Author: Brendan

Terza

Aahhhh, I can’t do it! I did manage to write this within the constraints I imposed, but it ends up too incoherent to be a real story, so I’m sacrificing the basic premise in order to satisfy the extra ones. That’s weak. Ergo this isn’t going in Anacrusis, but I’ll gladly dump it on you here, where apparently I have no standards.

I no longer think it’s possible to write a terzanelle in 101 words that’s still a good story, and I’m positive it can’t be done in meter. I’d love it if you proved me wrong.

There’s little to Terza but her frame.
She rolls. Nine sixes again:
at the Thousand-Year Club they’re all the same.

They gambled away bad luck, when
they thought they were wise.
(She rolls nine sixes again.)

When age dulled their eyes,
they’d gamble that away as well,
they thought! They were wise.

Terza chose to lose Hell
(she’d be different here);
they gambled that away as well.

Risk can’t be where fear
is not. Alone she’d be different; here
she’s one more clone.

There’s little to Terza, but her frame
is not alone at the Thousand-Year Club:
they’re all the same.

On a less happy note, I had been wondering for a while why almost all of Rebecca Borgstrom’s protagonists are brave children in great danger. I suppose her column today is an answer of sorts.

Dear everybody who loved Sideways so much

Didn’t you guys see it the first time? When it was called Swingers?

I liked the movie okay, and of course the cast members–especially Thomas Haden Church–did their jobs with pinhead spot-on laser accuracy. But to what purpose? How many books and movies are there in which a pessimistic, divorced English teacher writes a book that’s too long so he goes out with his immature, more handsome friend and ends up finding some kind of unresolved redemption with a woman who blah blah blah. I saw Wonder Boys too. I guess this one had wine in it, which is great, if you like wine.

Sumana, as often, prods me into deeper consideration of a topic–in this case, the aforementioned “Twixters:”

“I skimmed the article at a colleague’s request – she basically wanted to see whether I got enraged. My basic response: this should have been a one-page article containing the following points:

Rent as percentage of income has gone up tremendously in the past 30-50 years. It is harder and costlier to get health insurance at your job, especially at low-paying entry-level/part-time jobs, in the past 30-50 years. Thanks to rising college costs and the increasing perception that college is a necessary for a decent career, people in their twenties have way more debt now than did people in their twenties 30-50 years ago.

Ergo – the number of people who live with their parents goes up from 11% to 20% in 30 years.

There have always been families where grown children stayed in the house where they grew up, whether the kids were spoiled brats or not. In fact, in India and many non-industrialized countries, this is closer to the norm than to the exception.

Anyway. I just noticed the title of your Twixters entry. I automatically skipped the anecdotes in the article – probably some of them are babies or spoiled brats or cowering overgrown teens, and some of them are hardheaded pragmatic entrepreneurs, and some are pathological leeches. But the economics of the past 30-50 years point me towards, well, an economic explanation of this phenomenon.”

My response, plus reference-links:

“I agree with you on all points re: humans who move back into their parents’ homes after college. There are sound economic and social reasons for it, and in fact, growing up, it was what I always expected most other people to do (I became aware that I wouldn’t be doing so myself around age 12).

But I think the use of that statistic and the accompanying reasoning are largely unrelated to the author’s points; there’s a serious gap between that premise and his conclusions. Moving back home is not the same thing as ‘expensively educated, otherwise well-adjusted 23-year-old children… sobbing in their old bedrooms, paralyzed by indecision.’ In fact, not a single one of the people interviewed lives with his or her parents.

Part of my objection to the article is the author’s statement that ‘one way society defines an adult is as a person who is financially independent, with a family and a home,’ and his tacit refusal to consider other definitions–but I doubt he’d label a fortysomething couple, without children, living in an apartment in the city, as ‘twixters.’ I’d define an adult as a financially independent human who can handle responsibility. I joke about grad school as ‘putting off being a grownup,’ but in fact it’s nothing of the kind. I buy my own food and pay my own rent, work a white-collar job (albeit for absurdly low pay), invest time and money in building my job skills and carefully manage my debt. Why would owning a building or getting married before I was ready magically endow me with adulthood?

I also love the statements by people who are astounded that ‘everybody wants to find their soul mate now,’ or that twixters ‘expect a lot more from a job than a paycheck.’ Yeah, the conflict of choosing love or practicality in a marriage is COMPLETELY new! Not like it was a favorite topic of authors over a hundred years ago! And we all know that before 2002, nobody expected satisfaction or fulfillment from a JOB.

