Ryan Mello for Office

Ryan Mello for Tacoma Parks Commissioner Position #4
My friend from college, Ryan Mello is running for Tacoma Parks Commissioner (position #4). He’s a great guy and I worked with him a lot when he was the ASUPS (our student government) president at my college my sophomore year. Admitedly, I don’t know too much about the Tacoma Parks Board, but I’m sure he’d do a great job, and reading through stuff on his website and his interview with The Tacoma News Tribune, I’m sure he’d do a great job.

(Disclaimer: I created that website for him…)

Nonetheless, if you live in Tacoma, register to vote and give him a chance!

Word of the Day: Fatalistic

I keep hearing people on the news use the word “fatalistic” to refer to someone who is being really negative/pessimistic about a situation.

For example, “Is the mayor of New Orleans being as fatalistic about the situation as the Army Corps of Engineers?” The person asking the question was trying to find out if the mayor felt the situation was dire and was going to be bad.

“Fatalistic,” however, doesn’t really mean bad/negative/pessimistic. A fatalistic is someone who believes in fate. For a situation to be fatalistic it would be wrapped up in fate or predetermined — not necessarily to be all gloom and doom. Granted, something could be fated to be bad (which is how “fatalistic” is generally understood), but it doesn’t have to be.

I’m not trying to be snooty about this — I didn’t know the difference until my friend was called a fatalist by her philosophy professor. We thought that it meant she was really negative, but really, it meant that she believed in fate.

Oh the fun of language!

As for the news broadcasters — I do sort of wish that they would be more careful of their use of language.

Gender Studies 101

Strangely enough, two of my daily reads, Salon.com and Slate, featured some “gender studies”-related articles yesterday. Reading them really made me miss college (which isn’t to difficult for me) and reminded me why I really should’ve been a women’s studies minor (which, it appears, my school has renamed to “gender studies”… there was a discussion we had during my senior year and it sorta of bothers me that it was renamed and may require a blog post in the future).

The Salon.com article, “Attack of the listless lads” is an interview with Benjamin Kunkel, who recently wrote a book called Indecision. Surprisingly, the interview was less about Kunkel’s book and more about Rebecca Traister’s (the writer of the story) desire to find out “what’s wrong with young American men” (and no, I do not take offense to that question).

Kunkel made some terribly fascinating points:

He suggests that dating around with the thought that it should lead to marriage (and doesn’t more than it does), has perhaps got men stuck in a vicious circle:

The idea is that dating should lead toward mating, and spread out before us is this array of choices that should lead toward a choice you can feel secure in. But I think the opposite happens. You become familiar with disposable relationships. So though they seem to be conducting you toward permanence and mating, in fact they’re just inculcating a habit of serial monogamy.

He also suggests that because women have made such gains in the workplace, that men feel inadequate and “unworthy” of dating the due to the “super-abundance of attractive, intelligent young women”:

I think men inherit — if from nowhere else than from the movies — the impression that in order to win the respect and love of a woman, you ought to be doing something meaningful in the world. And if you can’t hold your head up high in that sense, then why ask somebody to love you?

What I thought was the most interesting point he made had to do with consumer culture and the desire to always have something better. Instead of viewing love as a destiny, nowadays love is seen as a goal — a goal that can always be tossed aside once it has been achieved.

Kunkel explains:

Partly, a model of shopping has overtaken our experience of romance. Love, historically, has been associated with a sensation of destiny. It’s very difficult for us to attain a sensation of destiny where love is concerned anymore, because we think we can always look for something better, which is essentially a shopper’s mentality. There’s no destiny when it comes to buying pants or shirts or a dress. There’ll be the nicest thing you can afford this season. But then a new season will [bring] more attractive styles and you’ll actually be able to afford something better. I think that tremendous passion that we feel other generations had and that we missed was attached to a sense of destiny, and of permanent love that would survive changes in station and opportunity and fortune.

There is a bunch of other interesting cultural criticism in the piece dealing with things like bureaucracy, the “crisis of masculinity,” and “some mild sort of institutionalized promiscuity.” I’m not sure the interview makes me want to read Indecision, but it does sound like this guy has done a lot of thinking and has a fresh view on the male side of gender studies.

As for the Slate piece, what’s going on there is one of their Book Club discussions about Pornified and Female Chauvinist Pigs. (Pornified: How Pornography Is Transforming Our Lives, Our Relationships, and Our Families by Pamela Paul and Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture by Ariel Levy.)

Discussing the book are Wendy Shalit of ModestyZone.net, Meghan O’Rourke of Slate, and one of my favorite authors/cultural critics, Laura Kipnis (who wrote the amazing Against Love: A Polemic. Kipnis also wrote Bound and Gagged: Pornography and the Politics of Fantasy in America, which I read parts of for my Advanced Media Studies class, so I feel confident in saying that she knows her porn! Also, she’s somewhat of a Freudian Marxist — two of, I think, the most impactful thinkers on the 20th century.

