HliAT #31: Yeah, You Walk Back to Get the [Thing] WITH BONUS META HliAT

How long it actually Takes to...

realize while walking on Old Street, right here
that you forgot the plastic bag with your workout clothes here
deliberate for a second (that darn Old Street roundabout), and then
"yeah of course" walk back
get the clothes (of course: right there in the bag, on the bench in the changing room)
and get back to the spot at which you realized your error: 12:29.68 sec

This is part of the recent trend (well, two HliATs going) of "yeah, it's not that long but it does take some time." Which I guess is the thing of HliAT, really -- I'd pushed it around to the counter-intuitive position of this commentary usually being about "hey, it's not that long!" But that was an overlay atop the increasingly unspoken assumption: $h1t takes time.

Try not to forget your stuff, therefore; it'll take "about 15 minutes" (exactly what I would've thought) to get it.

That said, if you do forget your stuff...a favored set of workout clothes while traveling -- probably worth "about 15 minutes", yeah?

Onwards.

Bonus Meta HliAT...

post this post, which is based on a HliAT timing you took on February 17, 2018
and which--this post, I mean--in basically this current form
has been in your "drafts" folder since...February 20th, 2018 (why in drafts? why did you not just publish it???): 
325 days, 6 hours, 35 minutes and 28 seconds

I used this handy site to work this out.

Update: I actually think it was a technical issue. Sort of a relief. I was like...what?

Tickets: 2 of ...2 (??); also a dream about dogs

Okay so clearly I threw a bunch of these out at some point; I remember it vaguely, they were so worn I literally couldn't read the words on some old movie tickets, etc. I probably wrote about it here? This blog is a weird repository for things I no longer remember that I take the time to share with some folks like [TBD] # of times / year. Communication is strange.

Here's a Dream About Puppies I had (I know. u r welcome)
I slept a little fitfully for the last few hours of my rest last night, because I was really really convinced--like, I woke up and had to walk myself why this could not really be true--that I had (a) acquired two puppies, one of whom my brain called "Boxer" as in was a Boxer but, in fact, was not at all that breed (I had a clear mental image of the dog in my mind) but looked a lot more like a pug / shar pei mix. And there was another puppy, as well, though this one went both unnamed and unseen. And I had (a) acquired them, as noted above, and (b) stashed them--responsibly--at a friend's house. There's actually a specific friend, a nice family, whose house they were at in my mind. And I did this with this family's clearance, of course; or perhaps because they (the family) were actually somehow the keepers of these new dogs and I was just looking after them? And it was okay, I hadn't messed up, but I had left the Boxer / ??? pup in its cage for like not-nice too-long; like I should've gone by their place last night to feed it, walk it, etc. But hadn't, and I really needed to get there soon, now. And it was this rumbling unease through my sleep and my waking. One effective tool was to note that I knew this could not be the case because I had seen a member of this family posting on social media that day about hanging out in Santa Monica, so clearly they were still home and I had not (a) acquired two puppies etc. etc. But that's actually what it took. I'm not usually seized by limn hour fantasia; and anxiety wasn't even the driving force behind this one. I just...thought it was true. For a couple of hours.

(It's not true. I have acquired 0 puppies lately, boxer or otherwise).

Okay Back to these Tickets
I know you're not here for puppy dreams, but because: riveting tickets. There are many fewer than I thought! I think we can just...I think we're getting this done, fam!

First I am going to do a bonus digital round because it seems basically unfair that things I watch digitally--which is, like, most things at this point--have no tickets and do not get archived. And one thing in particular seemed worth noting to wit

The Surprise, by Mike van Diem
This is the sort of comedy that we're meant to call "dark" or "edgy" or something, because it's ostensibly about death although of course it is not about death, etc. But really, it's not. It was also really interesting to watch it through the veil of cultural filter -- it's Dutch, and seemed very...that. To me. Not that I'd know. I think what I mainly mean is that it was (plot-wise) about a sort of shaggy-dog speculative fiction crime-n-caper plot where a man and a woman both sign up for this high-end service that will end your life for you in a way of your choosing: with a loved one, by surprise, etc. The idea is that it is a relatively humane way to go, although the examples we see are not super-humane (although, certainly, the film is not about body suffering). But in addition to not being about the body-suffering, it's really...it has this skating-over the basic engine of the story quality that I actually liked (and that might have been what seemed a bit "Dutch", to me, although what the h. do I know), which was that these people's feelings/reasoning/motivation were touched on but really not the point; the point was this kind of antic madcap stuff surrounding "when's it going to happen? can we change our minds if we fall in love or whatever?" etc. And I liked it, a lot, despite a final final beat that seemed out of step with its general nice-spirited-ness and general treatment of its subject. The stars were terrific. It was well-plotted. Oh! I also thought it was cool that Mike van Diem, the director, won an Academy Award in 1998; and then...this feature in 2015. It could well be that the story behind that is a decade-plus of frustration, but also maybe not. Maybe he was active, happy that whole time, doing stuff; and then has these moments where he emerges to me, along whatever no-doubt very idiosyncratic vectors of marketing and artistic diffusion bring things to my attention. People can do their stuff for a long time, I'm saying. That's cool.

