song on the radio and picked up Green and listened for the hits. Old people liked them, and stupid people, and my moron neighbor who had sex with truck drivers. I wanted these phony R.E.M.-lovers dead.
But it was the band's fault, too. They played on Letterman. They switched record labels. Even their album covers seemed progressively more commercial. And when everyone I knew began liking them, I stopped. Had they changed, had their commitment to making art with integrity changed? I didn't care, because for me, any sort of popularity had an inverse relationship with what you term the keeping "real" of "shit." When the Smiths became slightly popular they were sellouts. Bob Dylan appeared on MTV and of course was a sellout. Recently, just at dinner tonight, after a huge, sold-out reading by David Sedaris and Sarah Vowell (both sellouts), I was sitting next to an acquaintance, a very smart acquaintance married to the singer-songwriter of a very well-known band. I mentioned that I had seen the Flaming Lips the night before. She rolled her eyes. "Oh I really liked them on 90210," she sneered, assuming that this would put me and the band in our respective places.
Was she aware that The Flaming Lips had composed an album requiring the simultaneous playing of four separate discs, on four separate CD players? Was she aware that the band had once, for a show at Lincoln Center, handed out to audience members something like 100 portable tape players, with 100 different tapes, and had them all played at the same time, creating a symphonic sort of effect, one which completely devastated everyone in attendance? I went on and on to her about the band's accomplishments, their experiments. Was she convinced that they were more than their one appearance with Jason Priestly? She was.
Now, at the concert the night before, Wayne Coyne, the lead singer, had himself addressed this issue, and to great effect. After playing much of their new album, the band paused and he spoke to the audience. I will paraphrase what he said:
"Hi. Well, some people get all bitter when some song of theirs gets popular, and they refuse to play it. But we're not like that. We're happy that people like this song. So here it goes."
Then they played the song. (You know the song.) "She Don't Use Jelly" is the song, and it is a silly song, and it was their most popular song. But to highlight their enthusiasm for playing the song, the band released, from the stage and from the balconies about 200 balloons. (Some of the balloons, it should be noted, were released by two grown men in bunny suits.) Then while playing the song, Wayne sang with a puppet on his hand, who also sang into the microphone. It was fun. It was good.
But was it a sellout? Probably. By some standards, yes. Can a good band play their hit song? Should we hate them for this? Probably, probably. First 90210, now they go playing the song every stupid night. Everyone knows that 90210 is not cutting edge, and that a cutting edge alternarock band should not appear on such a show. That rule is clearly stated in the obligatory engrained computer-chip sellout manual that we were all given when we hit adolescence.
But this sellout manual serves only the lazy and small. Those who bestow sellouthood upon their former heroes are driven to do so by, first and foremost, the unshakable need to reduce. The average one of us--a taker-in of various and constant media, is absolutely overwhelmed--as he or she should be--with the sheer volume of artistic output in every conceivable medium given to the world every day--it is simply too much to begin to process or comprehend--and so we are forced to try to sort, to reduce. We designate, we label, we diminish, we create heirarchies and categories.
Through largely received wisdom, we rule out Tom Waits's new album because it's the same old same old, and we save $15. U2 has lost it, Radiohead is too popular. Country music is bad, Puff Daddy is bad, the last Wallace book was bad because that one reviewer said so. We decide that TV is bad unless it's the Sopranos. We liked Rick Moody and Jonathan Lethem and Jeffrey Eugenides until they allowed their books to become movies. And on and on. The point is that we do this and to a certain extent we must do this. We must create categories, and to an extent, hierarchies.
But you know what is easiest of all? When we dismiss.
Oh how gloriously comforting, to be able to write someone off. Thus, in the overcrowded pantheon of alternarock bands, at a certain juncture, it became necessary for a certain brand of person to write off The Flaming Lips, despite the fact that everyone knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that their music was superb and groundbreaking and real. We could write them off because they shared a few minutes with Jason Priestly and that terrifying Tori Spelling person. Or we could write them off because too many magazines have talked about them. Or because it looked like the bassist was wearing too much gel in his hair.
One less thing to think about. Now, how to kill off the rest of our heroes, to better make room for new ones?