(Note: The second day of the book club discussion has already been posted, but I haven’t read that yet, so this will just highlight parts from day one.)

Kipnis, of course, makes the points that I agree with the most.

In her brief introduction/synopsis of Pornified, she makes this extremely witty remark:

… she’s utterly blinkered about the rest of society, or history, or politics; it’s as if sexuality occupied some autonomous world of its own. (Like a porn set.)

I just love that she compares the “world of its own” vacuum of Pornified with the porn sets that, undoubtedly, Paul criticizes. So smart!

I also like how Kipnis immediately kills the suggestion that porn has caused men to treat women badly. She notes that well before porn men were pigs. Kipnis dares Paul:

So, when exactly was the golden age of relationship bliss that Paul thinks porn has torn asunder?

She also channels some Foucault by suggesting that the more we rally against porn and sex, the more prevalent we make it in society:

I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that the two [mainstreaming of porn and abstinence-only sex education] aren’t exactly unrelated: They’re both products of a culture that’s deeply conflicted and hypocritical about sex… What comprises the majority of Web sites, aside from porn? Religion and shopping. A seething cultural compost of sexual prohibition and compulsive consumption… Public virtue and private lechery are also long-standing features of American sexual culture… We’re a culture that hates and fears sex, but can’t get enough of it.

Another assertion that Paul makes that Kipnis totally blasts is Paul’s suggestion that pornography is ruining men’s ability to have relationships with their girlfriends. Apparently Paul interviewed a number of men with girlfriends who claimed that, if they had to choose, they would take porn. This reminded me of some documentary/20/20-like show we watched during my media studies course in which a bunch of men sat around comparing stories about how porn ruined their lives. Please. They ruined their own lives, and if porn wasn’t the “poison,” I’m sure something else would have been. Similarly, Kipnis asks:

Yet Paul seems convinced that minus porn, somehow these guys would be fulfilling all the intimacy needs of their partners. Sorry, but who’s the compulsive fantasist?

Shalit makes some interesting points about the potentially self-destructive and self-hating nature of the “female chauvinists” (of Girls Gone Wild, etc.). She compares these women’s behavior with that of immature, sexually-driven, young men:

True, there have always been men who objectified women, but society also encouraged them to grow up at some point. But today, even grown women are taking their cues from the most immature males.

When she re-tells some of Paul’s stories of husbands who ignore their children while watching porn and a 21-year-old who wants to dump his 16-year-old girlfriend because she won’t get as kinky as he wants, I just cannot see how this is porn’s fault — yes, porn may make the problem more visible, but there is obviously something else wrong with these guys. To reiterate the point earlier, if porn didn’t exist, the dad would still be a bad father and the 21-year-old would still be objectifying his jailbait girlfriend.

Shalit seems to agree with this, and reiterates what Kipnis notes earlier:

As porn consumers become increasingly desensitized to viewing sex online, Paul shows how their tastes turn to the odd, the young, and the violent… I read Paul as saying that the availability and intensity of Internet porn is what’s new, and that because porn desensitizes us, we’d better wake up and pay attention… Is she implying that without porn, these men would be perfect partners?

But then Shalit falls prey to Paul’s horror stories and suggests that porn is indeed the problem:

I thought she was saying something far more reasonable: that if men weren’t learning about sex from pornography at age 8, or 10, or 13, then at least they’d have more of a chance to forge real intimacy with women.

… Yes, if it weren’t for porn, these poor men who were exposed to porn at an early age might have a fighting chance to forge real intimacy. Yes, these poor men who just need a chance! (Ugh!!)

Without reading Paul’s book, I shouldn’t comment, but it sounds like she is definitely trying to scare people into hating porn, and obviously it works. Shalit even admits:

At any rate, I found Paul’s stories quite shocking.

Nonetheless, I did find this statement by Shalit to be frightening and potentially true:

It’s like some big cosmic joke: The people who are supposed to be “sex positive” and enjoying their cultural freedoms are actually lonely and having terrible sex, whereas studies have shown that religious marrieds are the ones enjoying themselves the most. What’s happened? Perhaps without emotions involved, sex becomes boring.

I do see this happening — but again, I don’t see porn or being “sex positive” as the problem. I agree with Kipnis that it has more to do with hypocritical attitudes toward sex and the feelings of shame, excitement, perversity, etc. that they cause.

O’Rourke enters the debate as a moderator, or so it seems. She immediately (and rightly, I think), points out:

What I was struck by in each was how difficult it was for the authors—for all of us—to get past their (or our) own assumptions about porn and sex… There are murky issues just beneath the surface of each book. Yet those of us reading them quickly split along ideological (or gender) lines.

