Nonsense
Really though, it’s not about doing away with analytical outbursts and substituting more sentimental artsy sketches, really it’s about discipline. I just need to sit down and type and think and not be so selective of “worthy material.” In one sense I know I’ve never written a “worthy” thing in my life, but the “standards” I’ve chosen hold me back quite a bit (you have to have some standard, don’t you?). I don’t want this place to turn in to one of “those” blogs–I don’t want IR to succumb and fall into the ever-growing pile of thoughtless literary rubbish hacked out with the aid of boxed wine.
No answers here, just questions. I have a feeling this is all nonsense (disciplined nonsense, damn it : ).
Ok, too much public introspection. On to other things:
I’m reading Pirsig’s Lila. It starts off fine, but it is clear why the book never succeeded at the same level Zen did. It’s the same Quality rant with a few new interesting observations and a host of ones that seem questionable. In addition the story telling mingled in with the philosophy really isn’t very compelling. I’ll finish it, but at the moment I feel let down. Perhaps the next 100 pages will change that.
I saw V for Vendetta over the weekend. It was phenomenal; close to perfect, actually. I know there seems to be some controversy surrounding this movie, but I really don’t think there should be any. I’ve heard it rejected for not being political enough, I’ve heard it slammed for being too political and “pro terrorist” or “pro muslim.” None of that is true. V makes for a superb dystopia, and its exploration of the dangers of complacency and governmental power-mongering ought to be appreciated and recognized by all. Plus, Shakespeare is quoted copiously and V’s library is overflowing with books. I don’t feel like elocuting specific reasons why the above mentioned controversies are illusions, but if you challenge me I will produce them emphatically.
Welcome back. Don’t be a stranger.
How ironic!
A brainy post on the hazzards of brainy posting.
Theory bogs me down too–it’s nice to get back to images.
_V_? I saw it this weekend too–and I, well, hated it. I’ve never been so clobbered over the head since Spike Lee’s latest–the monologing by the main character turned the movie into a droning rant–further, the treatment of Natalie Portman’s character, Evey, was utterly unforgivable.
Since when is violence ever the answer?
It’s been an answer for many things for quite a while, squirrely. Yes, we should always seek a peaceful resolve. But sometimes a peaceful resolve is not possible. Sometimes you have to pick up the sword and let slip the dogs of war.
Not out of vengeance (as Evie learned by watching The Count of Monte Cristo). Not indiscriminantly (as the detective learned by viewing the possibilites future that might exist in anarchy ruled). And not against the innocent (V never killed anybody who wasn’t trying to kill or somebody else, even though he had great reason to be full of rage).
V was not a terrorist. He blew up buildings. His primary influence was on the minds of a nation that had been lulled intoa dystopian slumber. He destroyed the infrastructure of a society that had decidedly gone backwards. He stood up for what was right and took necessary action. No more. No less.
If you believe violence is never the answer, I’d like to ask you how, when faced with the kind of evil we see in the government depicted in the movie, you plan to achieve the end result of both freedom and peace.
P.S.
Tim … what’s wrong with having one of “those blogs?”
Resolve. Resolution. Whatever. I never claimed to be smart.
I thrive off of disagreement, so I was hoping someone would feel differently than me. I’m glad we’ve begun this conversation!
Ok SQ: I want to address the following: the treatment of Natalie Portman’s character, Evey, was utterly unforgivable. … Since when is violence ever the answer?
I thought the treatment of Evey was questionable too; though as to its forgivability I suppose only Evey can decide. However I think an interaction between V and E after the incarceration sheds a great deal of light on the idea of violence and its position as a defining point in V’s character. V asks her to go back to “how she felt” when she calmy accepted the possibility of death–Evey screams, “I didn’t feel anything!”
That line, I feel, calls V’s entire life-mission into question, it reveals the inevitable damning effects of violence (whether one is at the receiving or giving end matters not, numbness is still the result). I don’t feel that the film glorifies V too greatly. He is a broken man with a polished exterior (the scene of him cooking breakast without gloves and then putting them back on is a perfect example of this).
The most profound question this film asks is if complacency and corruption are more damning than active thoughtful violence; both sides of the disjunct have inevitable devestating effects. But perhaps, thinks V, cutting off the limb is better than dying slowly of gangreine.