We liked Guided by Voices until they let Rick Ocasek produce their latest album, and everyone knows Ocasek is a sellout, having written those mushy Cars songs in the late 80s, and then--gasp!--produced Weezer's album, and of course Weezer's no good, because that Sweater song was on the radio, right, and dorky teenage girls were singing it and we cannot have that and so Weezer is bad and Ocasek is bad and Guided by Voices are bad, even if Spike Jonze did direct that one Weezer video, and we like Spike Jonze, don't we?
Ooh. No. We don't. We don't like him anymore because he's married to Sofia Coppola, and she is not cool. Not cool. So bad in Godfather 3, such nepotism. So let's check off Spike Jonze--leaving room in our brains for--who?
The only thing worse that this sort of activity is when people, students and teachers alike, run around college campuses calling each other racists and anti-Semites. It's born of boredom, lassitude. Too cowardly to address problems of substance where such problems actually are, we claw at those close to us. We point to our neighbor, in the khakis and sweater, and cry foul. It's ridiculous. We find enemies among our peers because we know them better, and their proximity and familiarity means we don't have to get off the couch to dismantle them.
And now, I am also a sellout. Here are my sins, many of which you may know about already:
First, I was a sellout because Might magazine took ads Then I was a sellout because our pages were color, and not stapled together at the Kinko's Then I was a sellout because I went to work for Esquire Now I'm a sellout because my book has sold many copies And because I have done many interviews And because i have let people take my picture And because my goddamn picture has been in just about every fucking magazine and newspaper printed in America
And now, as far as McSweeney's is concerned, the Advocate interviewer wants to know if we're losing also our edge, if the magazine is selling out, hitting the mainstream, if we're still committed to publishing unknowns, and pieces killed by other magazines.
And the fact is, I don't give a fuck. When we did the last issue, this was my thought process: I saw a box. So I decided we'd to a box. We were given stories by some of our favorite writers--George Saunders, Rick Moody (who is uncool, uncool!), Haruki Murakami, Lydia Davis, others--and so we published them. Did I wonder if people would think we were selling out, that we were not fulfilling the mission they had assumed we had committed ourselves to?
No. I did not. Nor will I ever. We just don't care. We care about doing what we want to do creatively. We want to be interested in it. We want it to challenge us. We want it to be difficult. We want to reinvent the stupid thing every time. Would I ever think, before I did something, of how those with sellout monitors would respond to this or that move? I would not. The second I sense a thought like that trickling into my brain, I will put my head under the tires of a bus.
You want to know how big a sellout I am?
A few months ago I wrote an article for Time magazine and was paid $12,000 for it I am about to write something, 1,000 words, 3 pages or so, for something called Forbes ASAP, and for that I will be paid $6,000 For two years, until five months ago, I was on the payroll of ESPN magazine, as a consultant and sometime contributor. I was paid handsomely for doing very little. Same with my stint at Esquire. One year I spent there, with little to no duties. I wore khakis everyday. Another Might editor and I, for almost a year, contributed to Details magazine, under pseudonyms, and were paid $2000 each for what never amounted to more than 10 minutes work--honestly never more than that People from Hollywood want to make my book into a movie, and I am probably going to let them do so, and they will likely pay me a great deal of money for the privilege.
Do I care about the money? I do. Will I keep this money? Very little of it. Within the year I will have given away almost a million dollars to about 100 charities and individuals, benefiting everything from hospice care to an artist who makes sculptures from Burger King bags. And the rest will be going into publishing books through McSweeney's. Would I have been able to publish McSweeney's if I had not worked at Esquire? Probably not. Where is the $6000 from Forbes going? To a guy named Joe Polevy, who wants to write a book about the effects of radiator noise on children in New England.
Now, what if I were keeping all the money? What if I were buying property in St. Kitt's or blew it all on live-in prostitutes? What if, for example, I was, a few nights ago, sitting at a table in SoHo with a bunch of Hollywood slash celebrity acquaintances, one of whom I went to high school with, and one of whom was Puff Daddy? Would that make me a sellout? Would that mean I was a force of evil?
What if a few nights before that I was at the home of Julian Schnabel, at a party featuring Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro, and at which Schnabel said we should get together to talk about him possibly directing my movie? And what if I said sure, let's?
Would all that make me a sellout? Would I be uncool? Would it have been more cool to not go to this party, or to not have written that book, or done that interview, or to have refused millions from Hollywood?
