"Hey Mardus, sure have been dragging on ass on editing chapter 2!"
"Yeah, yeah," grumble grumble.
"I'd understand if your apartment was clean and the Yankees were in first place, but what are you doing? You're cooking boogers."
"They're oysters."
"Whatever. You need a kick in the ass."
"..."
"If you don't finish chapter 2 by 1:05pm this coming Thursday..."
"Yes...?"
"Your paying for your friend's ticket to the Yankee game."
"Fuck."
"..."
"Fine."
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Noisy animals, the flatulence of the gods and the evil thing
The Gods Must Be Crazy, which takes place in Botswana funny enough, came out in 1980. The story begins by introducing us to the "little people of the Kalahari" - the Bushmen - who have no sense of ownership, know no jealousy, live simply without a formal government or laws and are stymied by a Coke bottle that a pilot tosses out his window into their world of animal skin thongs and hand-made tools.
The story then shifts to the "civilized world" where people drive to their mail boxes and back, sit in traffic, work at desks and wonder if other people can hear the voices in their heads. In time, the modern versus natural world dichotomy devolves into a romantic comedy between the two main Caucasian characters with the Bushmen and other Africans playing smaller roles.
What the movie does do, though, is 1) introduce one picture of Botswana that is no longer representative of the entire country and 2) provides concretes stereotypes to work with.
In the first case, we're given a glimpse of what may be urban Botswana (possibly the capitol, Gaborone, but we never know for sure), but for the majority of the film we see rural Botswana and its people. Because the early urban setting is not identified as part of Botswana or not, we never truly can say or believe that the country has an urban, modern and successful (by Western standards) element to it. Rather, Botswana is simplified as rural.
In the second case, we learn that the Bushmen refer to cars as noisy animals, consider the noise of airplanes examples of the gods' flatulence and come to consider an item that they cannot share - the Coke bottle - as "the evil thing" which must be thrown off the side of the Earth. [If I'm not mistaken, 20th century Polish journalist Ryszard Kapuscinski mentions in his book, The Soccer War, the use of paratroopers in Africa by a Western army as a means of instilling fear and showing dominance as the Africans feared anything that fell from the sky.]
Now that Botswana has become an important player in the diamond trade, I'd like to think these misconceptions have become dated. I will have to find out for sure, but it certainly would make for a delicious scene where the Batswana protagonists show they are no longer afraid of soda bottles (never mind beer bottles) while making their antagonists look that much more foolish for believing a country couldn't evolve over 25 plus years.
The story then shifts to the "civilized world" where people drive to their mail boxes and back, sit in traffic, work at desks and wonder if other people can hear the voices in their heads. In time, the modern versus natural world dichotomy devolves into a romantic comedy between the two main Caucasian characters with the Bushmen and other Africans playing smaller roles.
What the movie does do, though, is 1) introduce one picture of Botswana that is no longer representative of the entire country and 2) provides concretes stereotypes to work with.
In the first case, we're given a glimpse of what may be urban Botswana (possibly the capitol, Gaborone, but we never know for sure), but for the majority of the film we see rural Botswana and its people. Because the early urban setting is not identified as part of Botswana or not, we never truly can say or believe that the country has an urban, modern and successful (by Western standards) element to it. Rather, Botswana is simplified as rural.
In the second case, we learn that the Bushmen refer to cars as noisy animals, consider the noise of airplanes examples of the gods' flatulence and come to consider an item that they cannot share - the Coke bottle - as "the evil thing" which must be thrown off the side of the Earth. [If I'm not mistaken, 20th century Polish journalist Ryszard Kapuscinski mentions in his book, The Soccer War, the use of paratroopers in Africa by a Western army as a means of instilling fear and showing dominance as the Africans feared anything that fell from the sky.]
Now that Botswana has become an important player in the diamond trade, I'd like to think these misconceptions have become dated. I will have to find out for sure, but it certainly would make for a delicious scene where the Batswana protagonists show they are no longer afraid of soda bottles (never mind beer bottles) while making their antagonists look that much more foolish for believing a country couldn't evolve over 25 plus years.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Confession
My good man Costas is right. I haven't been posting as frequently as I'd like (ie, weekly) lately, but he's also right that I've been working on a side project. I'm editing a chapbook's worth of poems that I'd like to finish by September.
