The Zombie Apocalypse Will Not Be Televised

I've been thinking about the Zombie Apocalypse lately. See, this is not a recent cultural fad, but a literary motif that goes back as far as humans have been creating literature.

Don't believe me? Read the Epic of Gilgamesh (one of the oldest liteary works in existence, it dates to at least the 7th century before Christ). In it, an angry god threatens another god with a Zombie Apocalypse:

"Father, give me the Bull of Heaven,
so he can kill Gilgamesh in his dwelling.
If you do not give me the Bull of Heaven,
I will knock down the Gates of the Netherworld,
I will smash the door posts, and leave the doors flat down,
and will let the dead go up to eat the living!
And the dead will outnumber the living!"

Another translation:

For if you do not grant me the Bull of Heaven,
I will pull down the Gates of Hell itself,
Crush the doorposts and flatten the door,
And I will let the dead leave
And let the dead roam the earth
And they shall eat the living. The dead will overwhelm all the living!

So, there you have it. Nearly 3000 years ago, poets were talking about the Zombie Apocalypse.

{Yes, I am aware of translations that say "eat food like (or with) the living" which makes the threatened calamity more like Malthus gone wild than a zombie uprising. Zombies are cooler than Malthus, though).

As everyone must know by now, Walter Cronkite has died.

Here's a link to an old post where I review an audiobook by and about "the most trusted man in America."

Literary Misdirection

Review: Carter Beats the Devil

This book can be summed up in one sentence: An excellent example of using the art of misdirection in a literary setting.

There's more to it than that, of course. The book is full of rich historical detail, plenty of cameos (and starring roles) by important historical figures, and just enough action. The characters feel fully fleshed out, the historical speculations at least plausible, and the action unforced.

But the best part is the use of misdirection. While Glen David Gold is not as skilled as some other authors (say, Gene Wolfe - no relation), his writing chops are solid, and nothing in the book feels forced. However, there's no need to compare him to other authors, as Gold's purpose is different. Gene Wolfe relies on unreliable narrators who have a vested interest in focusing your attention on details that distract you from what's really going on behind the scenes. Glen David Gold has the same purpose as the stage magicians he's writing about: To entertain you.

If I have any complaints about the book, there would be only one (and its a small one). One running joke/bit of misdirection in the book deals with heavily implying Harry Houdini was gay. The book never states this right out, and it's treated so lightly and offhandedly, I can only imagine the author meant it as a throw-away gag rather than serious historical speculation. It does feel a little forced, but it's such a minor point in an otherwise excellent novel I feel guilty even giving it this much space. But I guess even a positive review needs some balance.

You'll notice I haven't even mentioned the basic plot. I don't think I could do it justice in a brief blog review, and the plot is a little beside the point. In fact, the plot itself is the best use of misdirection in the book.

When I was a kid

I loved the movie Hawk The Slayer.
I must have watched it a dozen times over the course of two or three years.

Then I saw it as an adult.

Boy, that was a terrible movie.

Yet, supposedly someone's making a sequel.

I might just watch it for pure nostalgia's sake.

Arguments that fail to convince me (#1 in a very occasional series)

"The vast majority of scholars believe this, so it must be true."

That might be a good reason to believe something, it may even give me enough reason to seriously consider it and be humble about my own intellect. However, this phrase is often trotted out as though, in and of itself, it should be enough to convince me.

The vast majority of scholars have been wrong before. I'm more interested in WHY the vast majority believes something, rather than the mere fact of their belief (also, when this is used on me, I often find out that the majority isn't so vast after all).

[Note: this post is NOT about global warming. I suppose it might apply, but I'm thinking more about scholars of history, literature, and religion].

Well, now that I'm officially "Dr. Wolfe" (or Ivan Wolfe, PhD if you prefer)

I might as well resume posting while I look for a job.

So, let's start off with a review!

Was Superman a Spy? by Brian Cronin.

