The Slow Death of the Book Store; The Evolution of Buying Books

As well as know, book stores are dying a slow death. And one of the groups that bemoans this fact are the denizens of academia. College students, instructors and the like are the ones that are killing off the book store. I suppose the question is how, but it's rather simple.

College students read a lot and have to buy books for classes. But because they're students they do not have limitless resources to spend upon books. So options like Amazon and eBay and used book sources are better alternatives. With a reduced revenue stream, book stores are forced to look at other methods of bringing in business. So they cater to the more casual forms of literature. Cookbooks, self-help, pop culture biographies and then main stream garbage like Fifty Shades of Grey.

As students like to think that they want to support book stores, they head out to these stores every now and again and find the book stores loaded with cookbooks, self-help, pop culture biographies and Fifty fucking Shades of Shit. It then creates this circle that gets tighter and tighter and literature of merit are less in demand. For example, at a recent visit to the book store, the Shakespeare section was one case and then the Romance section had six cases. Granted, there are far more Romance novels than works by Shakespeare (even counting Cliff Notes about his plays, sonnets and things and stuff). But still.

I mean, what's the appeal of Romance novels? Why can't people just watch porno? And why do people look down their nose at porno, but people don't look down at Romance novels. I mean, hypocrisy of the highest order here. We're all sexual beings, I don't judge how people like to get their rocks off, yet, c'mon. Porno is more believable than Romance novels too. Porn really dropped all the pretenses now and Romance novels have continued to be filled with crappy nonsense. These mystical meetings of people and all that yakkity yak.

In any event, this cycle has created the death of book stores and the evolution of buying books. Things are cheaper, more accessible and we have a better selection. Moreover, we have electronic texts and dodads to read them on. So in short, we miss what book stores were and not what they are and when they finally die we'll all be better off.

Lies. Dirty Rotten Flighty Lies.

So the Boston Red Sox are playing the Tampa Bay (Devil) Rays in the playoffs. Brief aside, Devil Rays is a terrible team name that was only made worse by calling them the Rays. Though in all fairness the Tampa Bay area is terrible. But there have been a rash of social media outbursts about thing perpetrated by Red Sox fans against the various contingents of Rays' players, fans and what not.

Firstly, David Price's girlfriend, known colloquially in Massachusetts as "A Fucking Liar" made various claims about fans throwing trash and generally being assholes. Well being an asshole is every baseball fans' god given right. But what defines an asshole baseball fan? Swearing, drinking, all that fun stuff? Maybe. I think the term asshole can only be applied to fans who go out of their way to bother people. But even still. It's playoff baseball. She called Sox fans "pieces of shit". Right, because it was Sox fans who killed that guy in California. Oh wait, no.

Another salacious story was that a Sox fan stole a sting ray out of the horribly misguided aquarium thing they have there. Who the fuck steals a sting ray? Who saw him stealing a fucking sting ray and didn't stop him? These items inspire such skepticism.

Now, the point of this post is, who the fuck believes these lies? These two stories are ridiculous. But why do they get so much traction?

Social media?

It's a way to lie.

Attention seeking dopes?

They do lie. But it is a way for them to seek attention.

So what then?

People. People lie because other people believe their lies and that makes people lie more and more.

So what's the solution?

Well, there really isn't one obvious solution. If you're stupid that is. But for the people who have a quarter of a brain cell left in their heads the solution is obvious, though somewhat painful. We need to start calling people out on their bullshit. Or even better, ignore them. Don't acknowledge that they even exist.

We all have bullshit meters in our heads. Some better calibrated than others. But when we hear these things that set off those little imaginary meters in our heads, we need to call people out. Sitting idly by and letting people lie is how they lie more.

Let's take a hypothetical situation. The girlfriend of an athlete is probably going to be an attractive woman in most cases. So she's pretty and what not. Who tells pretty people to shut up? Who tells them they're liars? No one. Attractive people sometimes get a carte blanche to say whatever rattles into their dumb heads. Not all attractive people of course. But a vapid dunce who dates an athlete, who I'm sure built their relationship on a deep personal connection, probably hasn't heard or acknowledged any negativity in her life.

So that's why lies multiply and exist as they do.

The Full Circle of Ben Affleck as Batman

I'm rooting for Ben Affleck as Batman. I wasn't before he got cast. I wasn't when I heard. But now, now I want him to excel and shine as Batman. I want people (who probably were a lot like me) to eat crow about this. Not because he's the best choice. Not because I have a vested interest in him as the character. But because the backlash on social media and among the groups with which I speak of such matters has been so ridiculous that I've turned sides. Which is actually quite logical for several reasons.

The fact that Ben Affleck is now Batman doesn't discourage me from seeing the new film. It didn't before. My initial anger about his casting was because of the missed opportunity I perceived. The films that had been floated out were so tempting and so exciting to me that it was like getting a bicycle instead of new ice skates for Christmas. In all honesty there's nothing wrong with a  bike, but ice skates would've been better. Jon Hamm and Josh Brolin had so much potential to be the Robert Downey Jr. that DC and Warner Brothers were looking for. Even though logistically it may have not been possible for either actor. Affleck fit the suit and that's why he's the Caped Crusader.

Thinking about his prowess as an actor is unnecessary. Because quite simply he is playing Batman. No one is ever picked to play Bruce Wayne. And that's the problem with Batman actors. Nearly every actor has a detractor who has played Batman. The ongoing debate about Christian Bale's acting abilities is, plainly put, fucking stupid. The guy can act and act well. The thing is, every time an actor puts on the cape and cowl, they become Batman. Their abilities as an actor are almost dwarfed by how iconic the suit is, how iconic the emblem is. They become Batman. The real challenge for an actor is to play Bruce Wayne well. And too many people forget how important Bruce Wayne is to the dynamic of any Batman film. And make no mistake, this is not Man of Steel 2: Kryptonian Bugaloo this is Batman. Batman as a character is more popular and any of the actors whose names were bandied about for Batman were bigger than Henry Cavill. No disrespect to him. In short, we don't have to worry about Affleck as Batman. His suit won't have nipples, his chin is fine for the movie, he'll look cool, he'll look buff and the action sequences will be fun. And if he brings his A game to be Bruce Wayne, not Batman, then he will and we will be just fine.

The final part of my turn around is how awful the backlash was. I mean people are just fucking morons. If your issue is he doesn't have the look or he isn't a good actor, those are predicated upon opinion and don't have to change. If your problem is based on non-factors or ill researched ideas, well then you suck. I've heard that Affleck won't be big enough for the role. He is six foot four. Henry Cavill is six foot one. In case you didn't know, Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson is six foot four. Hugh Jackman is six foot two. Size isn't a problem. There's also the deluge of shittastic jokes that aren't funny and were hacky about ninety seconds after he was cast.

"Does this mean Matt Damon/Casey Affleck/Jennifer Gardner is going to be Robin/The Joker/Catwoman?"

No. Your joke is stupid and the mouth that made those sounds to form the joke is a waste of flesh.

"Ben Affleck is going to be the DAHK KNAGHT"

First off, Ben Affleck doesn't have an accent. He can do one. I'm not sure he even actually ever had one. The stigma of Hollywood where the Boston accent is poisonous, but cud-chewing Southerners and New Yorkers and random people of British descent are keen as kale might contribute to that. Secondly no one on the planet earth has an accent like that.

In short, the jokes have sucked, the arguments against him that aren't predicated on ability or look suck and I am fully behind my new bicycle while I hold out hope for ice skates next time. Affleck is Batman. Make the shirts, I'm wearing one.