I continue to edit chapter two of Any Color You Want - but the editing process isn't particularly sexy so I haven't posted about it. The first read through was for basic grammatical correctness; in the second I highlighted areas that could be expanded or needed better explanation; and the third will require me to do the expanding and 'splaining. That's where I'm at. Where you at? Where Brooklyn at?
I'm not familiar with The Sheltering Sky so I'll have to look into that. What I did see recently was The Gods Must Be Crazy which is the first movie I remember watching about Africa which'll be the topic of my next posting.
I continue to edit chapter two of Any Color You Want - but the editing process isn't particularly sexy so I haven't posted about it. The first read through was for basic grammatical correctness; in the second I highlighted areas that could be expanded or needed better explanation; and the third will require me to do the expanding and 'splaining. That's where I'm at. Where you at? Where Brooklyn at?
I'm not familiar with The Sheltering Sky so I'll have to look into that. What I did see recently was The Gods Must Be Crazy which is the first movie I remember watching about Africa which'll be the topic of my next posting.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Africa in Film
When you think of Africa, what films come to mind? I've been watching one that I'll discuss more in depth in the coming days, but am curious what films other folk associate with the Dark Continent. Holla.
In other news, Bigtooth is right. Ohio and Michigan had a wicked spat over the Toledo Strip back in the day. Atta boy, Biggie!
In other news, Bigtooth is right. Ohio and Michigan had a wicked spat over the Toledo Strip back in the day. Atta boy, Biggie!
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Old School Joints
A local radio station likes to play "old school joints." Last night they introduced such a joint by saying, "Back in the day, New York City...1999." When did 1999 become "back in the day"? And if that's old school, what's Run DMC?
This 9 year window of history seems to be a symptom of America's amnesia, or more likely, our preference for the present and the future than the past. That being said, when someone can show intimate knowledge of history, I cannot help but be impressed.
To this end I've been reading two books on Michigan lately and learning a lot. I've been gaining knowledge that I'd like to arm my African protagonists with; knowledge that'll buy them credibility in their work in a foreign land. For instance, Texas has the Alamo, but in Michigan the cry once was, "Remember the River Raisin!" And did you know Michiganians were dubbed wolverines by Ohioans "who likened them to that 'vicious, smelly, ugly northwoods animal'" during the battle for the Toledo Strip? And that wolverines are part of the weasel family? Crazy kids stuff.
On a side note, I hope to share some good news soon. Stay tuned.
This 9 year window of history seems to be a symptom of America's amnesia, or more likely, our preference for the present and the future than the past. That being said, when someone can show intimate knowledge of history, I cannot help but be impressed.
To this end I've been reading two books on Michigan lately and learning a lot. I've been gaining knowledge that I'd like to arm my African protagonists with; knowledge that'll buy them credibility in their work in a foreign land. For instance, Texas has the Alamo, but in Michigan the cry once was, "Remember the River Raisin!" And did you know Michiganians were dubbed wolverines by Ohioans "who likened them to that 'vicious, smelly, ugly northwoods animal'" during the battle for the Toledo Strip? And that wolverines are part of the weasel family? Crazy kids stuff.
On a side note, I hope to share some good news soon. Stay tuned.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
From Point A to Point B
As a religion major in college I enjoyed thinking about what happened between one sentence of scripture and the next. One minute Abraham and Isaac are walking along; the next Isaac is about to be sacrificed. What a second! How'd we get there?
In editing chapter two, I come across similar situations. Do I fill in the gap between one sentence and another or does the absence of detailed explanation add intrigue or humor to the story? Conversely, and more often than not, filling in the space between A & B allows me to make the story richer and more accessible.