Okay now physical tickets. There's just a few left; it's more than is going to be fun, and that's what it is. I'm just going to lean into those feelings and do it. I will try to surface any negative feelings. I am ridding my life of these small bits of paper.

Ben-Hur
Aero Theatre
April 1st, 2018 7:20pm
I saw this with one of my oldest, best friends. He's a person who often goes to see old movies; I'm a person who very occasionally does, with him. It's always nice to talk to him about them after, because sometimes we argue but it's generally pretty productive as long as I can master myself and not be a childish jerk. I think we kind of strongly disagreed about things on this one, but I can't remember what! I was really struck by this movie. I was struck by the gravity and weight of the physical bodies (horses, people, buildings) in the gigantic scenes; I remember how people say about Tony Scott (I have no idea if it's true) that he disliked CGI and preferred practical effects, really filming real things, and how that gave his movies' action sequences weight and impact. I first heard this after seeing Unstoppable with a friend, and it certainly scanned for how we saw that movie. And  I always think about this when I'm seeing something like Ben-Hur because...yeah, I mean yeah. I think that I do feel and see it; it feels crunchy and tactile and real. I was also struck, at least at the start of the film, by how lived-in the characters seemed. I think that this is a function of era. Meaning: even as it was very clear that what I was seeing was almost crazily trope-y, movie-acting, movie-character stuff of this bromance between these two men, now adults...in movies we still just used to let people talk more. We'd less perfected the art of a four-dialogue-line disposable scene that needn't exist except to goalpost for the audience, "hey, this guy's brave" or whatever-whatever. It's interesting because these are the very same tools -- in Ben-Hur, they clearly were telegraphing to us: "hey, these guys are close." "hey, they're both very masculine." "hey, there's political tension." It's not like any of this was handled with the delicate touch of pure organic storytelling. But just keeping the camera on people, flat, and letting them talk a bit more; it can be really nice. It's old-fashioned, at least in a big entertainment like this. And I liked it. It's maybe why that scene at the very end of Avengers,when they're eating, is so nice. Cuz it's nice! It's just the camera, on them, chilling! Crazy! Anyway. And there was stuff that my friend and I disagreed about, qua the famous homoerotic subtext, which I think...I don't even recall? Maybe one of us thought it wasn't subtext at all? I don't really remember. I don't think this was one where disagreed because--this is a motif, with me and this friend--there's some aspect of the film that we both acknowledge as problematic (racism, sexism, etc.) but I just refuse to look past it and I'm like, "yeah so it's trash" meaning just: junk to me; and he quite reasonably is like, "okay yes, its values are trash, but still XYZ," and XYZ are generally reasonable points one might make about the film but I'm less receptive to them because I'm so jarred by the problematic stuff. In my defense, I can definitely take pieces of art in their different aspects and different...layers of achievement. But I find it very hard when I feel that there isn't adequate widespread acknowledgment of how terrible some aspect of the piece of entertainment is; like that it's fundamentally, grotesquely racist at its heart but that kind of gets skated over in how people discuss it. This is not my friend's fault. And also, I don't think this happened with Ben-Hur! Okay anyway next ticket:

Tully
The Landmark
May 13, 2018 3pm
Oh good not much to say about this one. In a good way. I liked it! I thought it was all those adjectives critics use: brisk, sharp, funny, 'smart'. It moved along at a good pace and told an interesting story with some ramification and thought outside itself. disclosure: I'm acquainted with someone involved in its production, so I'm primed to like it. But, well yeah: I did like it. So, ticket.