She also makes a rather bold suggestion that when it comes to the porn debate, perhaps women are the ones trying to force unrealistic fantasies on men. She asks:

Is men’s use of porn necessarily destructive, or is it simply women’s relationship expectations that make it seem destructive? Reading Pornified, I sometimes thought the women were simply allowing an unrealistic dream of imaginative fidelity to shape their response to their partners.

Additionally, she plays the devil’s advocate (or maybe not?) and asks whether porn is really as bad and degrading as conventional wisdom suggests:

I’m merely questioning the conviction that pornography is inherently degrading. Likewise, what if women who flash their tits on Girls Gone Wild are enjoying themselves—if not all of them, then a select few? What then?

She also tries to find a middle ground between Kipnis’ social/consumerism as the root and Paul’s pornography as the root argument. O’Rourke notes that porn is becoming so much more prevalent and so much more intense, that it cannot be ignored, as Kipnis vaguely suggests:

Porn doesn’t exclusively produce the relationship woes and female insecurities she describes. But in its new form it presumably contributes to the ongoing shaping of how we see the world and affects the behavior of those who use it.

Between the Salon interview and the Slate discussion, there is a lot to digest here, and I think it’s interesting that there is overlap between the two. How are relationships between men and women changing? And even how is sexuality changing?

My major critique of both of the pieces is that they are extremely heteronormative. I know from Against Love that Kipnis’ argument encompasses all sexual orientations, but in the Slate piece it is very geared toward men/women relationships. Where do same-sex couples fit into this? And how is the consumption of porn different for lesbians and gay men?

Lots to think about. Makes us all wanna be gender studies majors, eh?

Pretentious Cookies

Milanos Cookies
No offense to all who love those Pepperidge Farm cookies, but I really think that they are quite possibly the most pretentious food ever created. I’ve never liked them and I’ve always thought that they were way overpriced. I especially hate the Milano cookies. The Chocolate Chunk cookies are semi-decent, but still overpriced and pretentious.

Wait, Worry: The Time Is Near: Part One

Millennium Season 3
When it comes to the television show Millennium, there seem to be two camps (the “owls” and the “roosters” perhaps?): one group thinks that during season two when Glen Morgan and James Wong took over executive production (because series creator Chris Carter was focusing on Fight the Future [the X-Files movie]) the show went downhill and got too bizarre (e.g. Millennium Group as a conspiracy group trying to bring about the apocalypse, numerous episodes featuring the music of Bobby Darin, etc.); the other group thinks that season two is the best of the three seasons, and that Carter’s decision to basically “fire” Morgan and Wong so he could work on season three was a mistake.

I am certainly in the second camp: season two of Millennium remains one of the best seasons of television ever. For me, it’s right up there with Angel season four (when the world goes to hell — literally).

Season three, for me, occupies a weird place in my heart. When Millennium first aired in 1996 (because it was basically considered a spin-off of The X-Files), and wasn’t very impressed. I only watched for a few weeks, and then stopped. Between the first and third seasons, however, I started watching Twin Peaks and would like to think that my taste in television became a little more developed. When season three of Millennium started, I decided to give the show another chance. I even posted to the alt.tv.twin-peaks newsgroup about this decision back in 1998.

Needless to say, season three got me hooked. Ever since Fox started releasing The X-Files on DVD I eagerly waited for Millennium to follow. Watching season one with “new eyes” only cemented my love of the show. Season two, which I hadn’t seen until I watched it on DVD last fall totally blew me away.

The Ouroboros from the Millennium Logo
And now, here I am, coming full-circle (like the Ouroboros from the Millennium logo) and watching the season that started it all.

I’m struck by how much the season started off like X-Files — Frank Black mirrors Fox Mulder as Emma Hollis mirrors Dana Scully. It’s really quite bizarre. I guess Chris Carter loves stories about the FBI or something? Thankfully, after a few so-so/blah episodes, the season picks up and finds its own ground again.

Here are my episode-by-episode thoughts. I am currently a little over half-way through the third season, so look for part two to come later.

“The Innocents” & “Exegesis” (two-part season premiere) — Basically, this episode ignores everything that happened in season two. We see that Frank Black has moved to Washington, D.C. and that he is consulting with the FBI, but we don’t find out what ever happened with the outbreak of the Marburg virus, why Frank’s hair is no longer grey (which it turned to at the end of season two due to the traumatic death of his wife), etc. Instead, we get a group of random FBI people investigating a downed airliner in what feels more like an X-Files episode than a Millennium one — a conspiracy to kill possibly cloned little girls who have the ability to do remote viewing. What is going o here?? I think when I started re-watching the show I missed these two episodes, because if I watched then, I may very well have given up again.

