Pirates!
We went to see The Black Pirate tonight. Douglas Fairbanks was quite charming, though the stylized acting of silent films doesn't generally appeal to me. The film was only slightly gay: there was a great moment when Fairbanks traps his pirate friend - who's about to bring some food in to the beautiful captured princess - against the wall, with one arm on each side, and asks the friend if he believes in love at first sight. The audience reaction was massive, which gives further credence to my theory that, in a couple of decades, this period will be identified as the period in which homosexuality became part of American culture, in the sense that feminism is part of American culture - a major, acknowledged, but not uncontested, force.
In which I ramble about four books:
Law in the Domains of Culture, ed. Austin Sarat & Thomas R. Kearns: This collection is a bit scattershot, since the study of law and culture is a big field, but it has two real gems. Carol Clover writes about how the metaphor of the trial structures many popular narratives, even those that don't take place in courtrooms. Clover, whose Men, Women and Chainsaws should be of interest to anyone who wonders why we take such pleasure in our texts, does a great job. William Ian Miller, known among other things for his work on blood feuds in Iceland, takes on the role of revenge, as opposed to formal justice, in movies, with specific emphasis on Unforgiven. A typically well-written though dilettantish offering about the Scopes monkey trial by Marjorie Garber, a too theoretical piece by Rosemary Coombe (by too theoretical, I mean it's about nothing much), an essay about the historical foundations of copyright by Martha Woodmansee, and a typically self-important piece by Andrew Ross round out the collection, along with an introductory essay by the editors.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Philosophy: Fear and Trembling in Sunnydale, ed. James B. South: This is the best of the three academic Buffy collections I've read, the others being Fighting the Forces and Reading the Vampire Slayer. With the exception of the smug, odd essay that closes the volume by excoriating the notion that Buffy ought to be of interest to scholars, the pieces are at least harmless, and I really enjoyed Jason Kawal's examination of what it would mean to ask "What Would Buffy Do?" That is, do we mean to ask what Buffy would do if she, with all her Slayer powers and knowledge, were in a certain situation? But that might not be a good guide to behavior, for example were I trapped in a small locked room where Buffy could kick the door down but I could not. If we don't mean that, how much of Buffy do we want to import, and what does that mean, and don't we end up asking what Buffy would do if she had (only) our capabilities and knowledge, which is to say, what would we do? The counterfactual has always intrigued me, so it's mainly this essay that makes me give the volume high marks. The other essays range broadly over different philosophical issues, from basic good & evil to feminism and violence. Section titles are perfectly chosen from the series; I especially like "Don't speak Latin in front of the books: Knowledge, Rationality and Science in the Buffyverse," and "That's the kind of wooly-headed thinking that leads to being eaten: Religion and Politics in the Buffyverse."
Marjorie Garber, Quotation Marks: A collection of Garber's essays about various aspects of popular/literary culture, including a neat one on the use of "Ms." Best essay: "Moniker," about Monica Lewinsky, Jewishness, blow-job mouths, and related matters. Not just because that's the way my former boss, straight out of New Hampshire, would pronounce the name Monica. Rivka became "Rivker." (Once he really tripped up a lawyer at oral argument, asking about the "lore" related to a particular matter. "Lore?" the poor guy repeated, dumbfounded. "Yes, the lore." Eventually, it developed that he meant "law.")
Jamin Raskin, Overruling Democracy: The Supreme Court vs. the American People: Though the title might lead you to expect otherwise, only one chapter of this book rehashes Bush v. Gore. Other chapters criticize the Court's jurisprudence on the right to run for office - arguing that it has wrongly allowed the two major parties to structure electioneering so that other parties have no chance to develop strength - the right to vote, redistricting, political debates, public education, corporate speech, and flag-burning. Raskin (who went to my high school, though long before I did) is a passionate writer, if not one with any particular flair. His proposals for reform, especially constitutional amendment, are so sweetly liberal that they made me sad, given how unlikely they are to be even suggested, much less enacted. His strength is in writing about election law and its suppression of minor party candidates in multiple ways, from oppressive signature requirements to exclusion from televised debates. Otherwise, he tells you what you knew already: in American politics, he who has the gold makes the rules.