Three Days in the Country
Antaeus Theatre Company
Sunday, July 8 2018 at 2pm AND (!!) Sunday, August 5 2018 at 2pm
Whhhhhaaaat? I saw this twice? Yes I did and on purpose LET ME TELL YOU WHY. I totally wanted to. I never want to do that. I don't really re-watch or re-read things; I probably could benefit from doing so much more, in fact; at least, great things, things I've loved. But I don't really do it. But here's where I saw this production twice.
I thought it was terrific
I thought it was terrific and wanted people to see it; so I was happy to say to friends, after having seen it once already with a different friend, "Oh yes we should go to that together let's go."
I was very interested in seeing it twice (!?). Because: it is not a plot-driven play; it's Patrick Marber's adaptation of Ivan Turgenev's A Month in the Country and, while Marber does a lot to make it quicker and snappier and more contemporary-feeling than the source material, he also leaves the source material alone: this is a play about people wallowing around in bourgeois (mostly) malaise and heartbreak, and it's melodramatic (on purpose) and about the minutiae of their interactions and the moments between characters. It's a very lived-in type of play. And I wanted to see it twice, therefore, because (a) I probably wouldn't be bored; the "point" of this play is not what "happens", so knowing what "happens" would spoil very little; and (b) the production was good good good, and Antaeus often DOUBLE CASTS big plays like this (I assume because actors in LA are wont to flit off for lucrative gigs in filmed entertainment), so seeing all these interactions and characterizations and tiny little sharp beats between human desires with a whole different cast might be like A WHOLE NEW PLAY! And it was. The experiment was 100% a success. The casts were really different. The characterization in each performance, of itself, was quite different; how they interacted of course differed; even casting accidents or non-accidents like how two people looked alike or did not drew comparisons between characters that seemed thematic, etc. It is really rewarding to watch robust material like this performed by good actors, guided by steady and disciplined and pacey and specific direction. I'm really glad I saw this twice; both times were great.

2018 World Series: Boston Red Sox @ Los Angeles Dodgers, Game 4 (Home Game 2)
Dodgers Stadium
October 27 2018, 5:09pm
This was the most fun I've had at a baseball game in LA, even though it was a pretty disappointing game. The Red Sox were favored to win the series this year, and did so handily. But there's always capacity for big surprises in post-season baseball, and while my main baseball allegiance (such as I can claim to have one, at this point) is to the Yankees, I was rooting for LA certainly. And LA had given all of us reason to hope, with an historically long, insane game the night before: an 18-inning game that LA won 3-2, making the series 2-1, Boston. Meaning that this game, the game I was at on the following night, was the game that would show whether that crazy 18-inning game was a wild fluke, or if LA would even the series to 2-2 and it really would be a real series, and maybe we'd all reconsider Boston walking away with this thing. And LA took an early lead, so it looked possible and was very exciting! And then LA gave up that lead, and then really gave up the lead (the relief pitching was not very successful), and Boston...walked away with this game and the series. But we had fun! It was a nice night; I was very glad to be there, and with a cool new friend who was excited to be at a series game.

so...close... (actually no negative feelings. just saying).

Native Son
Antaeus Theatre Company
Sunday April 22, 2018 2pm
My ticket says "Native Son 2018", but I just checked the website and it doesn't look like it's one of the things where they slap the year onto a thing to emphasize that it's an adaptation or whatever; it seems like the show was just called Native Son, like the source novel. This production did not work for me! And I'm so glad I went! It didn't work for me because it's hard to adapt a novel like this to the stage (obvi), and I thought that the production and adaptation made bold thoughtful choices that didn't click for me. There's always this risk when you take a very internal character from prose and put them on stage or in film; because their interiority (which in prose can be fine, because you can be inside them in various ways) can be really alienating to the audience. The adaptation and production are way on top of this; the script has this embodied inner-monologue for the protagonist (who is a man who, externally, is not well seen or known by others) and allows us to see him talk out / argue out / act out his inner tensions, desires, impulses -- and how his environment impinges on his inner life in this way. I definitely have no thought on this choice, or no conclusion rather; I don't know if the production didn't work for me because that basic choice didn't fit for me, or--also possible, as the staging seemed good and the actors were excellent--if it was that it just somehow didn't for me convey the same tensions and level of thought or, in fact, drama of the novel's prose portrayal. Antaeus always does 'good theater' and this was no exception; it was a challenging theatrical enterprise (adapting a novel that is very rich and complex in its own right, as well as having the status of being an acknowledged classic an important testament of American culture and history) that a bunch of talented people took on with skill and thought. I'm glad I saw it.