The thing is, I really like saying yes. I like new things, projects, plans, getting people together and doing something, trying something, even when it's corny or stupid. I am not good at saying no. And I do not get along with people who say no. When you die, and it really could be this afternoon, under the same bus wheels I'll stick my head if need be, you will not be happy about having said no. You will be kicking your ass about all the no's you've said. No to that opportunity, or no to that trip to Nova Scotia or no to that night out, or no to that project or no to that person who wants to be naked with you but you worry about what your friends will say.
No is for wimps. No is for pussies. No is to live small and embittered, cherishing the opportunities you missed because they might have sent the wrong message.
There is a point in one's life when one cares about selling out and not selling out. One worries whether or not wearing a certain shirt means that they are behind the curve or ahead of it, or that having certain music in one's collection means that they are impressive, or unimpressive.
Thankfully, for some, this all passes. I am here to tell you that I have, a few years ago, found my way out of that thicket of comparison and relentless suspicion and judgment. And it is a nice feeling. Because, in the end, no one will ever give a shit who has kept shit "real" except the two or three people, sitting in their apartments, bitter and self-devouring, who take it upon themselves to wonder about such things. The keeping real of shit matters to some people, but it does not matter to me. It's fashion, and I don't like fashion, because fashion does not matter.
What matters is that you do good work. What matters is that you produce things that are true and will stand. What matters is that the Flaming Lips's new album is ravishing and I've listened to it a thousand times already, sometimes for days on end, and it enriches me and makes me want to save people. What matters is that it will stand forever, long after any narrow-hearted curmudgeons have forgotten their appearance on goddamn 90210. What matters is not the perception, nor the fashion, not who's up and who's down, but what someone has done and if they meant it. What matters is that you want to see and make and do, on as grand a scale as you want, regardless of what the tiny voices of tiny people say. Do not be critics, you people, I beg you. I was a critic and I wish I could take it all back because it came from a smelly and ignorant place in me, and spoke with a voice that was all rage and envy. Do not dismiss a book until you have written one, and do not dismiss a movie until you have made one, and do not dismiss a person until you have met them. It is a fuckload of work to be open-minded and generous and understanding and forgiving and accepting, but Christ, that is what matters. What matters is saying yes.
I say yes, and Wayne Coyne says yes, and if that makes us the enemy, then good, good, good. We are evil people because we want to live and do things. We are on the wrong side because we should be home, calculating which move would be the least damaging to our downtown reputations. But I say yes because I am curious. I want to see things. I say yes when my high school friend tells me to come out because he's hanging with Puffy. A real story, that. I say yes when Hollywood says they'll give me enough money to publish a hundred different books, or send twenty kids through college. Saying no is so fucking boring.
And if anyone wants to hurt me for that, or dismiss me for that, for saying yes, I say Oh do it, do it you motherfuckers, finally, finally, finally.
Monday, May 22, 2000
Young boys and girls are increasingly being used by Asian militaries and insurgent groups as cannon-fodder, the first-ever survey on the use of child soldiers in Asia released here Wednesday said.
According to the Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, "the appalling use of tens of thousands of children as cannon-fodder across the region," is rising dangerously.
"From Mindanao to Manipur, Aceh to Jaffna, children are recruited to serve war's ends - as porters, 'safe' carriers for bombs, couriers, spies and combatants," the report said.
The Coalition - made up of internationally renowned non-governmental organizations - defines child soldiers as under the age of eighteen and estimates more than 300,000 are currently being used in conflicts worldwide.
"Maoist rebels, jihad fighters, separatist guerillas and right-wing nationals are united in one respect - exploiting children for their cause," it said.
the burmese case
An ILO commission of enquiry reported in 1998 that forced labour was used in a "widespread and systematic manner, with total disregard for the human dignity, safety and health and basic needs of the people".
The press-ganging of recruits - often teenage boys - into the military was a regular feature of Burmese life, the report said. Street children and orphans were particularly vulnerable. Last year's ILO conference adopted an unprecedented resolution against Burma for inflicting "a contemporary form of slavery" on its people.
"Even conservative estimates show at least 50,000 child soldiers in Burma, which is huge," said Henric Haggstrom, of the Save the Children (Sweden).
Burma has more than doubled its armed forces in a decade towards a publicly stated goal of half a million people under arms.
Armies found child fighters useful as they could kill more easily and be extraordinarily brave compared with adult soldiers, said Mr Haggstrom, an expert in war trauma in children.
|a r c h i v e
w r i t t e n
e m a i l m e