Brian Cronin runs the excellent blog Comics Should be Good! where one of his recurring features is a column called Comic Book Legends Revealed (He does a lot more than that, but that's all we need to know for this review). A (usually) weekly look at the various urban legends that have sprung up around comic books and superheroes, it's an entertaining read, though the online column often requires uber-geek levels of comic knowledge to understand all the references and context. Cronin, however, does a fairly good job at providing enough details and history so that comic neophytes and non-followers can get the basic idea.

The online column has a fairly standard format - a "legend" is presented (say, the idea Herbie replaced the Human Torch in the old Fantastic Four cartoon because censors were afraid kids might set themselves on fire), and then Cronin presents his findings (actually, the cartoon rights to the Human Torch were unavailable and so they had to replace him for legal reasons). It's a good format, and it works well.

The book does not follow that format. Instead, he writes about the tales as though he were writing a history of comic books, with attention to urban legends. This creates, for me at least, something of a disjointed read. The narrative skips back and forth between a history of the comic book company and/or superhero in question (the book is divided into sections based on comic publisher and further subdivided by superhero categories) and a discussion of various legends surrounding the characters. Transitions between sections and ideas are not handled very well, and the entire book has a "back and forth" feeling that resembles a mild, not very frightening roller coaster ride. The subject matter is interesting (if you're interested in that type of thing), but the manner of presentation is disjointed.

However, I shouldn't complain too much. Given that the online column already contains much of the information found in this book, I can see why the author and publishers felt the need to present the information in a new way. A carbon copy of the online column would have been superfluous. Also, Many of the legends in the book have not appeared online, so there is something in this book even for those who do not follow the online column.

So, despite my slight reservation over the overall organization, I recommend this book to anyone interested in learning the real truth behind many of the silly, bizarre, and fascinating legends that have crept up around comic books and superheroes.

A Review of An American Carol

An American Carol

This movie didn't do well in the the theaters, and while it was well-reviewed on conservative websites, I was hesitant to see it. I'm not fond of movies that preach to the choir, even if I belong to that choir.

But, my wife sneaked it into our NetFlix queue, and now that I've seen it, I feel I must blog about my reaction.

This was a frustrating film. Like other not so great films like Van Helsing and The Mummy 3: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor. Overall, these movies aren't all that good (though they don't stink either), but there are enough moments in each movie to indicate that the filmmakers could have made an excellent movie. In Van Helsing, it's the underused Frankenstein's Monster character that shows the creators had some originality and that a good story was buried among all the overdone special effects and idiotic action.

In American Carol, there are several elements that show David Zucker still has some of that mojo that helped make Airplane and the Naked Gun movies so hilarious.

But first, if you haven't seen or heard of the movie, a brief discussion of the plot. The movie revolves around a Michael Moore-esque ("Michale Malone") filmmaker who wants to abolish the 4th of July. He is visited by the ghosts of JFK, General Patton, George Washington (and the Angel of Death). They convince him to love the 4th of July holiday and to see the good in the USA. There's also a side plot dealing with some terrorists that try to dupe Malone into giving them press passes to an "honor the troops" event.

And Zucker made a lot of excellent choices, that could have elevated it beyond a mere gross out comedy that would appeal only to die-hard conservatives. First, when Malone changes his mind about the 4th of July, he doesn't become an establishment conservative. It's made quite clear he still believes in universal health care, can't stand NASCAR, and will most likely still vote Democrat. Malone's problem isn't that he's liberal, it's that he sees only the bad in America. Early in the film, when he declares he must destroy America in order to save it, it's clear he means that he sees America as so flawed, the only real solution is to junk the whole thing and start all over again. He's not a terrorist supporter or a conspiracy theorist. He's merely misled and can't see the good in America.

Another good choice is the villain. The head terrorist plays his part completely straight, much like Ricardo Montalbon did in the first Naked Gun movie.

However, most of this is undone by all the other choices made. The frame story adds nothing to the tale, interrupts the narrative at annoying points, and isn't all that funny. Kelsey Grammar (as General Patton) spends more time lecturing Malone than doing anything funny. It's not that Grammar/Patton is the straight man in this comedy - instead, he's the humorless scold determined to let you know just why this isn't all that funny. He's out of place in a comedy film. Overall, the movie feels like a stern lecture with occasional jokes, rather than a comedy with a message.