“TEOTWAWKI” — This episode I do remember from before, and it did strike me as very cool. At a large computer company in Washington (hmm… probably a thinly veiled reference to another company…) there are some high-level people who fear that when the year 2000 rolls around, the “Y2k Bug” would cause a total breakdown of society. When one of the children of these guys finds out and freaks out, badness ensues. I gotta say, I love the slight twist at the end (in regard to Brant’s death). I also loved remembering all of the Y2K paranoia going on before the turn of the century — this episode does a great job at capturing that.

“Closure” — This episode was pretty so-so, but I’m glad that it gave us a chance to learn a little about Emma’s background. She was just sort of plopped into the first episode and somewhere I think she became Frank Black’s partner (though this is never explicitly explained, as far as I remember), so as a major character she does deserve an episode dedicated to explaining her interest in violent crimes.

“… Thirteen Years Later” — I tend to hate it when dark shows attempt to break format and do something lighter. I know most fans love the Jose Chung episodes of X-Files and Millennium, but I always thought they were stupid. Further, when The X-Files really tried to lighten things up during seasons six and seven, I was thoroughly annoyed. Buffy‘s campy episodes were okay because it fit the format of the show, but when Angel tried to go really light (i.e. the fifth season’s Halloween party episode), I groaned. “… Thirteen Years Later” is another Millennium attempt at being campy, I think. The episode is about a movie reenactment of a case that Frank Black solved thirteen years ago. The band KISS makes a cameo appearance and the person you don’t expect ends up being the murderer — big surprise.

“Skull and Bones” — To be honest, I need to re-watch this episode because it left me rather confused. Basically, it is about the Millennium Group covering up information about people they or the government or someone had murdered because those people knew things they shouldn’t, caused too many problems, etc. The episode also explains what happens to Cheryl Andrews, a Millennium Group member that was somewhat of a reoccurring character during seasons one and two.

“Through a Glass, Darkly” — First, I love the title of this episode. Second, I love this episode. It is probably one of my favorite Millennium episodes and I distinctly remember it from when I watched the show on TV. This episode is about a child molester who is released from prison in a small town and has to deal with townspeople hating him and general witch-hunt type activity. Of course, at the end there is a huge twist that I doubt anyone can say they saw coming, and really pays off.

“Human Essence” — This is yet another X-Files-like episode about heroin in Vancouver that turns people into monsters. It’s another Emma-focused episode (we learn that she has a half-sister, etc.), so that is cool. But ultimately, I wasn’t a fan of this one. First, I’m not sure why they chose to have the tainted heroin in Vancouver or why Emma’s half-sister lives there. I mean, it’s a minor point and don’t get me wrong, Vancouver is a cool city and it’s neat to set an episode there, but why does the only one during the show’s run set in Canada deal with drugs? I’m not sure. Then, the whole thing about the Chinese scientist who is tainting was strange too — especially since he worked for the U.S. DEA. Ultimately, I think the episode is probably about some conspiracy in which the U.S. government is experimenting with mind altering substances in order to either control people or use them for war, so they sent someone outside of the country to work on it… but still, this isn’t explicitly laid out (and not that it needs to be explicit, necessarily — it’s just that the intention is poorly conveyed in the episode) so in the end, you are like, “Huh?” (in a bad way — not in a, “Wow, I need to reflect” way).

“Omerta” — Ugh, another let’s-try-to-be-light episode. It aired the week before Christmas, so I guess the creators can be like, “Oh, well it’s Christmas season so we have to do something light and cute.” “Omerta” involves a mafia guy who was supposedly killed 10 years prior but then suddenly shows up and it turns out that two mute women in the woods kept him alive and hidden all this time. Obviously, the two women are supposed to be angels.

“Borrowed Time” — Thank god for this episode. I swear, after “Human Essence” and “Omerta” I was about ready to reconsider my praise for the show. I was tempted to write a blog entry about how terrible the third season of Millennium was and how it just tried to copy The X-Files and that I was really sad and so on. But then came “Borrowed Time.” I remember watching this years ago and maybe even crying at the end. The title refers to people who have somehow escaped death (like Frank’s daughter Jordan — who survived meningitis in season one and the Marburg virus in season two) whose “borrowed time” is being collected and given to others who, in the future, will die of freak accidents. Eric Mabius’ character, who takes the time, is probably an angel of sorts. Somehow this episode captures death so softly and in such a touching way.

“Collateral Damage” — I already blogged about this episode the other day, so this will repeat some of what I mentioned there. This episode is great because freaking Art Bell was in it!! Playing himself!! Sorry, but I still cannot get over the coolness of that fact. Then you have Spike from Buffy (well, not Spike as Spike but James Marsters) and, get this, Jacinda from Real World: London! As for the rest of the episode, I love the character of Peter Watts and so the fact this episode sort of dealt with him and his family was cool. The conspiracy stuff in the episode was great, too. During the Golf War, did the military have soldiers test chemical weapons? Is that what Gulf War Syndrome is really about? One of my favorite lines from the episode deals with the effects of war on soldiers when a doctor at Walter Reed is talking to Frank Black:

Uh, each war has its own syndrome. World War II, it was shell shock. Vietnam was post-traumatic stress disorder. The Gulf War gave us, uh, paranoia, I guess.

