Tag Archives: Art

Is “Fantastical” a Word?

It actually is a word. It means, depending upon where you look, something along the lines of seeming more appropriate to a fairy tale than to reality. Every now and again, I stumble across an image, either a photo or a work of art, sometimes that’s completely fantasy or speculative, or sometimes a photograph that artfully twists the light as it captures its subject, that causes my mind to spring into the “what-ifs?” What if…that were a girl teleporting? An alien hovering above the ground in a globe? A man who can breathe fire? All of the things that we read about as being beyond the realm of reality, that we refuse to believe in on the surface, yet thrill at reading or watching on a weekend.

Sometimes I read a book that takes me to that place, an inventive way to take on a genre or two and meld them together. These books have the same effect.

And, honestly, sometimes it isn’t even about whether or not the novel or painting or photograph is of some stunning degree of excellence I’ve never encountered before. While they have to be subjectively good to take me to that place, they don’t have to be the best…just imaginative.

That, to me, is the fantastical. I cling to those moments of the fantastical because they take me out of the rational, the technological, the gravity-bound rules and parameters of daily life, which can sometimes sink to doldrums, and take me away to a different galaxy, a different dimension, with different people. That, in turn, inspires me to write different galaxies and dimensions and people in the hopes of saying something important.

I hope that you have a great weekend, and that you find ways to achieve some sort of imaginative escape velocity to launch yourself beyond the day-to-day and into a place that will feed you with the fantastical.

Image attribution: RL Fantasy Studio under Creative Commons.

The Fallacy of Formulae


Not far into the rhythm of my week, I was startled to see the news that no Pulitzer prize is being awarded for fiction this year. Apparently, for the first time since 1977, the jury concluded that none of the finalists were worthy of the award.

Wow.

I think “wow” because I also read this very thought-provoking post hypothesizing how the Great Gatsby, a novel that few would dispute as an American classic, would have an enormously difficult time being accepted for publication today by any mainstream publishing house because it was not formulaic. That is, it didn’t contain the elements needed to ensure sales.

It’s that last part that concerns me: the literature that passes successfully through the gatekeepers of mainstream publishing and into the hands of a nation of readers (although that part of our population is tragically shrinking) is passed, in (large) part, on the ability of the novel to sell. That’s because publishers seem to be far more interested in making money than in circulating quality literature, just as are record labels or movie production studios guilty of this in their own realms. This is, I’m convinced, the phenomenon that drives Hollywood to produce such vast amounts of garbage, while depth thrives at indie film festivals.

Now, I don’t intend this post to be a debate between the merits of traditional publishing and the merits of self-publishing. I’m just expressing concern that a jury of reviewers, in looking over our nation’s literature for a year, cannot find anything worthy of the honor of this prize. Nothing. As a nation, from a literary standpoint, we didn’t cut it. Yet, sales of books thrive, partly because sex sells, as do other formulaic components, and partly because genre fiction far eclipses literary fiction on the shelves of most bookstores (I think of the three consecutive shelves of YA at my local Barnes & Noble, for example). And that’s the problem, isn’t it, with genre fiction? Formulaic components.

Please don’t hear this as being a slam on genre fiction, either. I write genre fiction. I grew up on genre fiction, and I love it (science-fiction, specifically). I just recognize that, while certain formulaic elements make up certain genres (the predictability of James Bond-style espionage books, for example, or murder mysteries), the risk of using these formulae for the profit of publishers is a “dumbing down” effect of the literary landscape at large.

Good writers should be paid well for their craft, as should any good artist. However, when profit is the driving motive for writing (or recording, or painting, fill in other mediums of expression here), the culture is in trouble. So many authors whose works we consider “classics” today didn’t write for the money, and often didn’t receive much, either. Their stories, though, helped shape a national psyche, and continue to contribute to our journey through the human experience.  Were this the driving motive in Hollywood, I imagine we would see significantly fewer big-action, huge-explosion movies with cheesy lines.  Were it the driving motive in literature, I’m confident that we would see a great deal less vampire fiction.

Not everything can be reduced to a formula. I think that formulaic elements can be used successfully in storytelling, but, like the spices you use when cooking dinner, using them sparingly is best. Otherwise, the taste becomes overwhelming.