However, there are two scenes that indicate Zucker could have made a very good movie:
1). Malone returns from film school to find his lady love dating some random Army guy, she declares "I just love a man in uniform." As Malone walks away, in the background one can see several "men in uniform" lined up outside her door (including a postal worker and a ninja). This kind of background gag was a key component in previous Zucker films, but there are far too few of them in this film.
2.) The initial scene that introduces the terrorists is hilarious in a "I can't believe he went there" way. Lines like "It's hard to find good suicide bombers. All the good ones are gone" cross lines that many in the entertainment would refuse to cross. The sheer amount of sacred cows slaughtered in that initial scene alone almost makes trudging through the rest of the movie worth it. Almost.

But paired with those two scenes are another two scenes that neatly encapsulate everything that is wrong with the movie:
1.) A bizarre musical number involving college professors comes across as a sermon rather than a funny moment, with General Patton lecturing the audience on the evils of the liberal indoctrination occurring on college campuses. The lyrics of the song are hard to make out, and while I sometimes find the liberal culture in academia stifling, it's nowhere near as bad as the movie makes it out to be.
2). Jon Voight's cameo as George Washington is genuinely moving. In fact, after this, I would pay good money to see Voight as Washington in any film or play. The entire scene is well staged and effectively portrayed. The moment when the doors open and the wreckage of the Twin Towers appears is perfectly timed for maximum emotional impact. But the scene is all wrong for the movie. It feels like someone edited in a few minutes from a serious drama about 9/11. When surrounded on either side by fart jokes, "turdhead", and innuendo about gay sex in a bathroom, an emotionally moving scene about 9/11 is not only out of place, it's just plain wrong. It is so jarring that after you spend a few minutes wondering what it was doing in the movie, you start thinking you've been manipulated.

I really can't recommend this movie (except for the first scene with the terrorists). Zucker set out to make a conservative comedy and failed. But I think his goal was his biggest mistake. He should have made a comedy that happened to be conservative, rather than a conservative movie with a few jokes.

Voting and our rhetoric - (and make sure you vote).

I don't care much for politics on this blog, but since there's an election tomorrow:

How we go about debating politics is almost as important as who we ultimately choose. The ends do not always justify the means - and if at the other end, we've left nothing but hurt feelings, broken friendships, split congregations, and severed family ties because we are convinced that only evil or deluded people could dare vote for THAT other person, well - we've done serious damage to our social fabric.

I believe our communities and social ties are more important than particular partisan points. Recognize that good people can honestly disagree.

Now, go out and vote (especially it it's for Bob Barr. Even Libertarians need a little electoral love).

As for the two main choices: I see positives and negatives. There never have been perfect choices ever in American history (except perhaps our first president, and even he had problems controlling his cabinet).

Despite what the opposition says, neither candidate would be a disaster. McCain is not Bush redux - he's opposed torture, and his career (until now) was predicated around poking his own party in the eye.

And despite what some have said, Obama is not some sort of secret Commie. He is liberal, but he's still within the mainstream of the Democratic party. If he tries to veer too far left, then we can expect the Republicans to take over Congress like what happened to Clinton in 1994.

Everyone take a deep breath and say: Whatever happens, the Nation will endure.

And then, go vote for who you honestly think will do the best job. No one will do a perfect job, but one of them will do a better job than the other.

Of course, it's all part of the give and take of living in a rambunctious democracy.

Best campaign poster ever!

Still not totally decided on who to vote for, but when I saw this, I couldn't pass it up.

My Most Recent Publication!

Big news this week: Battlestar Galactica and Philosophy: Mission Accomplished or Mission Frakked Up? from Open Court Publishing (not to be confused with a similarly titled volume from Blackwell) comes out this week. It features two essays by me: "Why Your Mormon Neighbor Knows More About This Show Than You Do" and "Coduction: Cylons, Colonials, and Criticism."

Telling you about that second essay is something of a spoiler for the book, since five of the essays are “unattributed” (there are five contributors to the book who each wrote two essays. If you think about it for a minute and are familiar with the show, you can realize why five of us have unattributed essays in addition to our attributed essays).

