Two Stars for Reign in Blood?

This first ran at Madeloud.
________

imagesI received the Rolling Stone Album Guide, third edition, as a graduation gift from my  brother, who knew well exactly what sort of obsessive I was. I probably looked at it every day, or at least every week, for a couple of years there.  The book’s binding wasn’t meant to sustain that sort of long term attention, and it disintegrated.  The book’s prose wasn’t either, and it more or less disintegrated as well — which is why I never need to read another word by critics Mark Coleman, J.D. Considine, Paul Evans, or David McGee, thanks.  But for all its structural failings, the guide did introduce me to a ton of music I might never have known about otherwise, from the Soul Stirrers to Wanda Jackson to Stetsasonic to Bob Wills.

I haven’t looked at the book in a long time though. In the first place , the thing was published in 1993, so it’s seriously out of date.  And in the second place  — well, the Internet.  Google, Wikipedia, Amazon, and MySpace, have rendered this sort of undertaking really redundant — even precious.  “Oh, goodness,” you say as you flip through the pages, “they thought they were being so completist by including Charles Mingus and Kylie Minogue!” (And so brave for giving Mingus those five-star album ratings!  Oh, congratulations, guys!)

Still, if the Album Guide isn’t exactly useful as reference anymore, it retains sentimental and historical interest.  Consider, in 1993:

—   Nirvana  was a decent band peddling a poppier version of the “metal-edged punk” that typified Soundgarden and Soul Asylum.  “At their best,” J.D. Considine says, Nirvana’s songs “typify the low-key passion of post-MTV youth.” Bleach (three-and-a-half stars) is faulted for  relying on “metal riffage” as much as on “melodic invention,” while the poppier Nevermind gets four stars. Since Nirvana has not yet been named rock royalty, no one needs to trace its bloodline, and bands such as the Melvins and the Vaselines don’t exist.

—   Paula Abdul is the musician with “the most successful debut in history”. That means she’s worth taking down a peg according to Paul Evans, who characterizes her singles as “aerobicized rhythm tracks and sex-chipmunk singing,” and concludes “this was Madonna-cloning at its most plastic,”. As if anyone gives a crap. Mariah Carey is about equally relevant and receives similar treatment (“ersatz soul music…breathtaking in its wrongheadedness”). Brandy, Monica, and Aaliyah haven’t released albums yet; TLC has, just barely, but isn’t important enough to get an entry.

—   Sun Ra is great, but his music is mostly impossible to find. The guide lists and rates less than ten records, a fraction of those discussed on Wikipedia (which is in turn a fraction of his total output.)

—   Eric B. and Rakim are solidly mediocre; their debut, “Paid in Full,” gets two stars; “Let the Rhythm Hit ‘Em” gets three-and-a-half.  EPMD is dismissed even more summarily — they “too often play it safe” according to Evans. Tribe Called Quest and de la Soul do better, though neither Low End Theory or 3 Feet High and Rising receive the five stars awarded to Peter Gabriel’s  So. On the other hand, everybody has already figured out that Public Enemy matters. N.W.A. too, though you get the sense that reviewer J.D. Considine rather wishes they didn’t..

—   Johnny Cash is toiling away without much of an audience at Mercury records…though David McGee presciently notes that there’s still life in the singer yet. The 1988 Water from the Wells of Home is given 5 stars, which is probably the first and last time that this (very fine) recording would be considered a pinnacle of Cash’s career.

—   Bruce Springsteen is humongously important. Way more important than the Pixies.

Of course, there are a lot of performers who looked pretty much the same in 1993 as they do in 2010 — even after the twelfth time their music has been repackaged, the Beatles are still the Beatles. But it is amazing, when you flip through this guide, to think how much the future influences the past, rather than the other way round. Where’s Bathory in this book? Where’s Judee Sill? From our perch, it’s easy to see that Kraftwerk should have more column inches than Lenny Kravitz, but from the offices of Rolling Stone in 1993 — hey, they probably hoped this electronica shit would just go away.

Instead, it was them who went away. Rock critics and rock criticism have proliferated like roaches and roach eggs, of course — and a 2004 edition of the Rolling Stone guide itself is still available, according to the internets. But the dream of a single, massive, authoritative critical touchstone is gone. An infinite number of monkeys could write a more perspicacious record guide . And so they have.