City and Cosmos: The Arts of Teotihuacan
LACMA
Saturday April 21, 2018
I had to kind of root around to figure out what was up, here. This is the slip of paper:

Pretty dramatic, right? But so I was confused because I knew it was one of two trips I took over the summer to LACMA with N., my mentee, but I was quicker to remember the exhibit we saw on the second trip -- not this trip. This trip we saw a collection of Mesoamerican art from "the ancient city of Teotihuacan," which "flourished in central Mexico in the first millennium CE. This multi-ethnic, cosmopolitan city was the largest urban center in the Americas in its day." That's all from LACMA's site on the exhibit, which both N. and I enjoyed. I really enjoyed it; I think N. did as well -- hope so. We also went, later that summer, to "3D: Double Vision", an exhibition about the development of the art and technology of 3D imagery. At that exhibit, I saw this, which amusèd me some:

What I liked about this, which some of you will recognize, is that the object on the left is a Nintendo 3DS. That's a terrific portable gaming system that is currently, if not sunsetting, in its senescence; I on-purpose linked to Wikipedia for the product and not some Nintendo site because I'm not sure if the Nintendo site will still be good in a year or two. It's a great little system, and made me smile in this context because it wasn't being featured as an example in itself; its 3D-imaging feature--ironically, an aspect of console which is viewed, I think, as having had an unclear impact on its success--is just being used to show a picture in 3D because...it can do it.

There's nothing funny or interesting about this, actually. Or to you, maybe. That's totally reasonable. I just found it funny.

AND THAT'S IT FOLKS THAT'S DONE WITH THE PILE OF DUMB PAPERS. 

Tickets: 1 of ?

I've joined a book club. I really hope it continues; we've met once and I really enjoyed it. I've never been in one. It's loosely tsundoku-themed, which I imagine could be said of many book clubs.

Its being thus has brought me into more contact with that concept--tsundoku--and how it's crept across the zeitgeist from its original, book-centric meaning to encompass all of the things we all do where we're making lists / collecting things / setting intentions to read / see / create / do, instead of actually just doing the things. Making stacks, literal and figurative.

I've got a stack of tickets that I've had for years. I may even have done this exact thing I'm doing right now already -- either here in this blog (I think not?) or in my own personal journaling (I think so). But I'm going to do it here, now; what I'm going to do is just finally do what I've been meaning to do for however long (honestly: years) and just kind of work through this stack of tickets to write out my thoughts about them. Half of which I will have totally forgotten! Because this ish happened years ago! What is wrong with me?

I am listening to Laura Stevenson's new single, "The Mystic & The Master", and its b-side "Maker of Things". They're terrific; Laura Stevenson is terrific.

Let's go.

The Little Foxes (preview)
Antaeus Theatre Company
October 21, 2018 2pm
Good great starting with an easy one. I saw this a couple of months ago. I remember it well. Antaeus is a wonderful theater company here in L.A., and I try to see everything that they do. I'd never seen this play, which is by Lillian Hellman and was terrific to see. I was braced by how contemporary and engaging so much of it was (much credit for which goes, no doubt, to the uniformly excellent cast and characteristic crisp, sharp, specific direction). I was also engaged by how not contemporary parts were, dramaturgically -- by how the creaky machinery of plot mechanics of another era really leap out at you and mark something as of its time. I am very happy I saw this, and to tell you about it.

Hole in the Sky
Circle X Theatre Co.
August 26, 2018 8pm
So one note @ the top: this production was a produced site-specifically, at a ranch out in Lake View Terrace, which made it quite a trek for me (and, I suspect, many of its audience members). And I wanted to change the date of my ticket, and Circle X was very prompt and friendly about letting this happen. Thanks, Circle X -- I'll be back because of that, if nothing else.
Also, this was a very worthwhile production. So again: it was produced site-specifically: it's a play about the tensions created by water use and water shortage in a California agricultural community, and of course how class and race interweave with these material concerns and the people they press on. So it was performed on a ranch. They did a really good job--seriously--at making that a non-crappy experience for the audience; it was comfortable, sightlines were good, etc. As night fell, some of the visual value of being on the ranch was reduced since it just became like being outside. But they did a nice thing with a truck pulling up at one point, and etc. It certainly made the whole story more lived in. The play leaned--for my taste--towards exposition, didacticism, and plot swerves that whose wind-up had been unclear (to me). But I learned from it, and was grateful for the chance to live for an evening inside voices and concerns that are very real and warrant dramatic presentation. I'll certainly see Circle X's next production and, if it's like this one, see the one after that too.

The Women
Archway Theatre Company
April 7, 2018 8pm
This was fun! My friend costume designed and acted in this production of another famous play of a bygone era; it was staged in the very vintage clothing shop from which the costumes were drawn. Everyone was dressed just right (as far as I could tell!), and I was grateful to be exposed to a play that was significant and successful in its time but that I had missed until now.