So, buy a copy and become smartified about philosopicalizing stuff.

Today's totally random quote taken completely out of context

"Males couldn't bite you even if they tried; Their mouths don't work that way."

[Bonus points to those who can figure out the context for this quote.]

Charlton Heston has died.

Moses, John the Baptist, and Brigham Young arrive at the gates of heaven. "Nice to see you, Charlie," says St. Peter.

An example of how my mind works....

Yesterday, in my campus paper, there was a small article with a headline that went something like "Campus Club Interested in Brains." (I've tried finding the article online, but it isn't there as far as I can tell).

It was about a neuroscience club, but my first thought was "The Zombies have finally organized. We're all doomed."

Top 5 Pop Songs about Rhetoric

Since I study rhetoric, the question people most often ask me is "what is rhetoric?" Usually I give a long answer dealing with the history of Western civilization, starting with the Odyssey and going right up to the current political season.

This post is a simpler answer. If you listen to the radio at all, you already know what rhetoric is. You can find a few definitions of rhetoric on the web, such as here, but, following Aristotle's advice, I'll use previous knowledge (popular songs) on my audience to bring to them new knowledge (what rhetoric is). Here are the top five pop songs that have rhetoric as their subject matter:

1. The Police - "De Do Do Do De Da Da Da." Key lyrics: Poets, priests and politicians/Have words to thank for their positions

2. Extreme - "More Than Words." Key lyrics: What would you say if I took those words away/Then you couldn't make things new/

3. Berlin - "No More Words." Key Lyrics: You're talking and it all sounds fair . . . I'm still listening and still unsure

4. Simon & Garfunkel - "Sounds of Silence." Key Lyrics: "Fools", said I, "You do not know/Silence like a cancer grows/Hear my words that I might teach you/Take my arms that I might reach you"

5. Tears for Fears - "Sowing the Seeds of Love." Key Lyrics: feel the pain/talk about it/if you're a worried man/shout about it/open hearts/feel about it/open minds/think about it/everyone/read about it . . . read it in the books
in the crannies and the nooks there are books to read

Of course, most of these songs take a rather negative view of rhetoric, but that's Plato's fault. If anyone knows of any songs that take a more positive view, please let me know.

This New Knight Rider Movie

Last night on NBC. The verdict: Not too bad, better than expected.

Let's do this by the numbers (SPOILER ALERT if you care, and in this case you shouldn't):

1. The dialogue and story felt a lot like the old 80s series. That's not really a good thing. When I was 12, that was fine, but as a thirtysomething, I prefer a slightly more mature sensibility and snappier (or less on-the nose) dialogue. Of course, it ignores all the other Knight Rider sequels like "Knight Rider 2000" and "Team Knight Rider" - and that's a good thing. So it's not a total loss.

2. Let's check off the standard PC plot points:
- Lesbian character? Check.
- Disaffected Iraq war vet who apparently no longer supports the War on Terror (or is at least very cynical about it)? Check.
- Evil corporation with on-the-nose name of Black River (read: Blackwater) that does security work in Iraq and wants to steal the good guys tech in order to do evil, evil things? Check.
- The real bad guys are capitalists with possible ties to the White House or other government agencies and start wars in order to make loads of cash? Check.

3. Plot twists were rather predictable and paint by the numbers. The only unexpected plot twist dealt with a body double and that felt more like a cheat rather than a legitimate plot twist. I guess it should have added tension to the narrative, but instead it seemed to come out of nowhere and made the plot even sillier.

4. At least the old 80s KITT had an attitude. Val Kilmer played this KITT like a Vulcan overdosing on Valium.

5. And that's about it. The story structure and basic plot felt like they were written by someone who had just finished their third viewing of "Knight Rider: The Complete Series" on DVD.