It took me a long time as a writer to learn how to write the story I wanted for readers other than myself. I have to thank a corporate public relations job for that. There I wrote detailed copy to be read by a large and diverse audience. Yeah, I had to "know my audience", but I also had to learn how to communicate clearly, consistently and quickly with them. This kind of writing most certainly lent itself to some pretty damn boring print, but it drilled into me some more perspective and restraint that has balanced the loony drivel that I had been previously spilling.
In editing chapter two, I come across similar situations. Do I fill in the gap between one sentence and another or does the absence of detailed explanation add intrigue or humor to the story? Conversely, and more often than not, filling in the space between A & B allows me to make the story richer and more accessible.
It took me a long time as a writer to learn how to write the story I wanted for readers other than myself. I have to thank a corporate public relations job for that. There I wrote detailed copy to be read by a large and diverse audience. Yeah, I had to "know my audience", but I also had to learn how to communicate clearly, consistently and quickly with them. This kind of writing most certainly lent itself to some pretty damn boring print, but it drilled into me some more perspective and restraint that has balanced the loony drivel that I had been previously spilling.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Hypocrites, the whole lot
The first comment I note in the margins of chapter two is to allude to the presidential election more. The book takes place over 90 days from August to early November in a presidential election year. Over the course of the book the story of our two unwanted do-gooders rises up from local to national news with all manner of pundits and politicians putting in their two cents.
Comedically, it's easy to point to politicians and to portray them as hypocrites on any number of issues as the winds of public sentiment shift or new information becomes available. More often than not I have defended politicians' waffling. Why? Because I've managed political campaigns, worked on others and volunteered on many more and have seen how a new piece of information or a new proposal can change an elected official's mind. Does this make this individual a hypocrite? Perhaps, but I'd rather be called a hypocrite and have made an informed decision than stuck with my first opinion despite the availability of additional information.
That being said, the joke here will not only be on our politicians, but most likely the media as well. Have we learned from the wildly inaccurate exit polls of 2000? Nope. Have we learned to avoid sensationalizing bits of stories that may mislead readers rather than performing the due diligence to provide all perspectives and check all facts? Not likely - that doesn't sell newspapers or appeal to advertisers.
At the end of the day, though, the reluctance for Americans to accept help runs deeper than a few defiant politicians or sensationalistic journalists: It runs counter to our country's story; that in light of prosecution, we left one country to find freedom elsewhere; that in light of opportunity in one place, we left to find opportunity elsewhere. When we find that freedom and opportunity are not available in a land that has become synonymous for such things, we question the raison d'etre of this country and by extension, our lives as citizens of this country. As one can imagine, this is not a question any of us would find easy to face or concede to. Addressed seriously this borders on cold, misunderstood French Existentialism; addressed comically and, well, we'll hopefully have more than just the pot calling the kettle black.
Comedically, it's easy to point to politicians and to portray them as hypocrites on any number of issues as the winds of public sentiment shift or new information becomes available. More often than not I have defended politicians' waffling. Why? Because I've managed political campaigns, worked on others and volunteered on many more and have seen how a new piece of information or a new proposal can change an elected official's mind. Does this make this individual a hypocrite? Perhaps, but I'd rather be called a hypocrite and have made an informed decision than stuck with my first opinion despite the availability of additional information.
That being said, the joke here will not only be on our politicians, but most likely the media as well. Have we learned from the wildly inaccurate exit polls of 2000? Nope. Have we learned to avoid sensationalizing bits of stories that may mislead readers rather than performing the due diligence to provide all perspectives and check all facts? Not likely - that doesn't sell newspapers or appeal to advertisers.
At the end of the day, though, the reluctance for Americans to accept help runs deeper than a few defiant politicians or sensationalistic journalists: It runs counter to our country's story; that in light of prosecution, we left one country to find freedom elsewhere; that in light of opportunity in one place, we left to find opportunity elsewhere. When we find that freedom and opportunity are not available in a land that has become synonymous for such things, we question the raison d'etre of this country and by extension, our lives as citizens of this country. As one can imagine, this is not a question any of us would find easy to face or concede to. Addressed seriously this borders on cold, misunderstood French Existentialism; addressed comically and, well, we'll hopefully have more than just the pot calling the kettle black.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