The Dark Knight Returns And Strikes Back and Returns Again

Superman is trying to enjoy his box office success. However, the pointy-eared cowl of the Batman has speared away any individual triumph the Man of Steel wants to attain.  Simply put, a combination of Marvel's success with The Avengers and their characters' films coupled with the overwhelming popularity of the Caped Crusader, has castrated Kal-El. And I'm pleased as punch. But I have an undying love of Batman going back to The Animated Series and the one true Batman Kevin Conroy. But he is the new reality of DC. He is the atom bomb, the first strike and the last resort. Batman Begins brought back big budget box office (ALLITERATION! TOASTY!) superhero success (AGAIN ALLITERATION!). And now he's the go to weapon. The phaser, the lightsaber, the Jonny Hendricks' God Hand. He is the character Warner Brothers wants and needs. 

It's no wonder Batman is going to show up in Supes' movie (and steal the goddamn thunder if the casting rumors are true). And it's also no wonder they're using a Batman centric arc to model the film. The Dark Knight Rises and the animated adaptation of The Dark Knight Returns have been big pieces of DC's film output the past two years. The story, by Frank Miller, is balls to the wall. Show the world without Batman. Show the world what happens when he comes back. Show the world how Bruce Wayne can die and the Batman can still live. It's one of the greatest arcs of all time. And DC knows this. 

Because it's such a gem, the names being throw out are big time. The top two being Josh Brolin and Ryan Gosling. I know I'm late to the party on this. But these are two "fuck yeah!" choices for Batman. Brolin more so than Gosling in my opinion. He's got the age, the voice, the chin and the size. Not to mention the acting chops. In any event, these aren't small potatoes or lunkheads. These are two experienced thespians who can take this film by the balls. And all due respect to Henry Cavill, I rather enjoy him as Superman, but either of these two (or Jon Hamm, FINGERS CROSSED!) plus the mystique the cape and cowl bring will overshadow him. And DC knows in this. And Warner Brothers knows this. And Zach Snyder knows this. And Christopher (No wonder the first six letters of his first name spell Christ) Nolan knows this. 

So? So what? Well, this just shows that all those rumors after TDKR came out about what's next had some ground to stand on. They were just looking for the right way to bring him back. Batman is the doorway superhero. He's a man. Not a mutant, alien, magical being. But his stories have featured mutants, aliens and magical beings. He is a gateway drug so to speak. Get the public on Bats, get them to buy he and Superman together, get them to believe in the Speed Force, the Green Lantern Corps and Atlantis. Then from there Martian Manhunter and Power Girl (can't tell which one is more unrealistic, shape shifting Martian or a ginormous bust) are just a film away. Could Thor have stood alone without Iron Man before it and the knowledge of the Avengers coming? Probably not. This is the same strategy. Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man or Zatanna (oh I hope) and Animal Man. Not that far of a stretch. 

Comic Con Checks and Balances

I went to Boston Comic Con. A girl dressed like Jessica Rabbit wrapped her leg around me for a photo. This was awesome. Who was she? Who knows? Why was she there? Who cares? All I know is that Comic Con represents the best in people. You've got an amply developed woman dressing like a cartoon character. For my amusement? For hers? Maybe she gets off on it. Maybe I do (did). Either way, interests collided into a form fitting red sequined dress. But that same type of collision also causes friction in people. 

My friends at Omega-Level.net had a booth at Comic Con and were selling some fantastic t-shirts. Namely the "Fuck Lucas" shirts done in the Star Wars font. Tasteful, elegant active wear to say the least. And a young man, presumably a Star Wars fan, definitely a fan of George Lucas, asked "what's the meaning of this?" in reference to the shirt. When it was explained to him it was due to how awful the prequels were, he stormed off in a huff. And that is no different than Jessica Rabbit and I. 

Interests bring us together. Sometimes they fall under a wide umbrella that brings more people together. However, ideas conflict with each other. Is it that they hate what George Lucas has done? Not all of it. Is it that the guy loved everything Lucas has ever done? Maybe. But they both love Star Wars Episodes 4-6. And yet they ended their conversation on a less than favorable note. Well the guy did. He looked angry and depressed. Ang-pressed. Which is what I was after seeing Ang Lee's Hulk. Hi-Yoooooo! In any event, Jessica was there to be her character, I was there to spy on Billy West. Yet, we both love tight form fitting dresses. Her wearing, me looking/ogling/touching/removing. And that brought us together. This lends itself to a greater idea. 

Comic Con, as well as other cons (not Con Air, whoa! 2 for 2) are about similar interests and the cohesion and conflicts they cause. I'm sure tattoo, car, gun, porn (the rest of the Big Five) conventions have the same interactions. 

Man: (Sees "Fuck Tribal/Chevy/Glock/Sunny Leone" shirt) "what's the meaning of this?"

Guy at Table: "I love old Tribal/Chevys/Glocks/Sunny Leone. But their/her new shit is awful"

Man: (storms off)

Now aside from the Sunny Leone shirt doubling as a positive message, those conversations can and probably have happened. But also, across the convention floor, someone met someone cool and took a picture. Checks and balances.

Job, Career, Profession

I read an article today on jobs that require schooling that doesn't pay off. Dozens of these articles are written every week. And much like articles of that ilk, each "bad" job comes with a "better" counterpart. Which is kind of moronic, the job market shifts and changes over time, with some constants. People go away from a job and that job comes back because there is diminished interest. The article does this for several fields. So when they got to reporter being a job not worth the schooling, they recommended police officer as an alternative. This is really fucking stupid. 

First off, if you want to be a reporter, police officer isn't equivalent. They're not even the same field. It's ridiculous to think of them being in the same realm. Reporter- Bring people news. Police Officer- Stop crime and criminals. Now those are simplistic job parameters but not inaccurate in any way. 

Secondly, my biggest problem with this. Being a cop shouldn't be a career decision. It should be whether or not an individual is willing, able and capable of protecting and serving the citizens of their respective jurisdictions. People are becoming cops for the benefits and not for the desire to be a cop. This is horrible thinking. Would you want a guy who just wants to do his shift and go home? No. We want John McClane and Harry Callahan. We want Tango & Cash and Riggs & Murtaugh. I don't want the cops in my city, state or county having the same mentality as Fred Flintsone. Hear the whistle, slide down a brontosaurus tail and go home. That's dangerous. 

Would you want a doctor who got into his field solely for the money? Police officer is turning into the new lawyer. People want a good career, they flood the market, water it down and good candidates for the jobs get lost in the shuffle. 

Granted, this article was a silly time waster. But some people believe Matt Damon is gay because he was in the Liberace movie. So it wouldn't be a stretch to assume that some might take it to heart, become cops and when your house is being invaded they're on break reading an article about how reporters are in demand. 

The Great Moments

In thinking about relationships I have one view, they're all about great moments. People talk about compatibility and things like that, but in reality relationships are either of convenience or, as the best ones are, about making great moments. The end of solid relationships comes from the perceived notion that no more great moments can be made. This can be due to changes in either person or their situation. Some might argue against this, but think about this, breakup sex.

Why would you have sex with someone you were leaving or had already left or vice versa? Because it's a great moment. Because it's what you want out of a relationship. And sex is by far the greatest of great moments. It's close and intimate contact, it's the deepest (PUN CITY USA!) level of human desire that is societal, biological and evolutionary. And relationships are about having these great moments. 

You meet your partner (girlfriend, boyfriend, wife, husband, side piece) and you go do something nice. Dinner, walk on the beach, drinks. Maybe not the side piece. She might get a can of Schlitz and cold pizza. In any event, you try to make a great moment out of it, you try something new at the restaurant, you kiss in the moonlight of the beach, you both get plastered and fondle each other in the cab home. Then sex. Great moment to great moment. That's what relationships are founded on. So often you sit in your underwear waiting for that next moment to happen. 