Isle of Dogs
The Landmark [for movies, I'll just say the theater I saw them @]
March 31, 2018 12:05pm
I don't have a lot to say about this that hasn't been said. It was really well made; it was really carefully and elegantly and successfully conceived and executed. It felt a little clinical and distant, to me, like Anderson's work generally does. And I guess most of all was the thing of its being set in Japan but still--to me--feeling like the choices that were made about whom you can understand and who speaks like...basically, I think it wound up other-ing Japanese people some. Which felt particularly twee and odd, in a movie set on their home turf. Other people might not feel that way, and I'm not pushing some big thesis about the filmmakers. That's how I felt.

Annihilation
ArcLight Santa Monica
March 16, 2018 8:05pm
THIS MOVIE WAS VERY GOOD WHY DID IT NOT DO BETTER? That is about all I have to add. It was so cool to see original IP (I know it's based on a book, which I'd like to read; I mean "original" IP in that it does not rely on a popular and preexisting franchise/character/topic) in like a real sci-fi movie with ideas and crazy stuff happening and the ol' resonance-between-the-protagonist's-inner-turmoil-and-the-crazy-stuff-happening-in-the-world thing, but that thing is so great when the "crazy stuff" is great! (And, when you have a committed and engaging performance from your lead actress, as this film did). I'm really glad I saw this! I wish more people had seen this!

Black Panther
The Landmark
March 12, 2018 1:15pm
What do you need me to say about this movie? It's as good as you've heard. Maybe better? Here let's do lists; this isn't ranked but here are movies based on Marvel IP that I thought were totally terrific: Black Panther, X-Men and X-Men 2, Logan (probably my favorite), and...okay I'm putting The Avengers on this first-tier list because of that post-credit scene where they're eating gyros or whatever and I did enjoy it so much, but I think it's actually more like in its own little tier between first-tier and second tier. By the way @ the Landmark early afternoon on a weekday there's "bargain" pricing; I didn't even know that! Cost me twelve bucks to see a superfun supercool movie. Big win.

That's it. I'm not going to attempt any summary till I'm done with all these, and maybe not even then.

The Stack: March 2014 Edition

Remember, dear reader, when I was working through "The Stack"?

Submitted without further comment, here it is now:

rear row, from left: Los Angeles Magazine, National Geographic, Scientific American, The New Yorker, Westways, various U. Chicago publications, The Economist Special Reports. front row: single issue randoms (NYT Magazine, n+1, Historic Nantucket)

The Stack (6)

The stack is not getting smaller. It's slowly, insidiously growing. I have this fantasy of a time when there'll be two weeks where I can just read and get this stuff put in my brain. I don't even subscribe to that many magazines! Three! The Economist, National Geographic, LA Magazine, The New Yorker, and Scientific American. Five. Five, not three. That is still not many.

Here's what got done in this totally futile quest to not have any unread physical materials in my home.

2 The New Yorkers (July 2, 2012 and June 18, 2012)
1 Los Angeles Magazine (the one about new bars)
1 The Economist Special Report (London)
Savage Dragon 180
X-Factor 240
The Walking Dead 100
Fables 119
BPRD Hell on Earth: The Devil's Engine 3 of 3
BPRD Hell on Earth: Exorcism 1 of 2
Fantastic Four 608

It feels like Hickman is going pretty conventional on Fantastic Four; I hope he reverses course.

I'm remain really glad to be reading X-Factor again. Peter David likes his characters a lot, and it is warming.

Some sad, sad stuff is going down in Fables.

Even sadder in The Walking Dead. I think Kirkman calibrated it very skillfully, killing a character important enough to warrant Issue #100 in a stomach-churning way (my stomach just twisted a little, thinking about) that really effectively and deliberately undercuts so much of what the story had been building. But also, he didn't go too crazy far -- he didn't quite throw it all out. It ruined my day, that comic. I'm still sad thinking about it, so I am going to stop.

The Stack (5)

So, first a tactical/life-plan shift. I had been handling this "stack" like it mattered. This is a smart approach because: if you keep something, it better be for a reason. Otherwise don't keep it. And I choose to assume that I have a reason for keeping the few things I do. It is, however, a dumb approach because: you get into a thing where you think it matters if you read these things, or a certain volume of them in a given time, or something completely insane like that. I think I slipped ("slipped", at least; fell headlong) into that, with the stuff about getting through the stack by some date, etc.