The rest of my objection–and the source of that post–comes from statements like those of Matt Swann, who is apparently bitter about this situation: ‘Oh, good, you’re smart. Unfortunately your productivity’s s___, so we’re going to have to fire you.’ Does ‘being smart’ mean taking six and a half years to get a bachelor’s degree (on one’s parents’ dime, I can only assume)? Before the 90s, did smart people have jobs where they didn’t have to produce? The title of the post came from the question ‘is it that they don’t want to grow up, or is it that the rest of society won’t let them?’ Great, now the people with ‘flat-screen TVs in their bedrooms and brand-new cars in the driveway’ are being Held Down By The Man.

I agree with you that your reduction contains the only worthwhile points in the article (or those that should have been in it, anyway). Making people like Swann out to be a) a mass phenomenon and b) deserving of pity is both irresponsible and incorrect. Implying that people my age are ‘huddled under [our] Star Wars comforters,’ without even anecdotal evidence for it, is worse. There’s no reason to write such material except as an excuse for the tongue-clucking condescension to young adults in which small, bitter members of older generations have long taken joy.”

First non-sports post all week

In January, Dave Barry will go on hiatus for the first time in thirty years. It’s uncertain when or if he’ll be back.

I’ve been meaning for a while now to write about Dave Barry and Izzle^2 Pfaff, among other things. Skot Kurruk, who writes the latter blog, is somebody who was obviously–like me–raised on Dave Barry’s humor; he appeals to me even more because he plays to my fetishes by using theatre terminology and cuss words. His posts read a lot like columns, and include a connect-for-bonus final punchline. He even has the same cumulative effect as Dave Barry: one entry will make you smile, but by the fifth or sixth you’ll be snorting in your cube, desperately trying to conceal your laughter by shoving a hand up each nostril. Okay, that’s just me.

So read Izzle^2 Pfaff, is my first point here. I have others.

I started reading Dave Barry columns not long after my introduction to joke books, in probably the fifth grade. Yes, I’m the kid who read joke books, and recited everything in them to my friends and family, usually multiple times. It is surprising that I survived middle school.

I thought that these books were hilarious, and the obvious parallel that I drew between them and Dave Barry was the Platonic punchline, the kind of thing that usually gets followed up by a musical sting (“ba dum dum CHHHH” is a sting, not a rimshot; if you call that a rimshot, you don’t know what a rimshot is). I deduced, subconsciously, that this was the root and source of all humor. Anything can be made funny with a punchline, I thought! If I make punchlines, I will be funny!

It is for this reason that I was stalled in the humor department for a long, long time. I was not a funny person, and I honestly didn’t understand why. I am only now overcoming this: I still don’t consider myself funny, but I am getting funnier.

My slog toward freedom from punchlines has been long and difficult, but along the way I was fortunate enough to discover webcomics. People talk a lot about how webcomics are revitalizing and expanding sequential art, but not so much about the boundaries they push in humor. Think about it: there is nobody on earth who is doing what Chris Onstad is doing with Achewood, a humor and pathos with no individually funny elements, built entirely with rhythm. Granted, everybody at Dumbrella is doing some of the same things, but nobody else has Onstad’s easy mastery of the method. Chris Onstad is the John McCrea of comics.

Before I read Achewood, though, I was reading Penny Arcade, by a couple of guys who are–let’s say the Ramones of comics. They have double-handedly inspired about 70% of all the comics on the Interweb right now. Like the Ramones, they took a short form, stripped it raw and made it different; like the Ramones, they made a lot of boys believe that anybody could have a smash hit with just a few ingredients and a lot of heart. (This is not true, which is why most webcomics feature two sarcastic guys and die after a month.) They are not entirely punchline-free, but a single Penny Arcade strip is often jammed with more lunacy than lesser comics can fit into their fourth panels all week.

And before even Penny Arcade, I was reading Checkerboard Nightmare, the first thing I’d seen that managed to satirize the entire concept of punchlines. I’m going to mix allegories here and call Kris Straub the Jon Stewart of webcomics: the only guy who’s capable of calling out, duelling and deflating anyone in the medium, including himself. The kind of writer who’s so sharp that he gets attacked for not being an impartial journalist–then has to remind his attackers that he never made any promises to be either.

The non-webcomic thing that had the biggest impact on the way I perceive humor was Project Improv and its spinoff, my own improv troupe, Street Legal. I’ve pretty much parted ways with PI (for that matter, they’ve pretty much parted ways with themselves), but I owe Ken Troklus and Rebecca Grossman a lot for pointing out to me that punchlines are not funny–connections are.