Vacations, concerts, all sorts of activities are all predicated on great moments for relationships. Because you can do so many things alone. But you do them with a partner to create more great moments.

It's silly to think of relationships as a series of bridges between events, but it makes sense. People do things they hate for people that they care for to get to more great moments. Or they do it to give their other half a great moment. Archery class, country music, parent's house for dinner, all things people suffer through for their partner in the hopes of a reciprocated great moment. Which almost invariably should be sex. And lots of it. Because it's sex. Which we all should love and enjoy. 

Personally, as much as I hate relationships to end, I always have those great moments that I can go back to. And that's how we should view it. Especially the sex. 

Who Cares About History?

Don't let the title fool you. I love history. There are amazing stories. I devoured a collected work of essays about Britain's Special Operation Executive recently. But the concept of history is something I have applied to my own life. I hear a lot of people get up in arms about their heritage or where they're from. Which is fine. I hear people pine on and on about their families. Which is also fine. Me? I only really give a shit about what I did and what I've seen. 

History is not a series of facts. Facts are not written down. They're just facts. Fact: We need air to breathe so we can live. History was created because of the invention of writing. That's what separates pre-history from history. So facts have really nothing to do with the foundation of history, they just had a method of being recorded. But lies can be recorded too. They can be written or kept orally and treated as facts with no real evidence of them. Then they're part of history. Jesus wasn't born December 25th Year Zero AD. He was born, because he existed. We know he existed because there's several accounts of him. This isn't my idea or quote, but history is a series of conflicting accounts. Think of Rashomon. And if you don't know what that is watch it now. But everybody has a different view point and therefore that produces a different history. Once that nonsense is sifted then basic facts come out. 

Which is why, I don't care about my history. Not my life mind you, my history. I love my parents and I respect who they are, but beyond them in following my origin? Who cares? I'm me with my own facts and I don't have times for every set of facts and truths and histories from the males and females in my genetic line who formed me. 

Think about it like this. Two people break up. One says he's a dick, the other says she's a bitch. Each have their own facts, but from an outside perspective those facts are null and void. They're dependent on your relationship with either one. 

So at the end of the day I keep my facts and discard the others. Because I don't care and I don't have time to worry about every individual's history.

Jumping the Shark Isn't a Bad Thing

At this weekend's Comic-Con, the next Avengers and Superman films were announced. It was as sure as a blackout drunk at a bachelor party but this was the official word. Yet, Disney/Marvel and Warner Brothers/DC dropped megatons of awesome all over the kingdom of comics. 

Avengers 2 is subtitled "Age of Ultron". For the uninformed, Age of Ultron was a recent story arc written by Brian Michael Bendis and features robot extraordinaire Ultron tear-assing up the world. So what? Some might say. I'd say they should shut their faces and get ready for what could potentially be the greatest thing ever (in comic book films, not the world, because that'd be silly to say). Aside from the excellent source material, one of the biggest players in the story arc is Wolverine. Hugh Jackman said he would like it if the old Canucklehead showed up in an Avengers film. Does that mean we'll see claws pop next to Mjolnir and Cap's Shield and Scarlett Johannson's leathery leathery leather leather? Probably not. But until then a boy can dream. And undoubtably this movie will be well made and hugely successful. Even without Hank "Wife-Slapper" Pym in it. But dropping such a huge piece of information about the series and for a movie two years away will tickle the fancies of so many fanboys. 

Simply put, Batman is going to be in the next Superman film. No synopsis or casting info has been announced. Warner Brothers pulled a Tony Stark against the Avengers.

 "You have an Ultron? We have a Batman." 

This was done as intentionally as the Age of Ultron subtitle announcement. They want people talking and reading and debating over who will play Batman, whether or not the universes are connected and who will play Batman. These questions can be answered with one piece of casting info that hinges on JGL himself. If he's casted, then the universes are the same. Anyone else, it's new new new. Which is the better path. 

Now, in case you don't see it, this is a Cold War. They're busting out the big guns to get mouths and eyes moving. The difference between these companies is that Marvel has a full slate of films coming out to tease and tide their fans. DC has Batman. Having Batman teased at this stage is like have a world ending bomb but the enemy having a full stockade of deadly, but smaller weapons. It's almost like saying "all or nothing bitches, two men enter, one man leaves."

While these companies do this, the fans win. They both wanna win the superhero franchise crown and are pulling out the stops. What storylines will DC use to sell their films? What mystery actor will fill the role of a beloved Marvel character in a film? It's an orgy of rumor and perfect for the comic community, which lives on the forums and dies by the comment section. 

American Princesses and the Inherited Nonsense

There's an unhealthy obsession with princesses in our culture. I'm not talking squarely about Disney ones either. Because I don't think a girl's love of those characters translates into the attention that the British Royal family receives. I love(d) superheroes and I think the real world buffoons who dress up and "fight crime", get featured in a tongue and cheek news report are dopes. So I choose not to believe that's the case. And while most people in this county (read: all) choose not to believe things, mine is innocuous and doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. I think the obsession comes straight from an internal naturalistic urge to be a princess.

In all honesty, I wouldn't be shocked if 60% of women, not girls, wanted to be Kate Middleton right now. Some might say that figure is too high, those people should realize there's no end to the variability in human thought. We live in a country where the reaction to disasters, crimes and sporting events is vandalism, theft and violence. But that's beside the point. Unless you're about to suffer the wraith of an unruly mob. Then my points are irrelevant to you in your hour of need. But, back to the point. There's a quotient of people who are considered "famous". These people end up on tabloids, newspapers (which are often one in the same), websites and the news. The fact that a foreign princess is there is astounding. The fact that she doesn't get shit talked is flabbergasting. Doesn't matter who it is, presidents, actresses, musicians, they all have bogus headlines and unflattering pictures on these media outlets. Except for the princess. Even the Royal family gets a ration of garbage. "Queen's Lesbian Love Affair" with the Queen in a picture with a lady who looks like my 9th grade gym coach. But the princess is fashionable and fun and ever so charming. Make sure you say that last sentence in your head with a whimsical story book voice. 

And the question is why. I think it's because ideally, it's not a bad gig. And it hits on all the tropes of traditional society. Girl meets prince, falls in love, gets married, has offspring, waited on by servants who used to be kitchenware and house hold appliances. Or crabs. There's love, there's marriage, children and a title. Titles are important. You can be a princess, which has tasks and responsibilities, but don't really have to work. Like I said, not a bad gig. 

However, this appreciation/obsession with princesses follows some into their adult lives. Which is sad. They're never going to be a princess. Though, if I said I still dreamt of being a Ghostbuster, I'd be called foolish and silly. Why aren't these princess obsessed ladies chastised in the same way? Well, aside from being ladies. 

I suspect the secondary part of this equation is that most men want princesses. And I know what you're thinking, "not all men want subservient women". While true (barely) there's all kinds of princesses, ones who kick ass and ones from the ocean. Plenty of flavors to choose from. And I think men in general like being the prince, they like having the ability to swoop in and scoop up a beautiful lass and give her a castle and servants and a big fucking tiger. 

The last component is probably just the archetype of princes and princesses. Idealized relationships that people want. Faithful and strong bonds that come with a weight beyond each other. Like Romeo & Juliet, Bonnie & Clyde and Jack & Diane, princes and princesses represent a type of relationship that presents itself in broad terms. 

At the end of the day I suppose it doesn't matter. I just don't know why foreign royalty gets so much press.

Characters Have Character

The current live action Spider-Man, Andrew Garfield, has come out and thinks that Spider-Man would be a good homosexual character. This of course has started people chiming in with their thoughts. And much like when the Ultimate version of Spider-Man was killed and replaced by Miles Morales, I will say this. Peter Parker is Spider-Man.

