Pandagon’s Harry Potter Thread

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Books

The Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows discussion over on Pandagon – The Life and Loves of Severus Snape – is a thing to be hold, weighing in a something like 892 comments so far (including mine, added below the fold here).
Including some excellent dissection of the book, the series, the author, and an interesting discussion of its place in Great Literature of The Ages that is the only subject I responded to after enduring several pompous lectures on the subject from a twenty year old calling himself “Opoponax.” Snore. You’re not the first guy to read Joyce in the history of the world, kiddo.

Continue ReadingPandagon’s Harry Potter Thread

I think Bryan Caplan is a fucking dickhead

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Politics

Oh, the things I have to say about this New Yorker article on economist Bryan Caplan’s book “The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Politics.”

And alas, no time to say them, because we have to go out the door. But I’m putting Bryan Caplan on the list of arrogant jackholes whose shins I intend to kick if ever I meet them. Someday I need to search for that phrase in all of my blog posts and actually compile the list.

Continue ReadingI think Bryan Caplan is a fucking dickhead

Photography

When it comes to my own photography, I’m having a lot of mixed emotions lately. I’m clearly not an artistic photographer by any stretch. I’m very much a snapshot photographer; which shows, doesn’t it?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/electrasteph
https://commonplacebook.com/photos/big_things/
A great deal of the pictures I take are out a car window, which doesn’t lend itself to composition. And I shoot everything in automatic mode on a snapshot camera, because I’ve never quite gone beyond that. I took a photography course back in college, back in 1989, but 3/4 of the class was geared toward developing your own photos in the dark room and chemicals and dark room tricks you could play to make your pictures look more interesting, all of which has fallen by the wayside. Even our relationship to filters and lenses and F-stops have changed because of digital photography and being able to see what picture you just took, and being able to shoot thousand of photos. I feel like I should re-learn manual photography, but part of me doesn’t want to, because of something I’ve noticed about the intersection of digital SLR cameras and amateur photography lately…
The trouble is, when looking at, for instance, my chosen online photo sharing site, flickr, the pictures that everyone loves and rates as “interesting” the ones that pop up to the top of the explore page, are often really boring to me.
They seem so staged. Perfectly composed, brilliantly colored, full of people with lined faces and peeling paint and bottled ethos on display. (let’s go out and jump in a field! Or, Oooh, look, desolation!) Just the right exposure, just the right filter, just the right lighting, just the right framing, just the right camera speed and focus, or out of focus when it make sense for the shot, all so perfectly canned for our delight.
I very much get the feeling that the photographer is trying to force me to look in a direction that he has chosen, on a scene he arranged, rather than capturing real life happening around him, like stock photography from a catalog for a corporate website.
Not to pick on this one girl or anything, but I happened to have a link handy to her photos because I was trolling through the “interesting” links and came across it, but here’s an example:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mtlweblog/sets/72057594074719756/
I find myself wondering what’s happening over on the left, just out of camera range.
I have to throw out a lot of the pictures I take, and there’s a lot I need to improve on. I do like the depth of field an SLR camera has, and I’d love to get better pictures indoors in low lighting. I’d love to play with lenses. I wish I had a true panoramic camera. But in all I never want to be staged. I much prefer my “point and shoot, ask questions later” method of taking pictures. I’d rather you get a sense of what’s actually happening around me when I take the picture, rather than wondering “Why the hell was she walking there?” or “Who the heck are those people and why are they jumping in a field?”

Continue ReadingPhotography

links for 2007-07-29

Continue Readinglinks for 2007-07-29

Why do They Hate Us?

From the article “Why do They Hate Us?” by Mohsin Hamid in the Washington Post:

When I mentioned the final campaign of the Cold War to my fellow freshmen at Princeton, few seemed to know much about it. Eighteen years later, most people I meet in the United States are astounded to learn that the period ever occurred. But in Pakistan, it is vividly seared into the national memory. Indeed, it has torn the very fabric of what, when I was born, was a relatively liberal country with nightclubs, casinos and legal alcohol.
The residue of U.S. foreign policy coats much of the world. It is the other part of the answer to the question, “Why do they hate us?” Simply because America has — often for what seemed good reasons at the time — intervened to shape the destinies of other countries and then, as a nation, walked away.
There is so much about the United States that I admire. So when I speak of that time now, and encounter the pose of wounded innocence that is the most common American response, I am annoyed and disappointed. It is as though the notion of U.S. responsibility applies only within the 50 states, and I have no right to invoke it.

Continue ReadingWhy do They Hate Us?

the college professor in modern literature and film

  • Post author:
  • Post category:BooksMovies

After reading Zadie Smith’s “On Beauty” for book club, I found this article from the American Scholar on the college professor as portrayed in modern literature and film interesting:

The absentminded professor, that kindly old figure, is long gone. A new image has taken his place, one that bespeaks not only our culture’s hostility to the mind, but also its desperate confusion about the nature of love

Look at recent movies about academics, and a remarkably consistent pattern emerges. In The Squid and the Whale (2005), Jeff Daniels plays an English professor and failed writer who sleeps with his students, neglects his wife, and bullies his children. In One True Thing (1998), William Hurt plays an English professor and failed writer who sleeps with his students, neglects his wife, and bullies his children. In Wonder Boys (2000), Michael Douglas plays an English professor and failed writer who sleeps with his students, has just been left by his third wife, and can’t commit to the child he’s conceived in an adulterous affair with his chancellor. Daniels’s character is vain, selfish, resentful, and immature. Hurt’s is vain, selfish, pompous, and self-pitying. Douglas’s is vain, selfish, resentful, and self-pitying. Hurt’s character drinks. Douglas’s drinks, smokes pot, and takes pills. All three men measure themselves against successful writers (two of them, in Douglas’s case; his own wife, in Daniels’s) whose presence diminishes them further. In We Don’t Live Here Anymore (2004), Mark Ruffalo and Peter Krause divide the central role: both are English professors, and both neglect and cheat on their wives, but Krause plays the arrogant, priapic writer who seduces his students, Ruffalo the passive, self-pitying failure. A Love Song For Bobby Long (2004) divides the stereotype a different way, with John Travolta as the washed-up, alcoholic English professor, Gabriel Macht as the blocked, alcoholic writer.

Not that these figures always teach English. Kevin Spacey plays a philosophy professor — broken, bitter, dissolute — in The Life of David Gale (2003). Steve Carell plays a self-loathing, suicidal Proust scholar in Little Miss Sunshine (2006). Both characters fall for graduate students, with disastrous results. And while the stereotype has gained a new prominence of late, its roots go back at least a few decades. Many of its elements are in place in Oleanna (1994), in Surviving Desire (1991), and, with John Mahoney’s burnt-out communications professor, in Moonstruck (1987). In fact, all of its elements are in place in Terms of Endearment (1983), where Jeff Daniels took his first turn playing a feckless, philandering English professor. And of course, almost two decades before that, there was Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

What’s going on here? If the image of the absent-minded professor stood for benevolent unworldliness, what is the meaning of the new academic stereotype? Why are so many of these failed professors also failed writers? Why is professional futility so often connected with sexual impropriety? (In both Terms of Endearment and We Don’t Live Here Anymore, “going to the library” becomes a euphemism for “going to sleep with a student.”) Why are these professors all men, and why are all the ones who are married such miserable husbands?

Continue Readingthe college professor in modern literature and film

links for 2007-07-28

Continue Readinglinks for 2007-07-28