Since the episode dealt directly with the Marburg virus, I did hope that we’d learn more about what happened between season two and season three, but I guess that is what the next episode was for…

“The Sound of Snow” — Finally, we find out what happens after season two. This episode is about a woman in Seattle who makes cassette tapes with “white noise” on them that cause people to hallucinate their greatest fears/things they feel guilty about. When Frank hears the tapes, he starts having flashbacks to the outbreak of the virus and the vaccine that he and Peter Watts received and the immense guilt he feels about the death of his wife, Catherine. The first half of the episode of pretty straightforward — Frank investigates two deaths in which people received the tapes. You wouldn’t tell from the beginning that by the end of the episode it’d turn into a “mythology” one, which is cool, I think. (One of the things that got old with The X-Files is that there was a strong delineation between a “monster of the week” episode and a “mythology” episode — events from one never crossed into the other.) I’m not sure that the episode resolved all of my issues/questions about season two, but at least it attempted to give closure. The guest appears of Megan Gallagher playing Catherine was great. It really is too bad that was killed off in season two.

“Antipas” — The return of Lucy Butler (as played by Sarah-Jane Redmond)! Lucy Butler is my, and many other fans I am sure, favorite guest character on Millennium. We first met her during the two-part “Powers, Principalities, Thrones and Dominions” & “Lamentation” episodes of season one when she was somehow the killer of Frank’s best friend Bob Bletcher. We then met her again during one of my all-time favorite Millennium episodes, “A Room With No View” when she kidnapped teenagers with bright futures and tortured them by playing the song “Love Is Blue” by Paul Mauriat incessantly. In “Antipas,” Lucy is the nanny for the attorney general of Wisconsin (who is planning to run for governor). The episode starts with Emma investigating a case in which she has no leads on. Frank notices the words “Saint/PA” written on a note in one of the photographs. He decodes it as an anagram for “antipas” which leads him to the Antipas Gardens on the estate of the Wisconsin Attorney General’s mansion. There he finds Lucy Butler, who he believes has been leaving clues for Frank so that he can find her here (he uncovers numerous other crime scene photos what have the word “antipas” contained in them somewhere). Frank and Lucy many antagonistic encounters, including a “dream” Frank has in which Lucy is essentially raping him — which is then turned around into Frank raping Lucy after he has her arrested and she demands a rape kit and a paternity test. After two more deaths (the attorney general and his wife), strange encounters in the Antipas Gardens (a maze, of sorts), Frank hits Lucy with a car, killing “their” baby and leaving Lucy in the hospital. When he confronts her in the final scene to tell her that he’s not afraid of her, she makes a vague threat toward Frank’s daughter Jordan.

… So that does it for the first half of season two. I have nine episodes to go and then it’s all over, sadly enough. After I finish those I’ll do a similar recap and my thoughts on the season and the series in general.

Collateral Damage

James Marsters as Spike and Art Bell
Consider this to be an “introduction” to the forthcoming episode-by-episode review of Millennium season 3.

Last night I watched the episode “Collateral Damage.” Right now I won’t go into an actual review of the episode. I just wanted to mention that the episode guest starred James Marsters (looking very Spike [from Buffy]) and Art Bell (weekend host and creator of Coast To Coast AM).

In the episode, James played a somewhat crazy Gulf War veteran who called into Art’s show. After he kidnaps the daughter of a member of the Millennium Group, Frank Black enlists the help of Art Bell to help apprehend him.

It was crazy wild to see Art. And they included the Coast theme song during the episode!!

Damn Dirty Apes

Charlton Heston in Planet of the Apes
Surprisingly enough (to me, at least), I just now watched Planet of the Apes (the original 1968 version). Why do I think this is surprising? Well, I like sci-fi stuff in general, and Planet of the Apes is such a classic, but oh well. I’m not sure why I’ve never watched it.

My initial reaction was: Why did Charlton Heston choose to be in this movie? Maybe I am reading too much into/stereotyping his NRA activism, but I always figured he was a super conservative person — and i still do assume that. But if that is the case, why has he selected roles in movies like Planet of the Apes and Soylent Green which have fairly progressive social themes. My guess: He is oblivious.

(Side note: When I watched The Celluloid Closet there was a discussion of the homoerotic aspects of Ben-Hur [I cannot remember who discussed it which is why I wrote that statement passively — to conceal my ignorance which I just now admitted to] and how they intentionally had one of the actors act sort of “gay” toward Charlton but without telling Charlton so he wouldn’t freak out. So this little story also supports my theory that Charlton is oblivious to the social message of these sci-fi dystopic films.)