Utilitarian Review 3/23/13

On HU

Featured Archive Post: Ng Suat Tong looks at Gary Groth’s interview with Gil Kane.

Iron Man vs. Bataille.

I review an album of post-war hillbilly music.

Matthias Wivel weighs in on the debate over literariness in comics.Eddie Campbell clarifies his position in the (lengthy) comments thread.

Alex Buchet on Peanuts, as you’ve never seen it before.

Chris Gavaler looks at eugenics and the House of Slytherin.

I compared the poetry of Zen poets Basho and Ryokan.

Robert Stanley Martin provides an audio download of Pauline Kael lecturing on the auteur theory.
 
Utilitarians Everywhere

I was on the Charles Adler Show talking about Persepolis and censorship in schools (in reference to my Atlantic article below.)

At the Atlantic, I talk about:

The Client List, The Tenant of Wildfell Hall and cultural images of sexy, deviant single moms.

debt and housework.

Persepolis and school censorship.

Steubenville, I Spit on Your Grave, and failures of imagination about rape.

— what Andrea Dworkin would,and would not, have liked about the new film Ginger & Rosa

Olympus Has Fallen, which is one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen, and makes me despair for my country.

what Rush Limbaugh got right about Beyoncé.

At Splice Today, I talk about

how the internet ate my dream job. Whine, freelancer, whine….

the left wing pro-war pundits and how they sucked.
 
Other Links

Jessice Luther on feminism and romance novels.

C.T. May on CPAC.

Mallory Ortberg on CNN”s coverage of Steubenville.

And then there’s the Onion on a courageous athlete who overcame raping someone.

Philip Cohen on gender segregation in the workplace.

Alex Pareene on awful local news reporting.

Ronald Reagan was a traitorous thug.
 
This Week’s Reading
I reread Persepolis, and started David Graeber’s Debt: The First 5000 Years. Also still working on LOTR with my son; we’re in the middle of the Two Towers now.
 

images

Perverse Iron Frechman

This piece first ran on Comixology.
______________

iron_man_posterI’m the last person in explored space to see the first Iron Man movie. I watched it this month and am pleased to report that it hasn’t dated a moment. We’re still wandering around Afghanistan haplessly blowing and being blown up; arms traders are still sexy/cool; bad boys with hearts of plutonium still get the girl; Gwyneth Paltrow is still frighteningly thin and brittle, with little flecks of poisonous spittle flicking out from behind her girl-next-door façade. Also, random Westernized foreigners with doctorate degrees are always happy to sacrifice themselves for the callow American so that said callow Americans can continue to be callow but with a mission; black guys are sidekicks; male womanizers are rakishly hot/forgivably flawed, but women who open their legs are trashy bitch sluts. Also Americans save all the brown people. Or maybe kill them. It’s hard to tell.

You probably know that though. After all the film is two years old. And superheroes are, what, going on 80? There’s been some finessing of the template, of course. Semi-socialist Superman beat up crooked industrial robber barons on behalf of the working man. In the post-Marvel age of superhero realism and relevance, Iron Man beats up crooked industrial robber barons on behalf of crooked industrial robber barons who have had a change of heart. But the main point is truth, justice, the American Way, and uber-violence on behalf of peace. The gods are us and we like to hit things — but in a good cause.

It’s not just sanctimonious Americans who find this sort of thing appealing, though. Perverse Frenchmen want to be superheroes too. Or at least that’s what I’ve gleaned recently from reading some of the poems of Georges Bataille. Bataille, like Robert Downey, Jr.’s Tony Stark aka Iron Man, is obsessed with sex and pleasure — surely Stark, for example, would appreciate a poem titled “I Place My Cock…” Like Strark, too, Bataille dreams of being more than human:

the glory of man
no matter how great
is to desire another glory

I am
the world is with me
pushed outside the possible

I am only the laughter
and the infantile night
where the immensity falls

I am the dead man
the blind man
the airless shadow

like rivers in the sea
in me noise and light
lose themselves endlessly

I am the father
and the tomb
of the sky

the excess of darkness
is the flash of the star
the cold of the grave is a die

rolled by death
and the depths of the heavens jubilate
for the night which falls within me.
(from “The Tomb,” trans. Mark Spitzer)

The poem almost makes more sense if you decide it’s about Iron Man than if you don’t. Even all the talk about death — “I am the dead man/the blind man/the airless shadow” — fits, since Stark is essentially a walking corpse, his heart powered by the same technology that runs his suit. His weakness is his strength as he pushes outside the possible, in a hyperbolic apotheosis of noise, light, and self-dramatization.