A Gilded Read

The Incorporation of America (25th anniversary edition)
by Alan Trachtenberg

This is one of those books that are really only read by academics such as myself. Since my dissertation covers the overlapping time periods variously known as "the Gilded Age", "Victorian America", and "The Progressive Era", I more or less have to read various works of cultural studies and history dealing with those same eras. This one is a classic work that covers the Gilded Age. Written when "American Studies" was in its most nascent form, this book helped define that academic discipline and served as a model for many, many later studies.

That said, it really is only for academics who must read it in order to deal with what has already been said about this era. A large part of academic writing is acknowledging that you've read whatever tome other academics consider important.

For example, an academic journal recently told me that they would publish an article by me if I did some significant revision. One of their revisions was that I include information from around half a dozen landmark academic studies. Well, I had read all of those studies, but the information in them didn't really apply at all to what I was discussing. My dissertation director said that all I needed was to be able to include the book in the bibliography, so I just needed to pull out a quote from each book, stick them in footnotes somewhere, and I would be fine. Apparently, many reviewers go straight to the bibliography before reading the actual article, and if certain books aren't listed, the article is already damned from the beginning.

This is one of those books. It's interesting enough in an academic way, and I'm actually using quite a bit of it in my dissertation, but the general reader likely won't find anything interesting here. I enjoyed the book for what it was (though the gratuitous Bush hate that permeated the "25th anniversary" introduction made the book harder to enjoy. People really need to learn to let go).

Comics for this week.

JSA Classified #34 (DC): A nice little one-shot tale of no consequence, but a lot of fun to read. The best part, however, is the "DC Nation" news page that announces a new Ambush Bug mini-series. Since Ambush Bug is my favorite DC character (for the uninitiated - Ambush Bug knows he is in a comic. It's also implied he's a human from our - the real - world who has managed to enter the comics realm. As such, he's insane, ignores all rules of characterization and plot, and his comics usually make no sense whatsoever).

Daredevil #104 (Marvel): What a depressing comic. Matt Murdock's blind wife has been driven insane by Mr. Fear and has been killing (or attempting to kill) people. Daredevil has become more ruthless than usual in tracking down those responsible. Very violent, this story shows why it is that most superheroes avoid getting married: the villains will go after them in order to get at you.

Fantastic Four #553 (Marvel): Of course, this married superhero couple does okay, since they both have super powers and tons of cool advanced technology. The story here is slight, as it's meant to be a farewell from the current writer (the excellent Dwayne McDuffie). Doctor Doom comes from the future, claiming that the Fantastic Four have, in the future, taken over the Earth and rule with an iron fist in order to ensure utopia. The future Fantastic Four come back as well and say that Doom is lying. But who to believe? Given Reed's less than stellar behavior during the Civil War (what a mess of a series that was), Doom may be telling the truth.

Project: Superpowers #0 (Dynamite): There's a Daredevil in this one as well, but this is the original Golden Age hero. There's a sense of deja vu with this comic, since Marvel is also putting out a series called "the Twelve" that resurrects several obscure Golden Age heroes by providing a plausible explanation for their unaging survival into the present day. The story here, as this is a zero issue, is all set-up with little action, but it is intriguing and I found myself interested in where it was going to go. I'm not sure what is up with the current comic book nostalgia for WWII heroes, but I'll be reading both this and Marvel's the Twelve.

Bollywood lite?

Bride and Prejudice.

As a semi-fan of Bollywood movies and a sucker for (almost) any type of Jane Austen adaptation, I probably went into this movie with higher expectations than it deserved. This movie should have worked, actually. The casting was excellent (except in the case of Darcy, who was far too bland), and the idea of mashing an Austen novel with a Bollywood movie (both of which are often obsessed with the idea of finding the right mate and getting married) is inspired. And I thought it was going to work. The initial wedding scene appears to drop any pretension at watering Bollywood down, with an excellent guys vs. girls song and dance number (“Kites Without Strings”) that could have a place in any good Bollywood film. But then the filmmakers decided to show they didn’t trust their audience, and far too much of that excellent little song was spent focusing on Darcy as someone translated the lyrics for him and tried to explain the culture on the fly as well.