My second reaction was: Wow, this film could be presenting a pretty progressive message. I love the idea of doing a complete 180 on subjectivity and not-so-obliquely setup the apes to represent humans in order to question/critique the way “civilized” humans treat others (be it animals, apes, people of other skin color, etc.). Further, the film also does some pretty serious questioning of religion and faith and addresses scientific issues such as evolution (which still seems to be a hot topic).

At the end of the film, however, I didn’t feel that the story was overly preachy or advocated one philosophy over another. It showed the “danger” of scientific inquiry (i.e. do we really want to know about the past; are we really ready to believe the darker aspects of our history) as well as the “danger” of blind faith (i.e. why is questioning and presenting new ideas automatically called heresy; why does faith prevent us from acknowledging this “animal” as sentient).

I’m not sure I want to see the sequels to the film — from my brief research it sounds like they deviate from these social issues. But I am intrigued to check out the 2001 version of Planet of the Apes by Tim Burton (which is actually why I wanted to watch the original in the first place). I’ve heard that Burton’s has a different “twist” ending, so I am curious to see what that might be.

An American Psycho

Me and author Bret Easton Ellis
On Tuesday I had the unique pleasure of meeting one of my favorite authors, Bret Easton Ellis (author of Less Than Zero, The Rules of Attraction, American Psycho, Glamorama, and the recently published Lunar Park).

I first read Less Than Zero during my freshman year of college. For my Argument and Debate class, my group chose our final debate/project to be about whether “90210 harms youth’s self esteem” (no, I am not joking — we really debated this and it was quite awesome…). I argued the negative — that 90210 was actually beneficial television viewing.

During my research, I came across paper by a woman named Crystal Kile, a graduate student at Bowling Green University in Ohio (I can’t find anything more recent on her… not sure what happened…), titled “Recombinant Realism/Caliutopian Re-Dreaming: Beverly Hills 90210 as Nostalgia Television.” In the paper, she noted that unlike Less Than Zero, the idea of California youth presented in 90210 was fairly traditional and not necessarily setting a bad example. Kile’s brief description of Less Than Zero intrigued me:

The milieu of Less Than Zero, like that of 90210, is upper-upper middle class Los Angeles youth culture. But that is where the resemblance ends. The world that Ellis’ so numbly and plotlessly conjures is one of cocaine, anonymous bisexual promiscuity, the best brand name goods, ritual murder, absent families, and young men prostituting themselves to pay off drug debts. In the best tradition of the ‘L.A. literature’ from Nathaniel West to Joan Didion to Black Flag, it is apocalyptic. As a cult youthcult text, it elicited alarm among certain literary critics. In what was perhaps the most extreme panic response to the novel/this genre, University of Georgia professor Sanford Pinsker’s wondered in a 1986 Georgia Review article, ‘The Catcher in the Rye and All That: Is the Age of Formative Books Over?’

I’m sure Kile’s intention wasn’t to get readers to go out and read Less Than Zero, but that was the effect she had on me. My freshman year was the only year of college when I actually had time for leisure reading, and I breezed through Ellis’s debut novel. I loved it, and I read American Psycho during winter break. I was hooked.

Of all his books, Glamorama remains my favorite — I’ve read it twice now, and am considering turning it into one of those novels that I read every year (which I have none of, yet, so Glamorama would be my first). I love the way the book morphs from an US Weekly-type exposé into a self-reflexive “metafictional” novel about models who are terrorists. It amazes me every time I read it, and I honestly think that the superficial superficiality that probably turns most people off or causes them to write it off as nothing extraordinary is what makes it such a deep and complex book.

As for the Tuesday event, it was a book reading, Q&A session, followed by book signing (see the pic above for BEE signing my book). He read from the first chapter of Lunar Park (which explained what the book Lunar Park was going to be about and how it all came about).

Here are my notes from the Q&A:

The Less Than Zero Film

BEE recently re-watched the film about 4 months ago. He originally did not like it and felt it was despondent. He noted, “There was not a single scene from the book… which was a problem.” But after re-watching it, he changed his mind and felt the film was beautifully photographed and “captured the LA youth culture lovingly.” He especially liked Robert Downey Jr.‘s performance. Overall — he has changed his mind and doesn’t hate it anymore.

American Psycho — Lots of Research Or Is the Author “Screwed Up”?

The person asking the question wanted to know if BEE did lots of research to write American Psycho or whether he was just “screwed up.” BEE responded, “Both.”

BEE was afraid to re-read American Psycho after it was published because he worried that all the criticism of the book (excessively violent, misogynist, etc.) would turn out to be true. He decided, however, to re-read it in the summer of 2003, however.