In which I ramble about four books:
Law in the Domains of Culture, ed. Austin Sarat & Thomas R. Kearns: This collection is a bit scattershot, since the study of law and culture is a big field, but it has two real gems. Carol Clover writes about how the metaphor of the trial structures many popular narratives, even those that don't take place in courtrooms. Clover, whose Men, Women and Chainsaws should be of interest to anyone who wonders why we take such pleasure in our texts, does a great job. William Ian Miller, known among other things for his work on blood feuds in Iceland, takes on the role of revenge, as opposed to formal justice, in movies, with specific emphasis on Unforgiven. A typically well-written though dilettantish offering about the Scopes monkey trial by Marjorie Garber, a too theoretical piece by Rosemary Coombe (by too theoretical, I mean it's about nothing much), an essay about the historical foundations of copyright by Martha Woodmansee, and a typically self-important piece by Andrew Ross round out the collection, along with an introductory essay by the editors.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Philosophy: Fear and Trembling in Sunnydale, ed. James B. South: This is the best of the three academic Buffy collections I've read, the others being Fighting the Forces and Reading the Vampire Slayer. With the exception of the smug, odd essay that closes the volume by excoriating the notion that Buffy ought to be of interest to scholars, the pieces are at least harmless, and I really enjoyed Jason Kawal's examination of what it would mean to ask "What Would Buffy Do?" That is, do we mean to ask what Buffy would do if she, with all her Slayer powers and knowledge, were in a certain situation? But that might not be a good guide to behavior, for example were I trapped in a small locked room where Buffy could kick the door down but I could not. If we don't mean that, how much of Buffy do we want to import, and what does that mean, and don't we end up asking what Buffy would do if she had (only) our capabilities and knowledge, which is to say, what would we do? The counterfactual has always intrigued me, so it's mainly this essay that makes me give the volume high marks. The other essays range broadly over different philosophical issues, from basic good & evil to feminism and violence. Section titles are perfectly chosen from the series; I especially like "Don't speak Latin in front of the books: Knowledge, Rationality and Science in the Buffyverse," and "That's the kind of wooly-headed thinking that leads to being eaten: Religion and Politics in the Buffyverse."
Marjorie Garber, Quotation Marks: A collection of Garber's essays about various aspects of popular/literary culture, including a neat one on the use of "Ms." Best essay: "Moniker," about Monica Lewinsky, Jewishness, blow-job mouths, and related matters. Not just because that's the way my former boss, straight out of New Hampshire, would pronounce the name Monica. Rivka became "Rivker." (Once he really tripped up a lawyer at oral argument, asking about the "lore" related to a particular matter. "Lore?" the poor guy repeated, dumbfounded. "Yes, the lore." Eventually, it developed that he meant "law.")
Jamin Raskin, Overruling Democracy: The Supreme Court vs. the American People: Though the title might lead you to expect otherwise, only one chapter of this book rehashes Bush v. Gore. Other chapters criticize the Court's jurisprudence on the right to run for office - arguing that it has wrongly allowed the two major parties to structure electioneering so that other parties have no chance to develop strength - the right to vote, redistricting, political debates, public education, corporate speech, and flag-burning. Raskin (who went to my high school, though long before I did) is a passionate writer, if not one with any particular flair. His proposals for reform, especially constitutional amendment, are so sweetly liberal that they made me sad, given how unlikely they are to be even suggested, much less enacted. His strength is in writing about election law and its suppression of minor party candidates in multiple ways, from oppressive signature requirements to exclusion from televised debates. Otherwise, he tells you what you knew already: in American politics, he who has the gold makes the rules.