Joe Brainard's Pyjamas (The Sequel)

Friday, May 24, 2013

Douglas Coupland

Douglas Coupland is gay and partnered and open about it. Cool.

I only learned this tonight. I hadn't really read anything about his life before tonight (I figured some autobiography had filtered down into Generation X, but I had no idea how much.)

It sort of makes sense. It's probably why I felt so damn comfortable in that book and why I dragged out the reading experience--not because I found it unpleasant--rather, the opposite.

I want to read everything else he wrote. There's quite a bit.

I'm happy to see he has a book coming out soon with the funny title Worst. Person. Ever.

And I was happy to see he has made forays into the fabular--or at least what look to be modern fairy tales. Going by the titles and the brief descriptions I've read online, these sound like very Goreyesque short fiction. I remember he inserted at least one great little modern fairy tale in Generation X. That's a stand out (and could be a "stand alone") gem.

I don't want to pigeonhole Generation X now by thinking of it as queer lit, just because I learned that fact tonight. I'm sure many just figured the author was showing us the template for the metrosexual male with his characters Dag and Andy in that book.

But there's a delicious persnicketyness to the convolutions of Coupland's prose that does make me realize why I like the gay authors I do so much: the outre and outrageous qualities of their writing. Okay, Coupland's never as fey as, say, Quentin Crisp or Edward Gorey (two literary loves). But he does have his moments. He does drift that direction sometimes. And I relish it.

Above is Coupland's "Monument to the War of 1812." It is (or was?) in Toronto.

Love it. That so reminds me of those human-size sculptures based on the plastic cowboys and "injuns" I posted a few weeks back.

I need to order some more Coupland titles. Probably through ABEbooks.

I just found his Twitter tonight. That's what started me reading his bio, something I had been meaning to do for months.

So many books were hyped in the 90s and you read them now and you wonder why.

Generation X isn't like that. The hype was deserved. The book is still a very beautiful read. There are pretty ideas and a pretty postmodernity to the book, but it doesn't feel the need to eschew plot as some sort of disease and the novel is not afraid to wear its romanticism on its sleeve in the way that Fitzgerald's novels unabashedly did.

He's a class act. I want to read more.

Whoever Made that Voodoo Doll of Me, Congratulations, You're a Master!

I'm beginning to think that might explain the week I had.

Was in the e.r. for about eight hours earlier this week. On the way home from the e.r picked up a tuna sub at Subway that I'm convinced gave me food poisoning. Those symptoms lasted one night. Then I felt slightly better and Flickr redesigned the site (my favorite site heretofore) and rendered it unusable. Then I got a cold and I've been lain out in bed yesterday, today and for the foreseeable future.

I hate having immune dysfunction. This is why I try to avoid people like the plague--because when I do get a "little cold" I immediately end up with bronchitis. This is almost certainly due to my S.I.G.M.. Hashimoto's is the other autoimmune dysfunction I have which generally challenges certain areas in my health.

I can't complain too much because I could have an autoimmune disease like lupus or something equally bad and these just afflict me with things that do pass after a short time. So I try to be optimistic. And I haven't had any fever (I'm low again--only one night--few hours--of fever from the food poisoning, and I was 97 degrees the next morning and then since have stayed around my usual weird low point).

Yes, I am a valetudinarian. But not a hypochondriac, because I only focus on sickness when I actually am sick. My energy level is for shit right now. The good news is it broke my internet addiction. I'm back to watching shitty t.v. And I'm reading when I'm in the tub, so that's good. And writing...a little...on paper, which feels so damn weird.

I watched most of Kubrick's Lolita (1962) again this morning.

I don't know how long it's been since I've seen that, but it's such a deeply flawed movie. Yes, I realize Kubrick had to be very careful with that topic in 1962, but the problems come from other things than that coyness, I think. The acting is off in so many scenes. The last argument/fight scene in the Haze household (after the death, of course) is just terrible. I think James Mason is worse than Sue Lyons in that scene. It could be her throwing him off, but why place blame that direction just because he's the more distinguished actor? That doesn't seem fair. He seems to be happiest when he's doing monologues or virtual monologues and that's probably because his acting style was so damn stylized and stagey. So he strikes me as off in many other scenes and so does she. She's too broad, too often. His timing is where he's usually off.

I noticed at least one major continuity error--the scene with the blow-out on the highway in the middle of nowhere where the "mystery car" is stopped behind Humbert and Lo. When Kubrick jogs off for a second with the camera and then comes back to the parked car seen through the rear window of Humbert's car, you realize the car is parked in the wrong place. It's too close to Humbert's car. Not enough time has lapsed for this to happen. It's a jiffy of a cut.

I hate that Kubrick doesn't attempt to show the murder of Quilty, and that he just adds that tacky postcript to explain the ensuing events and Humbert's doom.