There are plenty of superheroes who have been portrayed by different people. There are several Green Lanterns and Flashes. However, looking at the origin of those characters it is seen that they are not defined by who they are, but by what they make use of. The Green Lantern of Sector 2814, be he Hal Jordan, John Stewart, Kyle Rayner or whomever has slipped on the ring is filing a role. They did not create the Green Lantern, they became Green Lanterns. The Flash, Wally West or Barry Allen, is utilizing the Speed Force. These men assume roles. However, there are characters that are defined by who they become as heroes. Bruce Wayne becomes Batman because his parents were killed in front of him. James "Logan" Howlett (or whatever other names he has) is the Wolverine because he is a mutant and therefore looks a certain way and does certain things because of who he is. Peter Parker becomes Spider-Man, not because of being bitten by a radioactive spider, but because his uncle was killed. Peter Parker has a genius level intellect. He would have found another way to fight crime without have his super powers. And his awkwardness around girls, his relationships with Gwen Stacy and Mary Jane Watson are all apart of who he is.

Don't get me wrong, it's not that there shouldn't be homosexual superheroes. Batgirl is a lesbian and a fantastic character who uses the inspiration from Batman and her father James Gordon to fight crime. The Captain, an oft-forgotten character from the exceptional "To Hell and Back" Sin City story arc, was a homosexual Navy SEAL who helped save the main character Wallace. The point being, you don't have to change characters to make them role models or whatever. There are alternate universe versions of characters that exist (Batman is goddamn pirate in one!), but the main continuity exists as it does for a reason. And that reason is characters need to be maintained.

The entire comic book industry is about maintaining. Why do you think Batman doesn't kill? Hint, hint, it has nothing to do with morals or ethics or a code. The Joker was killed in his first appearance, by Batman, and the fans loved the characters so much that they made up some nonsense to bring him back. He doesn't kill because they need to maintain the characters that they have.

Punisher kills. Except for the really good characters. They always come back. Jigsaw, Bushwhacker, these characters are interesting and that is why they survive the rampaging death that is Frank Castle. For Pete's sake, he decapitates the Russian. The Russian becomes wildly popular, so they bring him back as a cyborg thing...with boobs. Comics are about maintaining for the most. Now, I know this isn't true with the Walking Dead or other fantastic comics or "graphic novels", but for the heroes and villains of comics they need to be maintained.

Some might say, what's the big deal? Well, for starters, changing something deeply routed in a character changes their entire outlook. Gender, race, sexual orientation and economic standing are some of the biggest defining factors in all of our lives. Changing one, changes huge pieces of the character. And in doing that they compromise the integrity of the character. With that having been said, Samuel L. Jackson is tremendous as Nick Fury. The version of Nick Fury he bases his character on is the Nick Fury that is based on him. It's meta as fuck. But, the Nick Fury he is based on is the Ultimate version of character. The other Nick Fury still exists. The one who fought in World War 2 and yet is still able to move in 2013. What I'm trying to say here is, don't change a character, make a new one, in a new universe and let that character live out their lives and develop as one would in real life. The two Furys are different characters in a lot of ways. They both fill their role, but they both develop differently into new entities that reflect the inner workings of their characters.

Think about this, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies might be made into a movie. They're not making Pride and Prejudice the novel into a zombie movie. Big difference. The characters themselves are not being changed, but instead new characters are being crafted to fill a role. For instance, there's Spider-Man 2099 where a man named Miguel O'Hara learns about Spider-Man and takes up the mantle to fight injustice. I enjoy this version of the character. Is he Spider-Man, yes? Is he The Spider-Man? No. They aren't changing the character to suit their needs and they're not bumping off the character to change him. Instead, he's being used properly and co-habituating the universe.

In short, Peter Parker/Spider-Man isn't going to become homosexual. Though they did kill him in one universe and replace him, they had Otto Octavious take over his brain and they had him literally turn into a spider...several times. The reason being is the public in this country wouldn't want that, nor would they want any homosexual superheroes. Which is a shame, because there are terrific characters who developed their superhero identities while developing their sexual identities, which is a fascinating story-telling device.

But beyond Spider-Man (cause I don't want to seem like a dick for shooting down an idea that people love and I will acknowledge a potential hypocrisy on my part) characters don't get changed. As much as we would like them to. The Walking Dead TV show has driven a many fanboy straight to their computer to write something angry about something that was done with a character. Some people lost their shit when Superman killed General Zod in Man of Steel. Oh wait, SPOILERS!!! To be honest, I like these respective changes. And they carry emotional weight. Now, you might ask me why I'm kosher with killing or killing off a character but not the aforementioned Spider-Man related issue. Simply because, it strikes me as different. Superman is still Superman when he breaks General Zod's neck. And who he is becomes tested as Zod is threatening the lives of people. Superman must make a choice to save by taking a life. Being homosexual is just something people are born as. You don't get a choice. Some of the most important and dramatic moments in any form of fiction is when characters have to make a choice. And by taking them out of their normal realms and making them make a different choice changes the complexities of an existing character and not the character themselves.

But "what about Shakespeare?" asks no one. Every time there is a production of a Shakespearean play there are changes to the time, to the clothing, to how the characters are played. Yet! The character themselves do not change. Hamlet's father still died and he had a quasi-girlfriend. King Lear is still a crazy coot with three daughters. The changes that are made are cosmetic and not the choices that affect the perspective and values of the characters.

When I heard that there was going to be an Evil Dead remake, I was skeptical as hell. When I found out there was no Ash (Bruce Campbell's deadite killing, strong chinned, slapstick ass kicker from the original trilogy) I was even more against it. Then I saw it. And it was good. Nothing to rewrite the book of horror for like Cabin in the Woods, but it was good. No Ash, the original story is intact, everybody wins. However, the Total Recall remake, well that really just screwed the pooch, didn't it? Characters were changed to the point that there wasn't even a reason to remake it.

At the end of day, characters should stay the way that they are. If you want a character to exemplify other qualities...make a new one. Don't change an existing character because their name has so much power to it. That's cheap and unnecessary.  

The Illusion of Freewill

In seeing the many events of the past year, murders, tragedies and all that other piddling crap that sags under the dire importance of preventing tragedies and murders, the question I keep coming back to is freewill. In short, I don't believe it exists. Of course, you have to have a malleable definition of freewill. Like if you say, "I have freewill, I'm going to stop reading this blog" well then your definition may be too small and narrow for me to make any headway. However, we should all take the time to examine our choices in life and see where they bring us and most importantly why we made them to begin with. 

Let us say that there's a married couple. Happily married. For about six years. They love each other and worked hard to get where they are. One night, one of them meets someone interesting and provocative. Before you know it there's a used rubber and a hotel bill. They keep the affair a secret and build up their cash back points until the other partner finds out. Tearfully they argue with each other and the unfaithful one professes her love and apologizes. The scorned partner is still upset but forgives and they reconcile. Then the unfaithful one meets another interesting and provocative person. The question here would be why? The answer could be anything. Yet, let us assume that the unfaithful partner really does love their significant other. Why would that happen then? I submit that because there's no such thing as freewill. The unfaithful partner was bound to be unfaithful and the forgiving one was bound to forgive. If not, then they wouldn't have done what they had done. At least in my opinion. 

But I don't think freewill is based on the stars guiding us or some otherworldly force. I believe it's entirely genetic. Why do people have types? Why is it that some people are all around intelligent? Or athletic for that matter? Because we're all born with a skill set and capacities for those skill sets. 