In another poem Bataille declares, “I fill the sky with my presence.” And that does seem to be the point for ecstatic modernity, whether pop dreck or snooty highbrow philosophizing. Presumably it’s Nietzsche’s fault that God is dead and all we’re left with is the will to power of arms traders and self-proclaimed radicals. Or maybe Jung’s right and it’s just a mythopoetical heroic something — though it seems telling that we’ve only recently decided that we require one hysterically hyperbolic hero with a thousand faces rather than making do with all the dinky little heroes with one face each.

In any case, theirs is undoubtedly a thin poignancy in the desperation on display. It’s not enough to be Robert Downey, Jr., not enough to be Robert Downey, Jr. and a genius — you’ve got to be Robert Downey, Jr. and a genius and have enough fire-power at your fingertips to make Afghanistan right. Or, if you’re Bataille, it’s not enough to fuse romantically with nature, you have to actually fuck nature to death and tramp on her corpse before stabbing yourself in the eyes with Christ’s nails. When Paltrow, as Stark’s assistant Pepper Potts finds her boss fooling around with his armor, Stark laughs it off by commenting wryly that it’s not the most embarrassing thing she’s ever caught him doing — but I’m not so sure about that.

Tom Crippen had an article in The Comics Journal sometime back in which he referred to Superman as Siegel and Schuster’s “big dumb dream.” That dream is alive and well, but I’m not so sure it was Siegel’s and Schuster’s, or at least not theirs exclusively. Superheroes are just one, somewhat popular way to wrap the world around man or man around the world like some clunkily gaudy suit of CGI armor. As Bataille says, “the universe is within me as it is within itself/nothing separates us anymore/I bump against it in myself.” You can hear the dry “thunk” of his head on the inside of the helmet before he powers up and goes off to deface some idols or beat up some bad guys, whichever comes first.

Utilitarian Review 3/16/13

On HU

Featured Archive Post: Qiana Whitted on Blues Comics.

Chris Gavaler on the silence of Black Bolt and the silence of Clarence Thomas.

Peter Suderman interviews me briefly about imperialism and pop culture.

Betsy Phillips on Jake Austen and Yuval Taylor’s Darkest America, about the black tradition of blackface minstrelsy.

Michael Arthur interviews the artist Corinne Halbert about basements, lust and foxes.

I argue that Anne Bronte also liked assholes.

Vom Marlowe on Yun Kouga’s Loveless #10.

Jog on Akshay Kumar and subversive Bollywood.

Friday music sharing post featuring psychy Stones vs. grungy Stones.
 
Utilitarians Everywhere

I talk about the ethics of mashups at the Center for Digital Ethics.

At the Atlantic

— I talk about Stephenie Meyer’s the Host and the invasion of the lovey-dovey body snatchers.

—I argue that Stephenie Meyer is a feminist, just like she says.

—I argue that we’re in a good place when even not very insightful political hacks like Rob Portman support gay marriage.

At Splice I discuss research suggesting that C-sections are often performed without medical reason.

And also at Splice I got to talk about my favorite Pink Floyd album.

You can now read my article on Junji Ito in Italian.
 
Other Links

David Brothers on Spider-Man turning fifty.

Chris Orr argues with me about rom coms (there’s some back and forth in comments too.)

Very satisfying takedown of Bob Woodward.

As a freelancer who writes for the Atlantic, this hurts. (HT Caro)
 
This Week’s Reading

I finished Stephenie Meyer’s The Host, read Kathryn Tanner’s “The Economy of Grace” about applying theology to economic matters, read the 1983-84 Peanuts volume.
 

images

Anne Bronte Also Likes Assholes

brontessm

I think the above cartoon by Kate Beaton is the first piece of Anne Bronte criticism I ever saw. At the time, I hadn’t read any of Anne’s novels, but the cartoon certainly made me think I should.