So, this is the new stack philosophy:

- stay on top of The Economist, because that's your your main news source

- everything else is a shelf in your house that is there for your leisure and recreational reading time. When you do not need to/are maxed out with work, that's where you go. Otherwise, you have no obligation to it. That's a big shift. It may also mean the stack grows grows grows. We'll see.

Here's what I've read in the last whatever-since-that-other-update:

- 1 National Geographic

- 2 The New Yorkers

- 1 The Economist Technology Quarterly

- 3 The Economists

- 1 Wonder Woman TPB (Volume 2 of the collected George Perez run)
- 2 issues of X-Factor
- 2 issues of Secret
- 1 BPRD: Hell on Earth one-off ("The Transformation of J.H. O'Donnell")
- 1 issue of BPRD: Hell on Earth: The Devil's Engine
- 1 issue of Fables
- 1 issue of Elephantmen
- 1 issue of Fantastic Four
- 2 issues of The Walking Dead
- 2 issues of Savage Dragon
- also, Jesse Kellerman's Potboiler, which was very good

As usual, I really only want to talk here about comic books.

The Secret: good; Hickman is stylish and tight. I may not go on with it, but only because time is limited and there isn't yet a character I super care about. But it's good.
X-Factor: why did I stop reading this? It's silly and soap-opera-ish and ongoing episodic, but Peter David cares a lot about his character and a lot about dialogue. I'm resubscribing.
- The whole BPRD family of books continue to be just top-of-the-form good. The one-off was affecting: strange and sad.

The Stack (4)

Correct. This is still happening.

Here's the last month's progress. I think you'll agree that it represents a net gain.

- 4 The New Yorkers
- 3 Los Angeles magazines
- 3 The Economists (not a net gain; I know I know)
- 4 The Economist Special Reports (boom! there isn't even on in every issue)
- 1 Westways (shutup)
- 1 National Geographic map pullout about the East African Rift System and the great lakes therein
- 1 Fables
- 2 Fantastic Four
- 1 B.P.R.D.: Hell on Earth
- 1 Chew
- 1 The Walking Dead
- 15 Elephantmen (the centerpiece of this entry. the "comic books" part of the stack is now essentially slain, with an incidental rump remaining that will be read sometime when I want a trippy mix of weird ish that I did not in fact buy but was sent as package filler or something)
- 4 Uncanny X-Men
- 3 Captain America & Bucky
- 1 Captain America & Hawkeye
- 1 Savage Dragon


Okay! So, as noted, the comic books part of this whole adventure is wrapping up. That's gratifying. We're actually almost to the point where I just have to read fifty-thousand Scientific Americans (and a small handful of National Geographics, but that's very pleasurable - oddly, I've fallen off on those as I'm catching up with The New Yorker: they seem to occupy the same mental space [pleasure; diverting; multi-interest] in my reading brain).

Two things to say here. One is that I just have no idea how much of this I'm freaking retaining. I'm leaning on the fact that - as I am occasionally able to demonstrate when called upon to do so - stuff like The Economist Special Reports does seem to give me some soft contextual framework for understanding a thing (developments in retail banking, for instance), so that even if a lot of it passes through some structures remain. I hope. That's actually all there is to say about that, although it's probably the central thing about the Stack reading, at this point.

The other is about Elephantmen, which is just a strange and ultimately very worthwhile comic book. Observations:
(1) The male gaze is narratively boring. It's just a tedium at this point to have a lot of naked ladies in a comic book with lots of clothed dudes.
(2) There's something racial/othering going on in Elephantmen that is kind of insane and intriguing. Basically, the "Elephantmen" are these genetically altered rhinos, elephants, etc. - i.e, they are African - who were soldiers and are now loose in human society in general. And a big issue is essentially that they are very virile and have big rhino penises and everyone's antsy about them being with human women. And the series goes hell and leather for this, with lots of stuff of nude sylph-y women draped over, like, a muscular rhino with his horn prominent in the image. It is super, super weird but I _think_ it is knowing. It's bizarre.
(3) There is a tremendous amount of narrative care in this series. It over and over shows you scenes from different angles, or drops a snippet into one story thread that integrates into another like three issues later. This level of (a) care and (b) faith in the reader's attention span and retention would be unusual in, say, an upmarket television show or film. I can't actually think of another comic book that does it so consistently or so well.
(4) Given the care, and the general high quality of the writing, there are these weird linguistic lapses where for one line a character will briefly talk as though English is not his/her first language. I assume it's a copy-editing issue.
(5) The sci-fi frame is pretty satisfying, and the ancillary material (stories in the same universe from other creators, etc.) tend to be good.