Dave Barry (remember? I was talking about Dave Barry?) has stated in print that he is a big Achewood fan. It’s almost bathetically symbolic to me, now, that he is taking an indefinite break from column-writing, and that Achewood is moving from the Chris Onstad’s local copy shop to a real publisher. I still read Dave Barry’s columns every week in the Washington Post, and it’s taken Achewood and over a decade to make me realize that punchlines are the smallest part of what he does.

I just described (in my last post) a state of consumer gluttony as “getting all American,” which is really inaccurate because most of America is not, in fact, part of the United States. I mean, I’m sure there are poor-yet-rich fat people in Canadia too, but you see the point.

There is no good word in English for “of / from / relating to the United States,” which is why we use “American,” and that’s dumb. I seem to remember that Spanish has “Estadounidense,” which is great but comes from a whole other language, and English-speakers should be able to do better than that.

Here’s a list of alternatives I’ve come up with.

  • United State-ian
  • United Station
  • United Static (currently my favorite, and the most accurate)
  • Unish
  • State-Uniter
  • New! State-Unit
  • New! Statoid
  • Ämerïkaans
  • USch

  • Gave away what, 60 copies of HONOR? Something like that. Two of them I traded for other ashcans (Yeperynye and The Last Sane Cowgirl), which I totally count as sales. And every copy given away was to somebody whose work I (or Will or Stephen) really respect, which is a worthwhile transaction, in my opinion.
  • Left my hat at Preview Night. Never got it back.
  • Got to meet a lot of cool people from the online.
  • Cool people I met from the online all had a curious need to run off to important, distant engagements within seconds of meeting me. Either I smell bad or I’m Creepy Interweb Fan, or (probably) both.
  • Had a really good time with Monica, Will, Stephen and Maria. And Stephen’s lady Erin, at whose residence we crashed, is maybe the coolest person on the whole planet.
  • Ran out of plane-ticket money and was unable to visit Leonard and Sumana. That was a pretty stupid mistake, and I feel really bad about it. Hopefully, a post-student-loan trip is in the works.
  • Tycho and Gabe were the coolest, most professional people at the whole freaking Con.
  • Speaking of Tycho and Gabe, I had one of the world’s most random encounters: passing by their booth, I recognized Paul Mattingly, a great guy who was in Richmond Children’s Theatre with me a billion years ago and who now works as a Klingon and Second City understudy (!) in Vegas. I literally hadn’t seen him in over a decade. He even has a site, The Famous Paul, though I understand that’s mostly a placeholder for the moment.
  • Getting to California by train was interesting, right enough, and I’m glad we tried it. but the people who work for Amtrak seem unhappy and unhelpful and it’s very bumpy. I think I’ll pretty much be flying from here on out.
  • I thought about taking a whole bunch of stuff to get signed, but eventually decided against it. I had a better idea. Thanks to the unlined pocket Moleskine my family got me for my birthday, I now possess what can only be referred to as

    The Greatest

    SKETCHBOOK

    Ever In The History Of Time

    which basically means I win.

I managed to take a whole roll of film, which is good, considering I frequently manage to wish I had a camera while holding one. Probably more updates after I get that developed, but considering I still haven’t posted the pics from my San Francisco trip in February, one shouldn’t hold one’s breath.

Metafinity: #2 in a series

“In March, Awards World magazine sponsored the inaugural ‘Awards Awards’ at London’s Dorchester Hotel, handing out awards to members of the British awards-presentation industry for the year’s best awards shows. Spokesperson Barbara Buchanan explained, ‘Everybody likes to win an award,’ even the people who give out awards (who staged ceremonies for about 1,000 major presentations in Britain last year). Although Buchanan called this year’s program a success, she said it is disqualified from receiving any awards at next year’s Awards Awards. [BBC News, 3-5-04]”

Good thing, too, or the whole system could go critical. Metacritical!

Warning: I’m gonna talk about a lot of stupid blog stuff now

My RSS aggregator is now officially aggregating 39 blogs. Granted, a lot of those are dormant, but that’s still not bad for something that started as an experiment while I was bored at work.

Things I want to change about it:

  • This is a third-party aggregator, so I have to wait for it to update itself, which it does only once an hour. For petesakes, that’s a possible 59 minutes of tardiness on late-breaking bruisable news! I should either write my own or find software I can install on my own site, but I’m lazy.
  • Thirty-nine? Come on! Somebody start a new blog, I want to round it off. No, not a blogspot, they don’t let you have a feed unless you pay money.
  • (Or, if your name is Kristofer Straub, you could get on the stick already and install some journal software with feeds and also real permalinks.)

I know thirty-nine isn’t actually a particularly large field for an aggregator, but it works nicely for me. It was pretty boring when I started out, but now there’s a good chance that any hour I hit it will yield at least one new post.