Upon re-reading, he was really impressed with “the compelling voice of Bateman.” He hadn’t understood the book’s initial popularity, but now thinks that the voice of the narrator (i.e. Pat Bateman) probably added to the book’s appeal.

He also noted that the violent scenes disturbed him more and that he was no longer the “punky, nihilistic kid” who wrote it. When he wrote American Psycho he was “freaked out about finishing college” and realizing that “this is society” (i.e. “the real world”). He also explained, that is really obvious after reading Lunar Park, that Pat Bateman was based on his father.

Surprisingly (to him), BEE also mentioned that he sympathized with Bateman more than he expected. He agreed with Bateman’s disgust for the world and felt that Bateman’s misery was somewhat justified.

BEE’s “Apology” for American Psycho

BEE does not feel the same way that the “Bret Easton Ellis” of Lunar Park does about American Psycho. In the novel, the author is worried that a fictional character he created escaped from his story. He has anxiety about this fact and anxiety about the book, in general. BEE does not feel the need to apologize for it, unlike the character of the book who gives a little apologia to the detective.

BEE does, however, like the “BEE” in Lunar Park, feel some resentment toward the book. BEE admits that more than any of his other work, American Psycho “defines” him among critics and readers. Because it is his most popular book, the other works are somewhat forgotten or brushed aside. This resentment of success, BEE says, is played out in Lunar Park as a metaphor.

Also, American Psycho didn’t “write itself” the way described in Lunar Park.

A Movie Adaptation of Glamorama?

Roger Avary is in the process of looking for funding for the film. He has written a screenplay, so the first step is down. Finding money, however, is proving difficult because the film is about “young Americans committing terrorism in Europe” (imagine why that’s a tough film to finance…).

Furthermore, Avary has about 70 minutes of footage that was filmed for the 5-or-so minute Victor Ward interlude of Rules of Attraction (which Avary also write the screenplay for and directed). Apparently it’s just Kip Pardue going around Europe doing drugs, fucking, and hanging out with famous people. BEE made it sound like “reality” footage (i.e. Kip was really doing that stuff), so who knows.

I must interlude here: BEE mentioned that he really liked the movie adaptation of Rules of Attraction, despite the fact that few people saw the film and those that did tended to think it was awful. I gotta admit that I love it to. In my opinion, it’s one of the best book-to-film transformations ever. It totally captures the style of the film (including backward narration, stream-of-consciousness narration, and overlapping/alternative explanations for the same event). I really hope that Avary and Pardue can get the funding for a movie version of Glamorama. According to the IMDB entry for Glamorama the film is in production and has people beside Pardue cast. Let’s hope something comes of it!

Introduction of Patrick Bateman Character in Rules of Attraction

When BEE included the scene when Sean Bateman (one of the main characters of Rules) meets his brother Patrick, he had no intention of using him as the main character for his next book.

Reoccurring Characters

Mitchell Allen is the only “real” character in Lunar Park that has appeared in previous BEE novels. (Most of BEE’s novels include characters from previous or future works — thus creating an entire alternate universe that spans multiple stories.)

BEE pondered the question for a bit, but joked, “I’m not going to make up an answer” as to why Mitchell Allen is the familiar character to make his way into Lunar Park. It just happened.

Is Lunar Park an Apology for American Psycho?

(In case you cannot tell, this issue came up a lot…)

Lunar Park was outlined by 1993/1994. American Psycho was finished in 1989. Lunar Park was intended to be BEE’s “fun book.” He wanted to write a genre story in the style of Stephen King.

Initially, Lunar Park was going to be a haunted house book. But then between the time he outlined it and when he started the draft (in the meantime his disgust of celebrity culture forced him to write Glamorama), his father died and he realized that there were lots of unresolved surrounding him and his father.

As he was working on more outlines/drafts, he got writers block when trying to figure out who the fictional character would be and trying to develop the history of the writer. Then in 2000 he decided to make himself the main character and use Patrick Bateman as the “Frankenstein-like” fictional character.

The book was always going to be about a writer and a house, but it wasn’t until later in the development of the story that it turned into a pseudo-autobiography.

… and that is how he answered the question about whether Lunar Park was an apology for American Psycho. (No, it is not.)

Does BEE Consider Himself To Be a Writer of “Metafiction” Like His Contemporaries?

He does read and know (and is friends with) a lot of his contemporaries. He doesn’t, however, feel that he fits into any group. While some compare him to David Foster Wallace and Chuck Palahniuk, he doesn’t really see the connection. Plus, BEE publishes much less frequently than most authors.

Drafts

Surprisingly (to me, at least), BEE is really into writing drafts. I guess I have this romantic notion that my favorite authors are just imbued with some gift of writing that allows them to write perfect prose on the first try, but apparently that isn’t true.

For each book, BEE estimates that it goes through four or five major drafts followed by a really heavy polish at the end. He also outlines his stories before writing them and is a very slow writer.