Think about this, where does arousal come from? Whether you like tall, short, skinny, fat, handsome, ugly, tone, bulky, smart or dumb, there are things about people that are arousing. Whether you like to be kissed, caressed, fondled, grabbed, forced, guided, shown or just plain fucked, there are physical touches that you like. So thinking in this manner, all arousal and stimuli are based in the brain. You might say "no shit". But I submit that your arousal by a tall, skinny, ugly, tone and dumb person who kisses, and fondles you is ingrained in your DNA. So at the end of the day, the choices we actually can make are predicated on built in preferences. 

Back to the couple. Maybe before they met the unfaithful spouse was seeing someone. Then the spouse met their partner and despite being with someone, they chose another. Maybe every choice you've ever made is linked to something hardwired in. 

Now, I know what you're thinking, what about people with maternal or paternal issues, people who find partners like their parents and often parents they have issues with. Well, those people are subservient. The parent merely fills the void that their inner desires want and then they project that on prospective mates. 

Even though I talk primarily about sex here, this line of thinking can be applied universally. Though, sex makes the most sense. It's our underlying and primal driving force. It also gets us in the most trouble. Which you may now blame on your genes if you so choose. 

The Massachusetts Music Conundrum

There's a surprisingly large contingent of "country" music fans in Massachusetts. Jason Aldean is playing Fenway Park and there's other "artists" playing shows throughout the state to nearly sold out crowds. I put country in quotes because what they play is not country. What they play is party music, something people get drunk to. Country, as it was, was played by men like Waylon Jennings, Hank Williams and Merle "Most Country Name in the World" Haggard, as well as ladies like Patsy Cline. And while some may hear the pang of steel guitars and the country twang in the vocals, the current incarnation of country is not the same. Those men and women sang about heartache and loss. Their drinking was to mourn and not to celebrate. They came from hard places and had hard lives and it manifested itself in the music. Their message was life sucks backwater dog balls so do what you can. Current country's message is get drunk and be an ass. This is a problem. But the question is why such songs are popular in such a non-country area such as Massachusetts? 

To understand the success of country, try and understand that Boston is a large cosmopolitan city. Fifth largest metro area in the nation. And therefore, things that are chic and popular will eventually find its way into the collective consciousness of the city and therefor state. Also, Massachusetts has a lot of people who enjoy drinking a lot. And good for them, get smashed when you like. Combining these two concepts produces the appreciation for new country. Drunk plus cool equals country success. Which also equals not cool. 

But why doesn't traditional country resonate? There's plenty of residents who live by the old country message. Life sucks, lets get drunk and forget. Instead, the people who make new country popular are by and large a crowd that's had things relatively easy. And the message of woohoo let's get drunk takes prominence. 

What about the other genres with songs that say woohoo let's get drunk? What about the prevalence of southern stereotypes that a good deal of new country lovers in Massachusetts believe? When did Massachusetts start loving foreign bodies over their homespun success? The answer to all of these questions is simple. The world is a whole hell of a lot smaller and socially people are more apt to choose fitting in. 

I'm typing this on my phone. I hit one button and it belongs to the world. A girl can take a picture of herself in daisy dukes, boots and a Stetson and have it all over the world with the caption "GOING 2 C CHESNEY LOL" before you can blink twice. So guys see it, they wanna make sexys with girls like that (read, any girl who will) and they buy tickets. Their buddies want to go to hang and get drunk and before you know it, that's a sold out in an arena or amphitheater. And how did the girl get into country? The patient zero if you will. She heard it at bar drunk, used an app on her phone to find out who it was and then she downloaded it and listened to it ad nauseam.   

There's nothing wrong with rocking out to country. I just don't like it myself. However, I'm continually stymied by its popularity considering the lyrics are about fried chicken and moonshine and I live in a land where the fried chicken sucks and moonshine is sold in stores. 

The Lone Ranger and the Death of the American Legend

I have not seen The Lone Ranger. But I did see that it bombed in a way that is going to stain Johnny Depp's illustrious track record over the past decade and change. I suppose the question is going to be why? And unlike Dredd, a fantastically made actioner that bombed, I actually have an answer. Kids don't know who the flying fuck the Lone Ranger is. Batman, Superman, Iron Man, Captain America and all the Avengers have been active in comics, cartoons and video games since the 70s. Generations have grown up pretending to be The Dark Knight and Big Blue. Not many kids since the 60s have donned domino masks and six shooters foiling robberies. There are a few reasons for this and putting them all together forms the plan for a box office bomb.

I think the fact that the movie starred Johnny Depp and Armie Hammer is very telling. And that is how the movie came across. It was Johnny Depp, Tanto, the sidekick of the story, who takes top billing and Armie Hammer, the Lone Ranger, the hero of the story who comes in second place. While it makes sense that Depp gets pushed to pull in people, it doesn't make sense why these two men were even in this movie. Well actually it does, because there was no one else. There's no western stars anymore. There's no more macho tough American actors. Johny Wayne, Lee Marvin, Lee Van Cleef and a whole host of tough guy cowboy/soldier/boxer/Mongolian emperor (John Wayne is the only one in this category) types anymore. Everybody does something. Chris Evans is Captain America, but also the guy from Not Another Teen Movie as well as awful romantic comedies. Granted he was also Johnny Storm (which we'll all pretend didn't happen), but actors go all over the ballfield. There's no template for movie cowboys anymore, there's nothing to compare these men to and there is no precedent for children to see what a cowboy movie is.

The western genre and the American cowboy have not been popular for children in a long, long time. There's SpongeBob and anime and no space for cowboys. Besides, the western genre has all but disappeared from main stream media. There have been some fantastic "westerns" that weren't set in the old west as of late. The Proposition showed how dynamic the genre can be when taken out of the States and dropped into Australia. If anything, the western genre is alive in mature, adult oriented entertainment (I'm not talking about porn here, though there are a good number of them set in dude ranches and saloons). Or, like The Proposition, they take the concept of the western and use it to buttress stories, such as Django Unchained or The Last Stand. Knowing full well that Quentin Tarantino looked to Spaghetti Westerns, there is still the concept of man standing up to do what's right against impossible odds. And while this is nothing new, there have been plenty of stories that use such angles, the cowboy, the old west lawman, was part of American lore that bent the truth to fulfill the purpose of storytelling. It was domestic bravery at its best, something more than the wars in Europe and Asia could be.

Most importantly, the reason the Lone Ranger was not a success was because the lynchpin of westerns is quite simply the gun. The six shooter, the Colt, sidearm, it is something that has become taboo in modern America. Heroes are not brandishing guns anymore. Due to the fervor and public perception of firearms, guns have become a negative aspect of main stream society. Rambo (from First Bloods 2&3) and the Terminator would have had a tremendous amount of trouble if they came out now. Superheroes don't use guns. You know, except when they do. Batman has vehicles that have enough fire power to level a city block, Iron Man's suit could destroy a country and Superman's dad in Man of Steel is apparently Jason Bourne. But that notion that cowboys and old west lawmen relied on their shiny pieces of .45 firing steel does not sit well with people.

In closing the fact is that the only cowboys kids really know about are playing in Dallas and have a ridiculously over the top stadium. And on 4th of July weekend what kids want, kids get. Single guys are too busy getting hammered and burning themselves by touching grills, fireworks or being under the sun for too long to go to a movie theatre. Parents will take their kids out of the heat into the artic meccas of mountains of popcorn and gallons of tonic and what the kids want to see is what the kids will get. Moreover, The Lone Ranger went up against Despicable Me 2, animated films are being made better and better each year and have jokes that parents get, so a mother and a father are more willing to chuckle at the lines that fly over their kids' heads for a few hours of peace. In any event, hopefully studios will see that the western needs to be reintroduced. Smarter, smaller and better crafted films that focus on the core values of the American Legends of the Old West.

By the way, The Good, The Bad and The Ugly might be one of the greatest films of all time if not the greatest film of all time. It's not impossible to make a movie half as good as that, which in turn would be doubly better than The Lone Ranger.