It's a crazy, adolescent, immature in some ways and mature in others, imaginative and cool series.

The Stack (3)

Okay-doke, weeks behind schedule. But continuing, continuing. Here we go, completed since I last wrote on this interminable topic.

- Stick Fly, a play (a good play. I'd like to see it, although it is kind of one of those plays that perhaps, having read, you don't super need to see. But I don't mean that as a slight. It is very good; nice and tightly constructed and lived in and some good lines.)

- 1 issue of Westways magazine ("The Magazine for Auto Club Members"). note: Hey, slimbuttons, you complain all the time about not having time and the oppressive-ness of "the stack" piling up and all of that. But you spend time reading, or even perusing as you did here, stuff like this? Why? That makes no sense. note-response: Shut up. You are right. But actually I found a possible idea to pitch for a piece out of this, so shut up.

- 5 issues of Savage Dragon (173-178, minus #174)

- 6 issues of Captain America & Bucky (620-626)

- 5 issues of The Goon (35-39)

- 3 issues of The Walking Dead (95-97)

- 1 FF (17)

- 1 Fables (116)

- 1 BPRD, Hell on Earth: The Pickens County Horror (2 of 2)

- 1 BPRD, Hell on Earth: The Long Death (3 of 3)

- 3 New Yorkers

-2 The Economists

The things I have to say, such as they are.

The New Yorker is a really good magazine. I enjoyed a poem in the January 2012 edition by Eric Weinsten. I tend to like the non-fiction more than the fiction. Have I said that already? It's just a good magazine, very pleasurable. I'm going to stop talking about this now, I think.

The Goon is just phenomenal. Here's a thing about it. It is dirty and prurient and twisted and very incorrect and all of that. But it is also one of the best dramatically constructed books sold today, I think, in terms of both the freedom and discipline of its storytelling. Like the Dark Horse Hellboy stuff, the storytelling is just very very good, within each issue as well as between issues. It had a parody issue (39) I think, in which Powell attacks mainstream comics, which was very funny.

Which brings me to Captain America & Bucky. This s**t was risible; I'm upset that I spent money on it. The thing is, it almost worries me because it isn't storytelling. It's the idea of storytelling - this broadstrokes bullshit in which the idea of a character supplants a character and things don't have to happen or actually be, they just have to recollect or connect to ideas/things that the reader is aware exist in other stories (people fall in love, people care about their friends, people learn lessons). What worries me is people, particularly obviously kids, getting the idea that this is storytelling. It isn't, and that's upsetting because storytelling is a really really good thing. It's super fun and awesome, and also I suspect has some value with respect to sympathetic and empathetic abilities in other areas (but I don't know jack about that; I think this book, which I did not read nope, touches on it). It's rubbish, and while I would not be at all surprised if the creatives behind it made a really good faith effort with what they were given, whatever complex of market and editorial desire creates stuff like this is excretory marketing masquerading as narrative.

On the other end of the scale, Savage Dragon is really satisfying because it plays with "ideas/things that the reader is aware exist in other stories," but it does something with them. It exists in this kind of exaggeratedly comic booky world. I'm not sure if Erik Larsen means to do this or if it's just what he does, but either way it's awesome: there's a freedom and vitality to his unselfconscious joy in the silliness that makes the book really fine (even if it takes a minute to slip into). I really wish he'd give some female characters something better to do, though. This is maybe where the book's unselfconscious abandon would benefit from a self-conscious tweak.

The Stack (2)

Progress pretty good. This is what the readstack for the last week looks like:

- 4 Economists (2 read fully - this and last week; others scavenged for relevancies/interests)
- 1 New Yorker
- 1 Los Angeles
- 13 comic books (Fables 113-115, Hellboy: The Fury 3 (of 3), BPRD: Hell on Earth: Monsters 2 (of 2), BPRD: Hell on Earth: Russia 1-5 (of 5), BPRD: Hell on Earth: The Long Death 1-2 (of 3), BPRD: Hell on Earth: The Pickens County Horrors 1 (of 2))

I don't want to jinx anything, but at this rate I've got a shot at doing this thing. Takeaways for the week:

(1) Los Angeles is a much better magazine than one might expect. There's usually one or two things in it really worth reading; this issue was particularly good, with a lot about the Rodney King riots and a nice diverse set of voices discussing how race is lived in LA.