Photo Attribution: balise42

The Watchmen and the Phantom: Not as Good as the Original

Several months ago, this showed up in my Facebook feed:

And I thought to myself, there’s nothing quite like a sequel to degrade one of the greatest stories ever told on the stage.

You see, I have a long love affair with the Phantom. I have had since high school. I’m not certain why. I think that the poignant story and the magical musical score simply enchanted me. I went to see the Broadway production during my undergrad days, and was absolutely in stunned silence at the beauty of the production. Technically, musically, artistically, the Phantom is a masterpiece.

And the issue isn’t that I’m closed-minded to adaptations and new presentations. To the contrary, I was moved nearly to tears by the film adaptation of the show that arrived in theatres a few years ago. Of course, Webber was instrumental as a writer of the film production, as well. And, in fairness, Webber is the driving force behind the new show. It’s just that some things can’t be improved upon.

Of course, the same thing goes for prequels. DC Entertainment recently announced a set of prequels to the greatest graphic novel ever published, the Watchmen. My stomach turned. Was this a blatant attempt to capitalize on an amazing work of art? Simply because they own the rights to the story and the characters, they think that they can add to what was already a complete story simply to make money? I confess that I had a similar reaction to Love Never Dies. Was Webber selling out for money? Surely, if an artist were to ever have a comfortable income, Webber would.

A friend and fellow comic collector told me that it was a surety that I would at least read the Watchmen prequels, just to see what they were about. I responded that I wouldn’t read them on principle. Truth be told, I likely will scan one in my local comic shop. I may even put the DVD of Love Never Dies into our Netflix cue, as it is apparently living on DVD due to it’s poor reception in theatres (although I have read at least one opinion that the show’s theatrical demise was unfortunate). Part of me hopes that the Watchmen prequels are received poorly, as Moore has said that he accomplished everything he intended to in the original collection. Moore reportedly isn’t happy about the project, and I don’t think he was a fan of the film, either (for good reason…it was a disaster).

Still, the two projects are different in that, with Love Never Dies, at least the original writer is responsible for the project’s creation. And, I have to admit, from a design perspective, the show looks intriguing.  I think, however, that I’m just stubborn enough to eschew both projects, simply because I don’t want to give in to what I see as selling out amazing work in order to make profit from the original.

Am I doing myself a disservice in my stubbornness? Would you see/read either of these? What do you think?

The Nature of a Hero Part III

DC Entertainment is doing something very interesting. I mean, besides the New 52. Take a look:

Besides the fact that this is good charity work, and the fact that it is an excellent quality video that sort of gives me chills, there’s something really fascinating in the way DC is packaging this initiative rhetorically.

First off, we’re drawn in by the images of the Justice League characters, ones that are recognizable to even those not engaged in comic books (and leaving me very much in mind of the recent animated series intro.). The video is immediately evocative as a “person on the street” video can be: we see honesty, people admitting that they’ve never been needed, but that they have been needy. People self-absorbed, answering their phones. The video is poignant: the school girl remembering when she didn’t stand up for someone in her class being bullied is a time when she was needed, but didn’t react out of fear. This is something to which all of us can relate.

Then, the video moves into the ideal that we hope for ourselves: those who “didn’t think,” and “just went.” These are the heroes, those who reacted despite their fears, and who were a positive influence in a situation. I love the story of the man, taken out of context enough that the bulk of the events remain a mystery, re-telling how he went down on the ground beside someone in order to be with her, to help her get up again.

Then, of course, the video makes its pitch, calling us to action, calling us all to be heroes, and re-connecting us with the images of the iconic heroes that inspire us. The video confronts us with a situation, and gives us another chance to react without thinking, to put fear or misgivings aside, and to be a hero to someone. Even if from a distance. Even if our actions are never known. We’re given an opportunity to reach the ideal.

What’s amazing about the rhetoric of this project is that it is using the secret desire that we all have for a hero to swoop in during our time of greatest need and save us when we cannot save ourselves, and it is leading us to recognize another desire that we all hold: the desire to be the hero. I remember dreaming heroic dreams of coming to the rescue of the girl in distress when I was in elementary school. Heroes have always dominated my imagination, my stories. I’m fascinated by those who place themselves in “real-life”  hero positions, such as first responders. I’ve made professional choices that have placed me in a role to be helpful to others on several occasions.

