![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mallorys_cameraFull Joycean complement of snow falling faintly and faintly falling upon the ranch-style houses and empty strip malls of the living though not so much upon the dead in these days of EZ bakeoff cremation.
Six inches predicted, but I’m guessing we’ll get a foot.
Bizarrely, temps are supposed to rise into the fifties tomorrow, so most of this may melt though I suppose if the household members organize a collective shoveling project, I’ll join in.
Spent yesterday organizing closets and sifting through vast vats of papers that at one time seemed significant to me. I’m not talking creative writing projects, which are always significant; I’m talking utility bills from 2010.
Also watched a good chunk of Season 2 of The Man in the High Castle, which is nowhere near as good as Season 1, filled as it is with clunky expositive dialogue and lots of “action.” Primary criticism of Season 1 was that it was so slow-moving. Of course, that was why I liked it.
Season 2 also runs into a major plot problem.
In the novel, The Man in the High Castle, the eerie introject of the alternate reality into the protagonists’ reality is a novel entitled The Grasshopper Lies Heavy. (In post-modern structuralist terms, this was something of a delight: our real world as a fictional world in a fictional world.)
In the television series, the novel becomes a series of newsreels.
Initially, this works well. In a visual medium, it’s best to use visual plot references. Eventually, though, you run up against the question: But where did these newsreels come from?
It’s easy to envision a crackpot writer alone in his office – a Mason jar half filled with cheap Scotch on his battered desk, two cigarettes burning down in the ashtray, drafts seeping in through the cracks of his locked door – channeling an alternate universe by feverishly pecking away at an ancient typewriter. He’s mining his own brain. Distilling his own imagination.
It’s impossible to envision this same man making newreels.
Does. Not. Compute.
And yet, this is what Season 2 expects us to do.
Furthermore, these newsreels are no longer floating ash from a parallel universe but visions from a future that can and must be stopped! While this conceit imparts a certain urgency to the characters’ narrative arcs – an urgency that was entirely missing from Season 1, which was another reason I liked Season 1 so well – it turns the whole production into a fairly conventional action story.
Action stories are never particularly interesting to me.
I read books backwards, you may recall.
That’s how little I care about action. Or plot.
###
‘nother longish phoner with Max. He’ll be going down to Southern California over Xmas.
“I thought you were going to Washington!” I said.
“That got canceled,” he said. “MaryAnn won’t go.”
“MaryAnn won’t go?”
“The election.”
Presumably the Port Angeles Hares all voted for Trump.
I had something of the same reaction myself in the first few weeks after the election. Did not want to break bread with anyone who voted for that man.
But we’re now into Week 5 Post-Election.
This thing is taking on Civil War proportions. Brother against brother.
Me? I think the thing to do now is to get to work changing the landscape. Man up. As unpleasant as that may be, that probably involves talking to these people: You do know you voted for a lying con artist, right?
Again, I think this is all on the Democratic Party.
Let's say HRC was a wonderful human being who was deeply misunderstood by big meanies! (I don't believe that myself for one minute, but for the purposes of this discussion, I'm willing to pretend.) She still had enough negatives going into the election to make her unpalatable to a huge number of voters. Why did the Democratic Party cling so desperately to the myth of the inevitability of her candidacy?
Any deconstruction of the failed candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton would have to begin with an analysis of the fairytale, The Emperor's New Clothes.
###
The DCPAA is being lobbied aggressively to merge with the local Democratic Party. All I can say is that I will never ally myself with the party that produced Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
###
Bill is going up to PA by himself after the holidays.
I think I’m gonna write Max a letter urging him to accompany his father.
It's a battle for hearts and minds.
Six inches predicted, but I’m guessing we’ll get a foot.
Bizarrely, temps are supposed to rise into the fifties tomorrow, so most of this may melt though I suppose if the household members organize a collective shoveling project, I’ll join in.
Spent yesterday organizing closets and sifting through vast vats of papers that at one time seemed significant to me. I’m not talking creative writing projects, which are always significant; I’m talking utility bills from 2010.
Also watched a good chunk of Season 2 of The Man in the High Castle, which is nowhere near as good as Season 1, filled as it is with clunky expositive dialogue and lots of “action.” Primary criticism of Season 1 was that it was so slow-moving. Of course, that was why I liked it.
Season 2 also runs into a major plot problem.
In the novel, The Man in the High Castle, the eerie introject of the alternate reality into the protagonists’ reality is a novel entitled The Grasshopper Lies Heavy. (In post-modern structuralist terms, this was something of a delight: our real world as a fictional world in a fictional world.)