I think the remake (with Jeremy Irons) was a much better film. I'd need to watch that one again too. The murder of Quilty (played so well by Frank Langella) is an amazing scene.

Both of these films had a problem dealing with the scene where Lolita meets Humbert again after years have passed, after she has become a somewhat plain woman and the bloom is off the pubescent rose. That's not exactly easy for either Lolita to pull off. I seem to remember how fake the aging looked in the remake, a teen putting on her grandmother's frumpy housecoat and nerdy glasses and trying to talk old. The acting was sort of at the level of a junior high school play. If anything, Sue Lyons probably gets my vote over the lovely Dominique Swain. I mean just for that scene.

I just think the remake was more respectful towards Nabokov and used his prose more effectively in the various voiceovers. I remember the scene with Jeremy Irons standing on some high ground looking down on a playground.

Jeremy Irons has such a gift for playing vulnerable creeps. Remember him in M. Butterfly? That's sort of his thing, "vulnerable creep." You want to feel empathy for him, and then you want to withdraw that empathy. You flip-flop throughout movies in which he plays this archetypal loser, anti-hero, mouse. His other strong type, of course, is out-and-out monster. Irons does that well too.

Both films do boast beautiful photography. They're both well-shot, Kubrick's in black and white, of course, and the remake in color.

One of my favorite thing about Nabokov is his dark sense of humor. And Kubrick did that get into the film. I think the remake tried to be a little more poetic and perhaps too sincere (except for Langella as Clare Quilty).

Because when is Nabokov not being funny. Even in his darkest books, he's a hoot.

Thursday, May 23, 2013

"Yo, Little Beeotches! I Also Killed this E.T. And I Ain't Apologizing for That None, Neither!"

Jodi: "Aren't autopsy photos THE BEST? This is almost as funny as the ones of my boyfriend at my trial. And I ain't fakin no remorse for killin' this critter, neither. YO, BUY MY ARTWORK, BEEOTCHES! ADD ME ON FACEBOOK. LIKE MY PAGE ON FACEBOOK!"

Jodi Arias' claim to fame is not only being a murderer. She can also claim to be the one who ended all serious journalistic coverage in America of anything other than Jodi Arias.

Jodi Arias Is Selling Her Artwork

Jodi Arias is selling her artwork on Twitter and on her own site. She says her artistic influences are Norman Rockwell and Norman Bates.

The 13 People Jodi Arias Wants to Meet in (Heaven--Cough)

Jodia Arias' Twitter is a trip.

The martyrdom and enlightenment poses are thoroughly nauseating. And there are only 44 posts.

The one that really made me want to puke was: "Commissary didn't arrive this week. It's like waking up on Christmas morning and discovering that Santa skipped your neighborhood." (May 3rd.)

As one of those liberals who actually believes very strongly in the death penalty, I don't see what the problem is for the jury.

It doesn't get much more premeditated nor much more brutal.

That last photo of Travis's face staring at her! Really wrenching.

And then that accidentally snapped photo that just shows the ceiling as the camera fell and the fury of the attack began.

His head was barely attached by the time she was done.

She has 70,000 plus followers and going by the number of favorites and cheering comments she gets, a dedicated "fan base."

She's selling her creepy art. Just like Gacy did.

Maybe someone will buy it all up just to burn it, the way that one guy did with Gacy's art.

I hate that she's monopolizing the "public discourse" because of what she looks like and the luridness of the BDSM sex between her and Alexander.

I hadn't followed this case much but after reading more than a little about it, Yah, she's a stone cold sociopath. A perky one.

The constant interviews she's granting against her counsel's strong recommendation are classic sociopath "daring" behavior.

And she exhibits the endless narcissism of the sociopath, with the makeup and clothes. She doesn't care if you think she's a homicidal maniac. She just doesn't want anyone to see her in those State-issued inmate clothes. I'm not joking. This is on record. She thinks her junior high school doodles in notebooks are masterpieces.

She constantly vilifies her victim and mocks the family and their feelings.

She was attacking Nancy Grace on her Twitter because Nancy Grace knows exactly what she is, and won't stop saying it, hoping to make Arias' supporters realize the "abused woman" defense is all smoke and mirrors, misdirection and lies.

Whatever you want to say about Nancy Grace, she has those sharp prosecutorial instincts and is generally a very good judge of character.

Here are the 13 people Jodi Arias is following.

Probably these are people she fantasizes will pay attention to her in a positive way and promote her cause. I don't just mean her victimhood. I mean take up the religion of Jodi-ism. I'm sure she has fantasies like that. Oprah will make it all better and people will realize how wonderful this perky little homicidal maniac actually is!

I'd say there's a good chance she will meet at least two of these people in Hell. Even if she doesn't get to party with them in this life. ;-)

p.s. Sorry about the weird numeration below. Cut and paste got weird.