(2) Hellboy is the quintessence of that thing I was saying in the last Stack post about the difference that dynamic/good storytelling layout makes in comics. It's so pure and move-y: it just zooms you through, but without rushing. It helps that it tends to be light on words. I really like that. I respect Brian Michael Bendis and all his chatty stuff very much, but the purity of Hellboy really feels masterful, to me.

(3) BPRD usually has this very rough, primal art. And then this guy James Harren took over for The Long Death, and his art is very lush and rounded - very pretty, really (the blogspot link doesn't really speak to that). And it was a nice change - I like the art in all the Hellboy spinoffs, as noted above, but something in the warmth and charisma of having nice-looking images (even when grotesque; they may have hired him for this storyline because he does monsters-tearing-people-to-shreds really really well) made me feel very close to the story and the characters. It is also a particularly bad-ass storyline, even by BPRD's high standards.

The Stack (1)

All posts about "The Stack" are about s**t that I have stacked around my apartment that I am going to destroy by reading, because that is ostensibly why I am keeping this freaking junk.

It's in two places: on my bookshelf and on my kitchen counter. I divided it according to some already-forgotten plan of attack to getting through it.

This is the total inventory:

 12 The New Yorkers [note: I had never read The New Yorker, then someone - I really don't know who - bought me a subscription and now it just shows up at my house. I really like it, as I always feared I would].
13 Scientific Americans
2 Los Angeles Magazines (note: thank you, GroupOn or LivingSocial or whatever)
2 Economist Special Reports (I have a two-week rule on holding onto full Economists; the Special Reports I keep)
3 National Geographics
7 Books
56 Comic Books, plus 1 trade paperback (a bunch of comic books bound together and sold as a book) 

I'm not going to enumerate the books and comic books except as I actually read them.

So the deal is this: I need to make progress on this, and eradicate it from my life. I like these things, but the concept of this "stack" has been hanging over me for literally years. It has to go away - it's a stupid concept. I just want to be reading things as I get them and as they come in. I think two months is a reasonable goal: today is April 8th. So that means June 8th this stuff is off the table, read, gone, in my brain (or not).

The thing is, this is totally hard and I am going to fail. I've repeatedly resolved to do this, and it requires these marathon reading sessions at the end of which I'm all scrambled. Like now; today I read like 11 issues of FF, 1/2 an Economist, and... something else. What the freak- yes, a couple chapters in one of the books. And actually the "stack" is a little misleading, because in order for the stack not grow I have to stay on top of the Economist. This is all incredibly, incredibly boring. I apologize.

So here's what I'm going to do (warning: this post does not get less boring). I am going to endeavor to read all of these things, and as I do so mark the passing of bits of the stack with feedback. This week (I'll do this weekly*), as I said, it was a lot of comic books.

Chew #s 23 and 24 were awesome. I don't have a lot to say about this - this series is just awesome, and the storylines are jangly.

FF there's more to say about. It's written by Jonathan Hickman, who wrote a bunch of crazy stuff that was very original, although I think I recall feeling it didn't totally work for me. But I like him on this book and Fantastic Four - he writes "weird" well and "smart" well, and has a good time with the space opera stuff. I read episodes 6 through whatever the latest is, like 13, and the experience was pretty much defined by the art. The thing that was striking was how important (I've had this thought a bunch lately) the layout and storyboarding is, in addition to the "art" (like, the drawings) itself. I got very little out of the storyboarding - conventional, basically 7-9 panels, chunka chunka chunka and as a consequence I was totally disliking the book: the story was fussy and gaudy and overwrought, I didn't care about any of the beats or the characters; I was writing it off. Then, in episode #12 this guy Juan Bobillo takes over, and everything changes. He breaks the story down into beats and moments (the story also, I think, gets a lot better: it reduces to a little-girl-and-her-grandpa-doing-futurescience-to-save-the-world storyline, which is great): someone turning to look at someone else, one page dedicated just to a wide view of a massive scene and then a single tight panel below, zooming in on the heroes. And all of a sudden I cared again. I don't know a lot about comics or art - I know nothing about art - but this strikes me over and over: that there's a mis-en-scene in comics as much as in anything else, and so much of the book's narrative success is wrapped up not just in story, dialogue, or how cool the pictures look, but in how the story is paced manifest on the page - it's like what directing, cinematography, and editing are to filmed entertainment, put together. And I think that Juan Bobillo's run, which was pretty polarizing, was a great example of what a difference good layout and storyboading makes.

* no, I won't. I'm calling that now: I will fail at doing this weekly.