In the television series, the novel becomes a series of newsreels.
Initially, this works well. In a visual medium, it’s best to use visual plot references. Eventually, though, you run up against the question: But where did these newsreels come from?
It’s easy to envision a crackpot writer alone in his office – a Mason jar half filled with cheap Scotch on his battered desk, two cigarettes burning down in the ashtray, drafts seeping in through the cracks of his locked door – channeling an alternate universe by feverishly pecking away at an ancient typewriter. He’s mining his own brain. Distilling his own imagination.
It’s impossible to envision this same man making newreels.
Does. Not. Compute.
And yet, this is what Season 2 expects us to do.
Furthermore, these newsreels are no longer floating ash from a parallel universe but visions from a future that can and must be stopped! While this conceit imparts a certain urgency to the characters’ narrative arcs – an urgency that was entirely missing from Season 1, which was another reason I liked Season 1 so well – it turns the whole production into a fairly conventional action story.
Action stories are never particularly interesting to me.
I read books backwards, you may recall.
That’s how little I care about action. Or plot.
###
‘nother longish phoner with Max. He’ll be going down to Southern California over Xmas.
“I thought you were going to Washington!” I said.
“That got canceled,” he said. “MaryAnn won’t go.”
“MaryAnn won’t go?”
“The election.”
Presumably the Port Angeles Hares all voted for Trump.
I had something of the same reaction myself in the first few weeks after the election. Did not want to break bread with anyone who voted for that man.
But we’re now into Week 5 Post-Election.
This thing is taking on Civil War proportions. Brother against brother.
Me? I think the thing to do now is to get to work changing the landscape. Man up. As unpleasant as that may be, that probably involves talking to these people: You do know you voted for a lying con artist, right?
Again, I think this is all on the Democratic Party.
Let's say HRC was a wonderful human being who was deeply misunderstood by big meanies! (I don't believe that myself for one minute, but for the purposes of this discussion, I'm willing to pretend.) She still had enough negatives going into the election to make her unpalatable to a huge number of voters. Why did the Democratic Party cling so desperately to the myth of the inevitability of her candidacy?
Any deconstruction of the failed candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton would have to begin with an analysis of the fairytale, The Emperor's New Clothes.
###
The DCPAA is being lobbied aggressively to merge with the local Democratic Party. All I can say is that I will never ally myself with the party that produced Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
###
Bill is going up to PA by himself after the holidays.
I think I’m gonna write Max a letter urging him to accompany his father.
It's a battle for hearts and minds.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2016-12-17 06:50 pm (UTC)I think most of those trying to analyze the election and figure out why Hillary lost really ignore how many people just plain despised her and voted against her rather than for Trump. That's how bad a candidate the Dems picked when they decided to try the Republican technique of picking the next one in line. The Republicans, on the other hand, abandoned that tactic this time in favor of a big fight amongst a gaggle of lightweights, giving us Vlad. I mean, Trump.
Next time should be interesting. Everything should be up in the air unless a few new figures from one side or the other start shining as potential leadership material.
no subject
Date: 2016-12-17 07:25 pm (UTC)A substantial contingent of HRC voters were doing the same thing. Didn't like HRC, but didn't like Trump even more.
It bewilders me that in the election's aftermath, those voters are refusing to acknowledge that voters on the opposite side might be exercising the same strategy in reverse.
no subject
Date: 2016-12-18 02:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-12-18 12:06 pm (UTC)Even I couldn't bring myself to vote for her, and my politics are fairly progressive.
no subject
Date: 2016-12-18 12:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-12-18 12:09 pm (UTC)Well, that depends upon whether you think Bernie Sanders might have been able to beat Donald Trump, I suppose. Debbie Wasserman Schultz certainly torpedoed Sanders' candidacy.
no subject
Date: 2016-12-18 04:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-12-18 09:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-12-18 10:06 pm (UTC)I know, I know -- his son died.
But a seasoned old pol like Biden? That wouldn't keep him out of the race. I don't think.
I have no proof, of course. And I've been wrong plenty of times before. But my gut tells me there were other possible candidates around. They didn't want to get mowed down, though.
The remarkable thing about Sanders' candidacy was that it happened at all. It took someone who was slightly autistic (in a political sense, at least) to stand in defiance to the Clinton machine. I agree that Sanders was probably not electable either.
no subject
Date: 2016-12-19 01:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-12-20 02:52 pm (UTC)Yeah, you're probably correct about that.