What this video leads us to conclude is that heroism is relative. That is to say, we all have the ability to be a hero at some point, to someone, in some capacity. All of us can be the larger-than-life savior, landing (metaphorically) in the midst of evil’s apparent triumph, and saving the day. Because the evil that is about to triumph over the person next to us may be small to us, depending upon our gifts and resources. What they cannot defeat on their own, we can, and vice versa.

This video is powerful because it so effectively taps into another aspect of the nature of a hero: the fact that we all have the desire to be the hero. Sometimes this is for selfish motivations, often it is over-ridden by fear, or doubt. For some, it is a driving force, and for some it is merely a whisper of conscience. But it is there, and, I daresay, it is universal to the human experience.

Perhaps that’s why the idea of a hero resonates so much with all of us.

School is in Session

I was nearly finished with grad school before I took my first online course. I had never pursued it before that point partly because of limitations on the school’s part, and partly because the situation had never demanded it that seriously. Once Karen and I were married, however, I still had a semester to finish, and a brand new set of demands on my time management. Fortunately, online courses had become available, and I maximized the opportunity, to discover that I had fallen in love with the format.

Ideally, I like residential courses with a lot of the workload online. However, online classes are certainly the future of education in many disciplines, and I’m fascinated to see things like public speaking now being taught from a distance.

A couple of years ago, I was exploring iTunes U at it’s initial launch. I downloaded a literature class from Yale. I found it outstanding that I could watch a Yale professor lecture on one of my favorite novels, that I was getting the actual content of the course at no charge. Of course, no charge meant no credit, but a thorough education doesn’t necessarily equal heavy credentials. Knowledge is a beautiful thing, whether or not you acquire letters after your name to show for it.

I was only sort-of surprised that someone is finally attempting to bridge that gap, as well, however. MIT is now offering course credit for certain classes taken through an online platform at what many suspect will be a substantially less expensive rate than attending the prestigious school residentially would cost, building on the iTunes U model. This led to some conversation about what the future of education, and really everything else, will look like.

Personally, iTunes U is a gem of which I have yet to make full use. I have a lecture on technological developments in treating autism, and on the philosophy of film waiting for me, though, both from MIT. While researching my novel, I recently watched a lecture on quantum mechanics from Oxford. These are actual lectures from these schools. Typically, an entire course is offered. The knowledge gained is just as real as if you were in the classroom (minus, of course, what you learn by producing graded research assignments and so forth). I love that it’s out there for free.

I think there’s far too little of this. I’m concerned that academia is accessible only to a few. I see this manifest in different forms. While researching a proposal a few months ago, I found myself running up against a paywall. Should I want access to important academic research in the field I was exploring, I had to pay for a copy of an academic journal. Some research I couldn’t access at all because I wasn’t a current grad student. I’m bothered by this. While I recognize that the professors who conduct this research and write these articles for peer review must be financially compensated for their livelihood, at the end of the day, their research is being conducted for the greater good. Thus, I think the general public should have access to these articles.

I also see disciplines in the humanities, specifically the fine arts, being elitist and pretentious, producing art that only appeals to an ivory tower inner-circle of other authors and artists, to the exclusion of those who travel a different social sphere and come from different life experiences.

I think both are wrong. This wonderful knowledge, art, and research is so essential for the continued development of our culture, of our society. As such, it cannot be reserved for the privileged few, but must be accessible to all who wish to explore it. Now, I’m no economist. I have no idea how sustainable something like MIT’s new venture is from the perspective of supporting its professors so that they can do this sort of critical research. I also have no hesitation in agreeing that, if you want the credentials, then you need to do the work in the accepted manner.

All that said, however, I’m excited to see things like iTunes U begin to manifest. I’m excited to see this sort of culture and knowledge become available to our society at large, bridging an economic gap that has prevented many from exploring these sorts of ideas and fields. I hope more of this is to come, and that academic institutions leave behind hopes of profit in the interest of sharing their knowledge with the public.

I think the more art, the more philosophy and theology, the more scientific theory, becomes available for everyone who is interested, the better…dare I say, the more enlightened…we will be together. And I think that only good results can arise from that.