What's in a Name?

The question of names has come up several times. If you think about a name, it's something that is given, sometimes with a pre-existing meanings, that end up being defined by the recipient either intentionally or unintentionally. 

A parent might name their child "Susan Hope Smith-Johnson". Susan for the mother's grandmother, hope for a quality they'd like their child to embody and Smith-Johnson because they're pretentious dopes (to paraphrase George Carlin, pick a fucking name lady). But every interaction almost negates the intention of the name. To her parents she is a daughter, to her brother she is a sister, to friends she could be Sue, Suzie, Suze or any number of variations. Moreover, her name is defined by who she is. For her first boyfriend Susan will represent a relationship and depending on how said relationship ended there might be certain connotations associated with the name. For her child she'll be mom or ma or mum or mommy or momma and Susan will be a funny word that does not fit what Susan meant to others. 

So when I hear meanings behind names I find them extraneous. Michael Keaton's real name is Michael Douglas. If I saw him I'd think "Hey, that's Michael Keaton". Actually I'd probably just yell Batman and run towards him, but that's beside the point. We make meanings for our names, just like tonic, pop and soda can all be used for a Coca Cola. Or how biscuits here and biscuits in England have the same name yet different meanings. We all make meaning and have meaning made for us. So names are kinda just placeholders until we develop personalities and things that separate us. 

First World Food

Living in any first world nation allows most of the populace to exist in relative comfort. One of the more basic comforts in our world is food. Now, food is a necessity in life and regretfully many around the world, including in the US, deal with hunger. As sad as that is it is not my focus today as my curiosity has beckoned me to the choices we who have access to any food stuff make. 

In the news there are stories about food almost constantly. From morning news programs with cooking segments to nightly warnings about food and in between are interest pieces about kitsch dining options that seem to enthrall public sentiment. I read recently that we're in the middle of a burger craze. I've always been crazy about burgers but now it's the cool thing to eat. Like the cupcake fetish it appears that we're treating food with the same attitude as music or clothing. Or any other entertainment or personalization avenues for that matter. 

Why though? Why is food becoming this thing we use to identify and aide our attempts at expression. Did people recently find out that burgers were delicious? Is this push back from the flood of people who don't eat red meat for some ungodly reason? And why aren't people eating red meat? Why weren't they eating egg yolks years ago? It can't be health reasons. We all do things that are unhealthy and far worse than eating red meat. Moreover, unless you're growing and making your own food (which I know people who do) you can't complain about red meat. So what are the answers to these questions? Honestly, I think there's only one answer. We live in the first world.

There are vegans who have said that the whole world should stop eating meat and only eat organic food. Scientists have said that half the world would starve if that happened. Now, these aren't exact quotes so don't get mad, but lets run with this premise. Why would people say that we should stop eating meat and nonorganic food? Because they live in the first world. Being a vegan is part of their identity that they chose. Much like the cupcake and burger crazes, much like not eating yolks or red meat, people are making their food choices based off of their identities. I know some people can't eat certain things for health reasons, like red meat doesn't bode we'll for people with gastrointestinal issues, as well as other health problems. But most people let food shape their identity by choice. It's a way of expressing ourselves and embracing our as well as other cultures.

So when I see people lining up at a food truck during lunch or heading to some of the more famous restaurants around Boston, I wonder whether they like it there, want to try it or want to incorporate it into their identity. Maybe a combination or maybe all three or maybe it's just close and they're hungry. 

Identity and How Much of it Do We Own?

Recently, Ellen Page, star of Juno, was asked on Reddit's AMA about working on video games and how the character of Ellie from The Last of Us looks and sounds like her. Ms. Page was understandably upset by this considering she is receiving no monetary compensation for this. However, two things must be acknowledged.

One, movies have become the apex of our society. There is nothing higher on the commercial and critical fronts of entertainment. Therefore every medium is bound to pull things from it. The Long Halloween, the seminal Batman tale, paraphrases lines of dialogue straight from The Godfather. The entire Call of Duty franchise takes things from films, from the look of the characters (Soap and the guy from Tears of the Sun with the mohawk) to the names of sections and certain scenes. The reason being these products use film influences so liberally is because of film being successful. And that inspires writers and artists to try and capture that cinematic experience. People love movies. Therefore taking things from movies in order to fulfill a wanted look makes sense. After all, Ellen Page is not the first, last or thousandth actor to have their likeness copied. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Mike Tyson and Bruce Lee have had their images copied umpteen times and have formed the archetypes of most video games, be they shooting or fighting or what have you. Moreover, the film Aliens practically created the "space marine" character and wrote most of the banter between soldiers, marines or commandoes in shooters.

Second, she didn't do anything. She didn't do anything to deserve money. She didn't do anything at all. In fact, all that happened was a character looked like her. So what if the character looked like her? What if the character was an exact carbon copy of how Ellen Page would act that role? So what? She didn't spend time rehearsing and studying and acting out the character. People will play that game and if they don't know that the character isn't Ellen Page, all it does is boost people's awareness of her. Free publicity as far as I'm concerned. And when she acknowledges or brings up The Last of Us, she is reciprocating what they did for her.

I suppose the question some one might pose to me is, "How would you feel if your likeness was used without your permission?". I would love it. People would be like, "Hey, you look like that guy from that game". Who wouldn't dig that? Maybe the character is popular and they're willing to pay me to act in it. Or maybe a rival company would steal me away. Or maybe I wouldn't give two balls because who really cares at the end of the day? If people have any smarts they know that Ellen Page's likeness was being used and they register that her value aesthetically and as an actress is so great that people steal her image. Or at least that's how I think.

Sports=Entertainment, Entertainment=Sports

Since the douchebag squad known as the Miami Heat have won the NBA Championship, I've been conflicted. In the interest of full disclosure, basketball is my least favorite of the major sports and I detest how the current version of the Miami Heat came together. There's something deeply ingrained in me that says teams should not be millionaire friends coming together to win championships. Moreover, LeBron James is a dope of the highest order. He's not a bad person from a universal perspective. He's not a rapist or murderer. But in a regional, nationalistic sense, he's an unmitigated piece of shit. And some might say I'm jealous of his life. Not really. I'm jealous of the fact that a borderline legal moron was able to use his natural abilities, with of course a modest amount of hard work, to become a millionaire superstar. However, you couldn't pay me enough to live his life. He lacks awareness and the entourage of friends from high school that he keeps are going to sink him one day. But I digress. I'm conflicted over this team because in the simplest way possible sports are entertainment and entertainment is about getting people to watch.

This confliction comes down to the fact that sports are entertainment. When  a guy and a couple friends head out to the park to play softball or a high school team suits up for a football game, that sport is primarily about the fun of the sport. Which is essentially entertainment on a minor level. The players are entertaining themselves. Of course, some might say that a high school player might be trying to get a scholarship or whatever. In the words of the recently departed James Gandolfini's most famous character, "Irregardless". At the end of the day the outcome of the game does not decide lives so it is just entertainment.

Pro sports thrive on ratings and ticket sales. If people aren't watching, then the owners lose money and if the owners lose money they either sell the team or try to bring in cash by getting better players or more marketable ones at least. Leagues work on the same principle, except switch players with teams and sell the team with let the league fold.

