I mentioned this back in February, but let me say it once again: what a pity about the fate of Borders Bookstores. I spent many a pleasant hour in my local Borders, and I miss it quite a bit. As a general rule I dislike “going to the store”, but Borders was an exception.
Oh, well.
John Nolte, conservative film critic, decries an article about the new Captain America film:
“This approach to patriotism is all a lie, a ploy from the Left to turn what really is simplistic and lazy (nihilism, angst, irreverence, irony) into “art,” when just the opposite is true. What the Left despises about themes that lift the human spirit is that they’re more often than not, conservative themes — themes of self-sacrifice, selflessness, fidelity, manhood, bravery, and nobility. Whereas darker, simpler themes or a complete lack of theme, appeals to the all-about-me, chaotic narcissism that so defines the Left.”
I love reading Nolte’s work–it reveals so much about the Conservative understanding of art. First of all, I think it’s quite telling that “manhood” is on that list of “good” themes, but that there is no corresponding female virtue. But secondly, I can almost hear Ayn Rand’s fury at the “self-sacrifice” and “selflessness” portion of the program.
What Nolte is describing here is strangely anti-individualistic in nature–I find that quite interesting. (Another example of this tendency in his artistic taste is his review of The English Patient.)
The truth is, the virtues he alludes to are not the virtues of a libertarian, but of someone who feels an actual sense of, dare I say it, community–specifically, nationalism. I only bring this up to point out that this is one more instance in which the inherent conflict between the Nationalistic and Materialistic sides of the group that calls itself “Conservative” appears.
As I’ve mentioned a couple times on here lately, I didn’t much care for the last book in the Harry Potter series. So I was pleased to see this Entertainment Weekly article by Jeff Jensen that expressed one of my many problems with it. As Jensen says:
“I wish Harry’s final victory over Voldemort had nothing to do with the technicalities of Elder Wand allegiance. Not that it doesn’t make sense… But it bugs me to this day that the most dramatic, cathartic moment in Rowling’s story pivots on a twist that required a bunch of exposition to explain.”
I’ll go one better: it makes very little sense, except inasmuch as anything can make sense due to magic. This “magic did it” explanation is perfectly satisfying when things seem dramatically “right”, but, as Jensen observes, it’s weird for Potter to have to stand there and explain the legalistic intricacies of who actually owns the wand. It would work well enough in a comic opera, but not at the climax of a seven-part fantasy epic.
Jensen goes on to say:
“Maybe [Rowling] didn’t want Harry to ‘win’ by killing anyone, even someone as loathsome as Voldemort. Messianic Chosen Ones don’t murder their way to righteous, world-saving victory. See: Luke Skywalker.”
Okay, but the ending of Return of the Jedi is way more effective in my book. The Potter ending is sort of like if Emperor Palpatine were defeated because his payment on the Death Star’s electric bill didn’t go out on time due to a bank holiday. Not dramatically satisfying.
Well not for me, anyway; though clearly most other people feel differently about the book.
I will be very interested to hear the conservative reaction to this Newsweek article entitled “How to Raise a Global Kid”. I predict that what I call the “Nationalistic” wing will not like it one bit. Who knows how much “buzz” (I hate that word) the piece will generate, but if it gets much, I have to assume that some conservatives will be outraged by it.
This is especially significant since one of the advocates of “raising global kids” the article mentions is Jim Rogers, a prominent laissez-faire advocate and investor who endorsed Ron Paul in 2008. A stereotypical conservative as far as economics are concerned, in other words.
Perhaps I am wrong, and reaction to the article will not break down predictably along political lines. But I thought I’d make the prediction, just for the heck of it.
“Was it something I did in another life?/I try and try, but nothing comes out right/for me.”
So begins Warren Zevon‘s darkly humorous 1987 hymn to bad luck “Bad Karma”. I often joke that this ought to be the fight song for my favorite sports team, and indeed it seems quite fitting for almost any team that I support even casually in any sport. They almost always seem to lose in heartbreaking fashion once I start pulling for them.
This is another way of saying I’m sorry that I took a passing interest in the fortunes of the U.S. women’s soccer team. It always ends badly for teams I support.
Well, I’ve had this Scott Adams post I linked to earlier this week much on my mind, so today I decided I’d try to do something boring and see if it gave me any creative ideas for this blog or for anything.
So, I decided to trim some of the trees in my yard. This may sound interesting to some people, but yard work and gardening and basically anything like that holds very little appeal for me. I deemed it suitably boring.
Alas, I am sorry to report that I didn’t get any creative ideas from the experience. I did learn that you shouldn’t stand under a branch that you’re cutting off, however. (No worries–it was a thin branch.)
…I thought I’d share with you this amusing little piece from the conservative site American Thinker on what the author calls the “Global Warming hoax”. It may make fun reading during the coming heat wave.
I just don’t know what to say.
I find it really hard to believe that the latest and last Harry Potter film has a 98% rating at the website “Rotten Tomatoes“. On the face of it, that suggests that is comparable in quality to the similarly-rated Lawrence of Arabia. I haven’t seen the Potter film, and I don’t know if I will, but that level of quality seems highly improbable. I’ve seen the first six films in the series and they’ve ranged from “lousy” to “enjoyable enough”.
Add in the fact that this is an adaptation of the weaker half of what I consider to be the worst book in the whole series, and I become even more dubious. Perhaps I will have to see it now, just to sate my curiosity…
Sometimes I read ideas that I agree with, and yet I feel somehow that I am violating the point by agreeing with it. For example, months ago, J.E. Sawyer wrote this rather excellent post about politics. I felt stupid posting a comment to say “I totally agree”, because I seemed to be committing the error of not critically considering the issue that Sawyer cautioned against. (I posted anyway.)
Now comes this post from Scott Adams which I find very persuasive and thought-provoking. And yet, in linking to it and expressing my agreement, am I not demonstrating the very lack of creativity he describes?
Please forgive the typos that have been creeping into my posts of late. I have been having a lot of problems with my computer monitor that make it hard to read anything on it, and hence hard to proofread.
But honestly, the other day I typed “its” when I meant “it’s”, and it went uncorrected for quite some time. And this post was just a mess for a while. That may seem minor, but that sort of thing really does bother me.
