Dylan Honored at Raucous Affair

unknownRapper Kanye West interrupted Bob Dylan’s Nobel acceptance speech in Oslo Thursday during a revamped awards ceremony aimed at making the 115 year old prize more “culturally relevant.” Amid a chorus of catcalls, West stepped in front of the perplexed laureate saying, “I’ma let you finish, Bob, but Beyonce is one of the greatest writers of all time.”

Earlier in the evening, Norwegian Nobel Committee Chairman Thorbjørn Jagland seemed taken aback when Dylan stepped forward to receive his medal after Ragland had recounted the author’s death following a bout of drinking at the White Horse Tavern in New York’s Greenwich Village in 1953. It’s not immediately clear if the committee thought they were crowning Welsh poet Dylan Thomas posthumously.

The West incident is not the first time Mr. Dylan has been upstaged. During Dylan’s 1998 Grammy performance a deranged interloper, discovered later to be poet John Ashbury, lept on stage and began gyrating grotesquely with the words SOY BOMB inexplicably sharpied across his naked torso.

Asked later what it means to be immortalized alongside T.S. Eliot, William Faulkner and Pablo Neruda Dylan replied, “Aw, those guys can’t rhyme for shit.”

“You’re Either With Us or Part of the Problem”

SeussI’m still not voting for Hillary—civilization be damned—but I don’t find her quite as objectionable as I did just last week, and I’m trying to figure out why; if it’s a simple case of forgetting, already, in the sense that Milan Kundera has written about, or if it’s something truly deficient in my character, or if it’s just everyone else.

In the hours and days since her supporters have stood down following Hillary’s nomination, one has had a moment to think. And what is objectionable is not the hysteria issuing from her camp—yes, the shrillness—as the realization that their arguments are one’s own arguments. Like hearing one’s voice played back over a tape recorder, one’s revulsion is a self-revulsion.

Clinton apologists are profoundly deceived if they think this is all just appearances. It’s a perceived attitude that drives so many working class Americans away from the left. It is the rather unthinkable arrogance to say, “You’re either with us or you’re part of the problem.”

You see, it’s not Hillary. It’s you.

You Say You Want a Revolution

imagesCan we all please just stop saying “revolution”?

With apologies to Bernie Sanders, no true revolution can take place within the American political system—or any other.

Revolution does not avail itself of the political process. Revolution is the violent overthrow of political process. (Not mere regime change.)

Though such movements may find fertile soil in the putrefying remains of outmoded ideologies, they are not part of their vital functioning. If they are said to spring from them at all, they do so as paroxysms of conscience, not as logical outgrowths of thought.

The closest Mr. Sanders could come to effecting a “revolution” would be to run as a third party candidate—no great repudiation of the system itself, though a rebuke of the false choice between Clinton and Trump.

He will not. Why? It may be that power has a certain gravitational pull, as Barack Obama can surely attest, that alters one’s course. Perhaps Mr. Sanders has also peered over that event horizon so few of us ever approach, and gazed into the abyss.

To envision revolution is to envision oneself on an historical plane that transcends the personal, the sentimental, the practical.

For now, we are to satisfy ourselves with reshaping the party plank. Not the great takeaway Mr. Sanders promised. Rather, the acculturation of another generation of voters to the realpolitik of life.

Those that say they did their part to change history, that they are not responsible for what the world wants . . . the hard truth is they are now more fully implicated in its operation.

Breaking Bad Men

Unknown-1It’s been noted that television has become increasingly concerned with character as it evolves away from episodic storytelling. (I would add that streaming, which makes it possible to watch characters unfold in a rapid flip-book, has placed an added onus on writers to develop characters in meaningful and credible ways.)

Of course in order to sustain this kind of arc, a clear view to the end is needed. Otherwise things come up short. The onion is peeled too quickly, as in the Dexter series, leaving us with a story line in which the character merely repeats himself or worse, drifts into a kind of self-parody; or is subject to an interminable number of arbitrary, capricious and increasingly bizarre plot twists, as in the Lost series; or buffeted about by storytelling convention like Vince in Entourage whose writers clearly read their McKee, changing things 180 degrees at the end of each scene: big movie deal, no big movie deal, bigger movie deal, no bigger movie deal, ad infinitum; or remains essentially himself, like the Hank Moody character in Californication, who manages, contrary to the classic Gleason model, to keep falling out of the arms of a good woman.

Jax Teller, despite his Machiavellian scheming, is never able to see through his mother’s treachery and despite obvious Shakespearian parallels, gives us little substance—no closet scene, no “readiness is all” speech, just a bloody denouement.  And Don Draper, I am guessing (I am still waiting for free streaming of final episode!) remains caught by his past as well as his (unexamined) womanizing.

One of the more compelling characters in the last few seasons is Breaking Bad’s Heisenberg who, as he is lured further into the labyrinth of his own machinations, resorts to greater acts of calumny. But the real interesting arc is actually Heisenberg’s wife: her undeception, her gradual cooption and final rejection of her husband provide a fascinating counterpoint to Heisenberg’s flailing. Heisenberg’s character merely “jumps the shark” in the cringe-inducing “say my name” scene.

These anti-heroes (for the most part) seem rather one-dimensional, despite their obvious flaws. Their motives are simple: get laid, get paid. The only complication is when someone or something stands in their way, occasioning greater, more energetic feats of self-aggrandizement.— One extraordinary exception I would argue is Tony Soprano’s murder of Christopher, which is so stunning an act of cold-blooded calculation that it thrusts us into a whole new relationship with the character, forcing a new set of criteria upon us. But this kind of “peripety” or logical surprise is the exception that proves the rule.

The ultimately disappointing series finales are indicative of undeveloped character. Dexter’s self-exile is unrooted. In Walter White’s change of heart, too, one senses the writer’s heavy hand, rather than destiny at work.

Says series creator Vince Gilligan, “We didn’t feel an absolute need for Walt to expire at the end of the show. Our gut told us . . .  that it would feel satisfying for Walt to at least begin to make amends for his life and for all the sadness and misery wrought upon his family and his friends. Walt is never going to redeem himself. He’s just too far down the road to damnation. But at least he takes a few steps along that path. . . . “

But is that really what Walter White has to say?

*
3 Comments

Paul Bryant
10/5/2015 09:56:17 am

“Where’s *my* arc?” – Christopher Moltisanti

Thanks for the good read.

Reply

nick
10/6/2015 04:44:15 pm

Right. Yeah, “Where’s my arc,” he says. Where’s my arc? (shouts at the ceiling)