And then the rest of the musical numbers were, frankly, too westernized. One (“No Wife, No Life”) was a bland, insipid mixture of hip-hop and reggae that combined only the most superficial elements of each. Others were plain love ballads or other bland songs that are more appropriate over the end credits of a movie, rather than as show stopping musical routines. Clearly, this was meant to be Bollywood-lite, a way to give western audiences a small taste of what a Bollywood film might be like. But, it really isn’t that at all. Instead, it’s a “Hollywood” (in the generic sense) film that borrows a few elements of Bollywood and waters them too far down. Perhaps it’s like cinematic homeopathy – the belief that the most effective dose is the one where the solution has been diluted so many times, the original substance is undetectable.

There are other problems. The Elizabeth Bennet character (Lalita, played by the drop dead gorgeous Aishwarya Rai) is not near as witty as the original, despite a yeoman’s effort. The wittiest lines she has come from slightly altered quotes in the original novel, but most of her supposedly witty remarks (“What do you have against books? They don’t leave enough room in your bag for make-up?”) aren’t all that clever or funny. Instead, she comes across as rather shrewdly mean and witlessly sarcastic.

Perhaps this might be a good film for those afraid to take their Bollywood straight up, but a better starter flick would be the award-winning Lagaan (if you can take the four hour running time). I can’t recommend this film at all, except for those who absolutely must see every version of Pride and Prejudice (including the Mormon one).

This week in Comics

Fine, fine. The e-mail and comments on the last post show there are at least six people who check this blog out once a month or so. Plus, my brain needs a break from the dissertation. Since today is my birthday (and I have some free time since I just finished two articles that will be published in a book sometime over the summer - more on that later), I'm going to make a return to blogging. And what's a more appropriate way to do that then review my comics haul for the week?

Ultimate Iron Man II #2 (Marvel): Well, Orson Scott Card's first Ultimate Iron Man series was a fun, if typical, well told Card tale (child genius with amazing powers and all that). This series is turning out a whole lot better, though. Card shows that he's learned from the first series and has now gotten a better handle on the form of comics (the last series had several clunky transitions and scenes that a veteran comics writer would have avoided, though none of those missteps were even close to fatal).

Card also manages to use the "War on Terror" in way that takes no sides and allows for humanity among all those caught up in it's terrible web. Rather than preach (which Card can be wont to do in his online essays), here he uses it as a backdrop and allows the story to go forward without any preaching. Given Card's strong views and the current spate of movies and comics that can't seem but to take time off from the story in order to preach to the audience about the evils of Bush, etc. this is quite an achievement on Card's part.

Plus, the story has guys in robotic armor duking it out. So it's cool.

Damage Control #1 (Marvel): So, the Hulk has returned from outer space and smashed New York (don't ask). Luckily, Marvel comics has an in-house explanation for why New York can get demolished several times and still remain intact - the high tech construction company, Damage Control. Previous versions of Damage Control have treated the company rather light-heartedly, with lots of slapstick and goofy gags. This version has its tongue somewhere in the vicinity of its cheek and silly situations abound. Yet the bizarre and out of place commentary on the War on Terror mixed with the rather depressing and all too serious Marvel comics has taken after their recent Civil War (please don't ask), this comic feel tonally off, as though it's playing a violin concerto in B flat Locrian while the rest of the orchestra is playing Indonesian Gamelan music with a slendro tuning.

Battlestar Galactica Season Zero #5 (Dynamite): This series is okay, though there's no suspense since you know which characters can't die or be seriously injured, and the other characters clearly aren't important since they don't show up on the show. Plus, the whole plot about quelling a potential revolt seems rather anti-climactic when you realize that this all takes place a few months before the entire planet gets nuked.

No DC or IDW comics this week.

I plead Dissertation.

I've been writing a lot on the darn thing, but it means I have little time for the net. Hopefully soon, but I figure since I seem to be in some sort of groove right now, I'd better stay in it. I'm getting tired of being in school as a student and I really, really want out ASAP. Of course, that's at least a year and a half away, but the more I get done now, the easier it will be once the nit-picky copy editing and source triple checking has to be done.

No promises - I will blog if I can, but the dissertation has more of a claim on my time.