In thinking about how this applies to the Miami Heat, we have to see their marketability. A positive is the fact that they have two of the greatest current basketball players on their roster. A negative is the city. Miami sucks for sports because no one really cares. A negative should be a combination of players and city. Asshole players, shithole city. Should be a clear cut no-no. Yet, they drew amazing numbers to their game 7 and I haven't gone a week without seeing some mouthbreather wearing a James jersey. Why? Why does this team have so many supporters and people who want to watch them? It puzzled me until I realized what shows are on TV. Reality shows. Douchebags and assholes and dolts and dopes. All mucking about with people watching them. And I hear from folks who watch these shows that they hate this character and this one is so stupid. My question is, "why do you watch?". I deal with imbeciles every day, why should I watch a fake version of them on TV? Apparently some folks enjoy watching these types of people. And thus, my conflict continues. Is a team full of hated players good because they drive up ratings and money? Good for the sport? Probably not. Good for the fans? Well some people like villains. But then again, if you're really invested in a team then every opponent is a villain. Good for the league? Probably. David Stern must cry with joy every time the Heat win because he knows that all their negative attention is still attention. And attention means money. Even if it means losing fans of the sports because of the Heat and what they represent.

In the end, that seems to be all that matters. Movies fight for box office dollars. TV shows fight for ratings, which means dollars. That seems to be a sport in and of itself. So at the end of the day, entertainment and sports are the same beast, just different douchebags within them.

Whatever Aaron Hernandez Did, He Shouldn't Have Done It

This seems rather obvious. I don't know whether or not he killed anyone or did anything else illegal. However, I do know that when the cops come to your door and then you smash your security system and phone, you did something you weren't supposed to do. And even though people might say "Of course he shouldn't have done whatever it was that he did for reasons X,Y and Z", the question is really why. What is it about people that brings them to risking the life that they built for themselves?

Let's think about this, every athlete is physically gifted far beyond the normal person. You have to work hard of course, but you also need to be born with certain capacities that give you that extra edge in the world of professional sports. If you're born with such capacities and skills, you need to protect and bolster them by taking care of yourself physically, but also mentally and emotionally. So what does that mean? It means, cut the shit. If you get angry, talk to someone. If you hang out with dopes who do dumb things, get new friends. If you can't control your drinking or drugs, pay a guy to follow you around and grab the tequila out of your hand and smack the blow straw out of your hand. Natural gifts are rare so letting your bullshit get in the way of that is a slap in the face of those without such physical traits.

Moreover, if you are a professional athlete, you are a monetary investment. I don't believe that every athlete has to live squeaky clean and do everything like a choir boy. I actually don't care what people do outside of the game. Wanna smoke, drink, have sex with random women or hookers, party like a fool? Go right ahead. Show up on Sunday ready to go though. Teams invest so much into players that without them being able to play or being viable marketing pieces, they lose lots of cash. Which makes other teams unwilling to pay for them.

Vice is fine in my book. Sex, drugs and booze are all kosher provided you don't hurt anyone in pursuit of them or while engaging in them. But once you break out and do something with the express intent of injuring a person, you suck and deserve a hearty and harsh penalty.

Despite all of these things. Despite how simple it seems for an average person just to stay out of trouble, I don't think these guys who have gotten in trouble can help it. What this entire rambling mess boils down to is that people cannot control who they are sometimes. I'm not saying either way what Hernandez should have done or if he did anything at all, but there is a long line of athletes, actors, politicians and electricians who have done things they shouldn't do and then we all ask why. And the why is this, it's who they are. Most things about you have been decided before you were born. There are physically gifted people born everyday. That physical gift may translate to football if you're born in America, hockey if in Canada, Soccer if in England. Or it may translate into a job, physical trainer, actor. You have to have the capacity from birth to look like Brock Lesnar. On the same side, people who have the capacity for murder or rape are born everyday. You're born in a poverty torn country somewhere, you become a child soldier. You're born into a gang-laden neighborhood, you become a gangster. Sometimes you're born with the capacity to be an athlete and a killer. An actor and a rapist. We can't be surprised or shocked when anything happens because anyone you know could be born with the capacity to do something horrible. With the skills to catch a ball sometimes comes the skill to pull a trigger. And when those two abilities are in the same person, it's quite tragic when they act on the less desirable of those two traits.

So in short, why do athletes risk everything doing dumb shit? Because it's who they are as a person.

What We Believe in Music

It struck me today how we choose our music. The popularity of "Louie, Louie" inspired the government to research the lyrics to make sure there was nothing nefarious involved. It was a wildly popular song and most people had no earthly idea what they were saying. What we listen to and why has a lot to do with what we're looking for. Songs and artists seem to latch themselves onto our consciousness when we need them. I've had bands or songs that I thought nothing of until hearing them at a certain time or in a certain way.

Most recently, I saw Ghost B.C. for the first time. Their entire schtick is predicated on this satanic angle. Songs about devil worship, their concert attire being based on the pope. Seeing them at "Rock on the Range" in Columbus, Ohio really made them stand out. For some unexplained reason I got it. The music sounded better after the live performance. Now, it really has nothing to do with their songs' contents. I don't worship satan, I just really dig the music. I sing along with the songs too. Several times at work the past week I was walking through the halls, humming "Secular Haze". I'll sing along to it in the car the way I would sing along to something like "Mysterious Ways" a very pro-Christianity song. And to be honest I had no idea what "Mysterious Ways" was about until I was about 17. And that was because I had a lackluster epiphany in my 89 Mercury Cougar (Bostonian Edition mind you), listening to "Achtung, Baby". I know the words to both songs and yet they both connect to me on a level that transcends the message. And I think I know why.

For me, I like the aesthetics of a song. As someone who reads a lot and just really likes things that sound cool, I appreciate imagery and phrases that resonate with me. And I think a lot of people would agree with that. Whether it be the sounds, be they familiar or new, the words, be they challenging or comforting or even just how the song is performed connects to something deep within our brains. I would submit that a song like Frank Turner (& The Sleeping Souls)'s "Glory Hallelujah" could be presented to a Christian of strong faith and they would be hard pressed to keep the hymnal like tune out of their heads. For the uninformed the chorus of "Glory Hallelujah" was "There never was no God". Even though someone might object to the message of the song, there has to be something that ties itself to their brain.

Maybe that's why people flipped out about 2 Live Crew's "Me So Horny". They couldn't get it out of their heads and the content bothered them to the point that they had to do something about it. Same with Judas Priest. Would anyone dare tell me that they don't know at least one line of "Me So Horny" or "You Got Another Thing Coming"? No. They're catchy as hell and they transcend genre. So songs about sex and satan really aren't about those things, but about what people connect to. In a sense, lyrics can be wholly irrelevant to music. Much like with "Louie, Louie".

"Darling Nikki" is a sex fiend, "Roxanne" is a hooker and "Delia" is  murdered to death. Does that make me want to murder a woman? No. Find a hooker? No. Find a sex fiend? Kinda. But that has nothing to do with those songs. And the fact that I can sing along with Prince, Sting and Johnny doesn't mean I actually care about what the lyrics are saying. Does that render lyrics worthless? Of course not. Lyrics are what we make them. One of my favorite songs is "Love You Till The End" by the Pogues. The line "I just want to be there when the morning light explodes/on your face it radiates/I can't escape, I love you will the end" is such a charming and warm phrase that fills me with love when I feel that way about someone and hope/despair (depending what kind of day it has been) when I'm not. I get to pick and choose the meaning of lyrics to the songs I like. And that's why I love song lyrics.

Random Nonsense:
-I worked with a guy named Scottie once who told me one of the lyrics to "Louie, Louie" was "I felt my bone right in her hair" and he claimed that meant the singer rubbed his erection on his beloved's scalp.
-People who say the fact that Bon Scott sang "Highway to Hell" was why he choked to death on his vomit should be aware that Angus and Malcolm Young helped write the song and they're alive and well. Meanwhile, there's a shit ton of gospel singers who've kicked the bucket far too soon, just like Mr. Scott.
-I will listen to the "Fairytale of New York" and occasionally break into singing throughout the year, even though it is a (the best) Christmas song. Two reasons. Christmas rules and it's the best song for reminiscing about lost loves.
-My unit sang "Wake Me Up When September Ends" on the bus from the barracks the day we deployed. I'm not a Green Day fan, but that song still gives me goosebumps. And I really wish it didn't.