This really impressed me and, not that I didn’t take him seriously as an author before, really shows that he takes his work seriously and considers himself to be a working author rather than a pretentious artist.

How College Students Can Get Published

Less Than Zero was published and had become a best-seller before BEE even graduated from college — a pretty impressive accomplishment. Apparently one of his college professors really liked his work and this particular professor already had an agent and editor and submitted BEE’s work on his behalf.

The person asking the question wanted to know if BEE had any advice on how other young writers can get published.

BEE’s main point of advice was to use/find connections. Submitting unsolicited work just doesn’t work well — you need a connection to really have a chance. BEE recommended going to summer writing workshops and meeting people there.

“In What Spirit” Was The Informers Written?

(The Informers is a collection of short stories published after American Psycho and before Glamorama.)

All of the stories in The Informers were written during college between the years 1982-1986. Since Glamorama was behind schedule and he owed some work to the publisher, a collection of short stories seemed to make sense.

BEE said that the “spirit” of their writing was: “dejected.”

Overall, BEE is personally very glad about the project and considers it one of his best works. They are the only short stories he has ever written.

He had about 23-24 short stories to consider and ended up going with only 13 of them. (Maybe there is another collection waiting to be published someday???)

Author Influences

BEE cited two main influences: 1. Ernest Hemingway and Joan Didion. When he set out to write Less Than Zero he thought only two major influences were enough.

He explained that when writing the following works he could see the influences by the following authors:
Less Than Zero — Hemingway and Didion
Rules of AttractionUlysses by James Joyce
GlamoramaDon Delillo
Lunar ParkPhilip Roth and Stephen King

How Did BEE Develop His Unique Style?

BEE: “I don’t know how.”

He further elaborated that he started copying other authors’ style, which got boring, so then the copying starting morphing into a new sensibility that eventually becomes an author’s style.

What Was Exciting About Writing Lunar Park?

BEE strongly feels that writing should be fun — not a painful, laborious, traumatic thing. He thinks an author should be wanting to write no matter what. That is why he has written so few books.

As for Lunar Park, it was a rewarding experience because he realized that he would be able to resolve his feelings toward his dad by writing the book. The act of writing was more therapeutic and therapy or long talks with his sisters about their father. As a writer, he worked out his issues through his writing.

Once he finished Lunar Park, he felt “something definitely lifted off me” and considered it to be “an exorcism of sorts.”

… My Impressions

Overall, it was a great event. I totally expected BEE to be cold and pretentious and somewhat of an asshole — but he was totally the opposite. He was extremely friendly and made lots of jokes during the Q&A section.

During the book signing I asked him briefly if he was familiar with the Gregg Araki movie Nowhere (one of my favorites!) because some of the dialogue and situations were totally ripped off from Less Than Zero. (I’ve always considered Nowhere to be a loose adaptation — unofficially — of Less Than Zero so I can forget that the “real” Less Than Zero movie exists…) BEE said that he had seen the film and that lots of people had recommended it since it kinda did rip-off Less Than Zero. I thought that was cool.

Blame Bush!

Speaking of exploitation, I want to “exploit” the current disaster going on around New Orleans due to Hurricane Katrina and defer blame not to nature but to President Bush.

(Yes, I am serious.)

Sidney Blumenthal has a great article on Salon: “‘No one can say they didn’t see it coming'”

My favorite quote:

In early 2001, the Federal Emergency Management Agency issued a report stating that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely disasters in the U.S., including a terrorist attack on New York City. But by 2003 the federal funding for the flood control project essentially dried up as it was drained into the Iraq war. In 2004, the Bush administration cut funding requested by the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for holding back the waters of Lake Pontchartrain by more than 80 percent. Additional cuts at the beginning of this year (for a total reduction in funding of 44.2 percent since 2001) forced the New Orleans district of the Corps to impose a hiring freeze.

Upon further research, I found out that the third most likely disaster is an earthquake in San Francisco.

In addition to Blumenthal’s reporting, I also found “Katrina Proves Bush is a Failure” over at Swing State Project.

I really don’t think this is “exploiting” the situation, but rather highlighting why we must take as many points of view and ideas into consideration and understand the consequences of our actions.

“Dell Hell”

Even though I’ve gotten over my problems with Dell computers (by purchasing a new computer by Toshiba), I thought it was worth pointing out that Jeff Jarvis over at Buzz Machine has been documenting his “Dell Hell” and is getting some press and response from Dell. Yay for him.

It turns out that his son’s laptop always overheats (sound familiar???) and Dell is extremely unresponsive.

The whole thing makes me want to take up my battle again — and why shouldn’t I? Just because I got a new computer doesn’t mean I’m done with Dell. I’m still paying the damn thing off!! (Which is stupid — I should just pay it all off in one lump sum one of these days…)