Well, I finally have…and as it turns out, I’m not sure I entirely agree with Beaton. The cartoon is obviously focused on The Tenant of Wildfell Hall, which is centered around the abusive marriage of Helen and Arthur Huntingdon.

Certainly, in comparison to the brutish protagonists of Jane Eyre or Wuthering Heights, Arthur is much less romanticized — or really not romanticized at all. He is not brooding or exciting, but (as Anne says in the cartoon) an asshole dickbag, whose good looks and charm conceal wells of selfishness and cruelty. He’s a drunkard, a cad, and an adulterer, who treats his wife with indifference and contempt (leaving her alone for months at a time so he can carouse in London) and then terrorizing her when she protests. He deliberately tries to get his young child to drink and curse to amuse himself and his friends. His low point comes when he discovers that Helen is planning to leave him and support herself by painting; he storms into her room, takes all her money, and destroys her painting materials.

Much of the novel, then, is a harrowing description of a domestic tyrant, and an unflinching portrait of the powerlessness of married women at the time. Helen has no rights to divorce her husband, even though he is basically parading his mistresses in front of her; she can’t take the child away from him, though he is deliberately, and basically out of spite, attempting to corrupt him. Moreover, her early attempts to reform her husband founder precisely on the disproportion of their power; she has no means under law or custom to influence him; she can’t even make him stay in the same house with her, or make decent efforts to conceal his adultery. The romantic notion that a good woman can save a bad man (very much in play in Jane Eyre, for example) is shown to be not so much spiritually as logistically impossible given the status of women at the time.

So far as Arthur Huntingdon is concerned, then, so good. But, unfortunately, the book feels compelled to present us with another suitor for Helen. And so we get Gilbert Markham, the epistolary narrator of much of the novel. Markham is a gentleman farmer, and the most eligible young bachelor in the neighborhood into which Helen moves after escaping from her husband. She and Gilbert quickly strike up a relationship, which eventually ends in married bliss after Huntingdon obligingly drinks himself to death.

And again, this is unfortunate because, contra Beaton, Gilbert is kind of an asshole. Oh, he’s vastly superior to Huntingdon; he’s not a drunkard or a monster. But that’s a pretty low bar. Without Huntingdon for comparison…well, he doesn’t come off so well. He’s conceited, petulant, and selfish; he toys with the affection of a neighboring clergyman’s daughter, and then tosses her aside when he decides that Helen is more interesting — and when said clergyman’s daughter is upset and resentful, he blames it on the failings in her character and essentially accuses her of being a shallow designing flirt.

Nor is his treatment of Helen much better. He sneaks onto her property and oversees her embracing another man, Frederick Lawrence. Rather than asking her to explain the situation, he rushes off and refuses to speak to her. He also loses his temper and a few days later assaults Lawrence, seriously injuring him and confining him to his bed for several days.

So, to sum up, Gilbert is a jilt, a sneak, and a thug, petulant, cruel, and thoughtless. And yet, he’s supposed to be the good guy!

Of course, Gilbert’s courtship of an sympathy with Helen, and his discovery that Lawrence is Helen’s brother and that in assaulting him he behaved like a total poltroon — all those things are supposed to make him a better, less impulsive, more caring person, and a fit husband for Helen. But that’s not a contradiction to the assholes-are-cool-so-marry-one narrative. Rather, it’s the same narrative over again. You’ve got your infantile ass with anger management issues, and instead of saying, you know, I don’t really want to marry an infantile ass with anger management issues, you end up saying, hey! It’s a fixer upper! Awesome!

There’s at least one other fixer uppers in the book too — one of Huntingdon’s carousing buddies ends up being transformed into a doting husband through the power of his wife’s love (with a little nudge from Helen.) One might be an accident, but two starts to look like carelessness. It’s great that there are some levels of brutality and drunkenness that Anne is willing to be repulsed by…but I think Beaton goes a little too far when she ask rhetorically:

Anne why are you writing books about how alcoholic losers ruin people’s lives? Don’t you see that romanticizing douchey behavior is the proper literary convention in this family! Honestly.

Anne’s perfectly capable of romanticizing douchey behavior. She’s perhaps tweaking the family literary convention, but she’s not rejecting them. If you want a guy who treats women with respect, you need to read Jane Austen or E.M. Forster or maybe watch Say Anything. With the Bronte’s, the best you can hope for is a slightly smaller asshole.