Bruins-Blackhawks Pre-Game Thoughts

As much as I'd like to break things down and explore the ins and outs and every subtle nuance of this series, it is essentially pointless. There has been no steadfast principle that has guided the outcome of the first two games other than in hockey shit happens. Deflections and bad/lucky/fortunate bounces are the lifeblood of the sport. So as opposed to committing myself to the maddening task of the game itself, I'm thinking deeply about the half-assed circus setup around the Stanley Cup Finals.

I was welcomed to ESPN's coverage of the Stanley Cup Finals this morning. I would have laughed had I not been brewing coffee. The coverage lasted the princely sum of five or so minutes (probably less) and Barry Melrose made the most of his scant airtime by rehashing what everyone who follows hockey knows. Some might say this is essential because not all viewers know about the ins and the outs of the series. There's two issues with this. One, people either follow hockey and know what's going on, just want to know who won and the people who'll never care. If you follow hockey you shouldn't be watching ESPN for hockey coverage. They abandon that sport for 99% of the year to cover such valid topics as one of their anchors throwing out the first pitch at a Rays game, which is roughly the equivalent of making employee of the month at a Tampa Burger King. If you only care who won, it's a four second search, a glance at a newspaper or just overhearing people on the train. You don't need the frivolous few moments to find that out. And if you don't care you don't care. People who don't care put on ESPN to be spoon fed LeBron James and Tim Tebow because their Q rating is sky high.

Aside from ESPN and their continually parallel with MTV (MTV is to music what ESPN is to sports), NBC's coverage from a technical standpoint has been fine. Their awful and biased commentary makes me head hurt. Before Game 2 they profiled Andrew Shaw, an agitator the likes of Brad Marchand with practically a fraction of the skill. NBC was trying to set him up as a focal point of the game. Granted, he scored the overtime game winner by deflecting the puck. I'm not knocking him. It was a smart, hockey play. But he in no way deserves that kind of attention. The more he plays the more we'll see how frustrating he is and how bad that style of play is for the image of hockey. 

This isn't the first time a player comparable to Marchand attracted such forced attention from NBC. During the Bruins series with the Flyers in 2011, James Van Riemsdyk became the focal point of NBC's coverage. Marchand and JVR (as he was known, I always preferred RVD honestly) had pretty much the same stats. However, it seemed like he was the second coming of Mike Bossy on broadcasts. The announcers would cackle with excitement as JVR hit the ice. The Flyers were promptly swept and JVR was shipped to Toronto.

Why do the Bruins incur such vitriol from NBC? Eddie Olyczek and Pierre McGuire can barely contain their hatred. Milbury can barely do it, but everybody gets his venom. Despite how awful of a GM he was. Jeremy Roenick gives the Bruins credit and he was the Boston native who famously said he would never play for the Bruins. So why do the two most (regrettably) heard from voices show the team so little respect? Is it because NBC wants a team of stars to shine? Could it be that the team first dynamic of the Bruins doesn't allow for individuals to step up and take the reigns and therefore minimalists their marketability? Could it be the hatred of Jeremy Jacobs? Who knows? I just know half the game I'm nervous and the other half I'm angered by the broadcast.

Initial Thoughts on "Man of Steel"

In thinking about "Man of Steel" and the torrent of theories and interpretations that will surely follow in the coming days, weeks and months, I believe an initial response is the most valid and pure. So here it goes.

"Man of Steel" in essence is about accepting death. Not only accepting, but understanding. I know that the Christ comparisons have already begun for this film and have followed the character of Superman for a long time. However, this transcends the concept of dying for sins and leading through example as a moral arbiter. The film is all about breaking through the chains of life and using that freedom to do something special. I would say acceptance leads to accomplishments. Several examples follow this.

Firstly, Jor-El's death. Jor-El puts himself at considerable risk to save his son and give him a chance at life. After placing his son in a spaceship programed fir Earth, he fights off and kills several guards and then bests General Zod. After the ship escapes Zod mortally wounds Jor-El. Now, with his son safely gone and off to fulfill his father's hope, Jor-El accepts death. Maybe not necessarily from Zod, but he had resigned himself to death when he discovered that Krypton was doomed. Jor-El has a singular purpose that he follows in the face of death. Jor-El simply looks to his son knowing he is safe as death consumes him.

Secondly, the death of Jonathan Kent. As opposed to traditional Superman lore where he dies of a heart attack (I think the average 50 year old is not dropping dead from those as often as in the golden age of comics) he dies in a tornado after saving the family dog. He refuses to let his son use his extraordinary abilities to save him, in order to protect him from the world. For in his eyes if the world found out about him too early, they might reject him. Jonathan realizes the end is near and looks to his son with a calmness about him before the tornado takes him.

Thirdly, the death of Colonel Hardy. Colonel Hardy may become slightly overlooked in retrospect in spite of his character's worth. Colonel Hardy is hesitant about Superman until he is saved by him. He comes to represent the acceptance of Superman by humans. However, before this when he is attacked he expends all of his ammunition and turns to his knife against a super-powered alien. Having seen what the creature was capable of, he showed no fear in engaging it in combat. Right before Superman saves Colonel Hardy he lunges in with his knife, knowing full well he will surely perish. Later on he crashes the C-10 carrying Superman's ship with the phantom drive that sends the army of Zod back to the phantom zone. When confronted again by the alien commander he crashes the plane quoting her from earlier "a noble death is its own reward" (I believe this is the quote, I was pretty floored by the awesome so I may have missed exactly what was said).

Now, looking at how these three men died, a man of science, a man of agriculture and a man of the military, we see a serenity about them that shows their acceptance of death. And in doing so they all save Superman, and by that virtue Earth. I know Superman saved Hardy twice before this, but it does not change the deed. They are able to do this because they do not fear death, nor do they think of themselves. They think of their actions and the good it will do. By being unafraid of death they transcend.

The opposite of this is Zod. Zod is so fearful of death that he commits acts of heinous injustice. He kills untold numbers of people in Metropolis (the movie is pretty vague on how many civilians actually died). Zod is scared of the death of his people, the Kryptonians, which is the death of him. He says that he was raised to defend Krypton and her people and when he cannot do that he loses control. Zod dies struggling against Superman. In that scene Zod is the old world that is afraid of letting go and accepting death and Superman is the new world that understand the necessity of death as a means of moving on. The wrinkle to this argument is that Zod is trying to change Earth into a new Krypton by killing all of Earth's inhabitants. This shows that death is not good or evil, but instead a tool that can be used by those who dare to wield it. Superman's killing of Zod to protect a family exemplifies this notion.

In the end, "Man of Steel" is like a child's first goldfish. Its death teaches the child about the finites confines of life. "Man of Steel" is a goldfish for grownups. It shows that you do not have to be a superman to be more than you are, to commit great deeds of generosity, kindness and love. Because without Jor-El, Jonathan Kent and Colonel Hardy standing bold in the clutches of death, Superman would have never had the chance to save Earth.

Random Gripes:
I cannot write about Superman without addressing the issues I have with the character. These are random thoughts with little to no structure.
-He's an alien who does not call himself human. So how is he a man? How is he a Superman then?
-Superman makes for a more compelling character outside of the confines of his comic books (Action Comics and Superman). See "Red Son" or "Batman: Noel" for examples. He works best as a symbol and an archetype. This could be the result of Superman being the gold standard of superheroes.
-Why doesn't he play football? He could makes millions, not have to worry about a job and would have 6 days off to save as many people as he wants. He could even save people during halftime.