Punk rock!

Dec. 26th, 2008 11:37 am
imomus: (Default)
[personal profile] imomus
I'm relieved to have come to the end of my Creation Years re-release schedule, because I'm the kind of person who dwells more happily on the present and the future than the past. But I wanted to end with this little postscript. I friended Alan McGee on Facebook on Christmas Day, and he friended me back. Neither of us sent a message, but I think in general we have good memories of our association.

I'm not going to bother drawing the re-release program to Alan's attention -- he retired from the music industry this September, he's not on the best of terms with Sony, our contracts weren't written on paper, the albums paid for themselves long ago and are without significant commercial value anyway. What interested me was something much more general: the question of outcomes.

Alan and I are the same age, both born in the West of Scotland in 1960. We're probably distantly related -- we have the same stubborn golf ball chin, the same petulant cherry lips, a mixture of Scottish and Irish blood, and somewhat hyperactive alpha-type personalities. There's a class gap, but it's not vast -- before he started Creation Records, Alan was at British Rail, which is exactly where my Grandpa Currie worked all his life. Alan now writes music columns for The Guardian, I write design journalism for the New York Times.



But obviously there's at least one huge difference in outcomes. Alan McGee discovered Oasis and is enormously rich. This means that his Facebook page is, in a sense, a glimpse into what life might be like for me had I become an enormously successful pop star. It makes an interesting -- sometimes surprising -- contrast to the life I'm actually having.

For a start, as an enormously wealthy person I'm not spending Christmas coughing painfully in a dark Berlin flat shared with a Japanese girl and a rabbit. I'm in the Maldives, a chain of tropical islands in the Indian Ocean, staying, probably, at the Hilton, whose subaquatic restaurant you see above. I'm very glad to be here, but I'm spending more time on my beach house patio watching Fleetwood Mac and Glasvegas videos on YouTube, or Twittering updates to my Facebook page, than exploring the Buddhist and Islamic heritage of this island, or its fish, flowers and fauna. In fact, you might say that I'm treating this more as a drug high than a travel experience; a soma half-holiday.

Although my failed Berlin self looks remarkably happy in his Facebook photos, prancing around dressed as a Japanese robber or leaping for joy in front of an art museum, my successful, enormously wealthy Maldives self looks rather glum, evasive and insecure in photos. I've bought a big white mansion in Wales "only because Led Zep have one down the road". My spelling and punctuation have gone entirely to pot, which is worrying, because I'm still writing for the newspapers (but copy editors will fix that). I appear to have lost all my hair (instead of just half of it), and I keep a peculiar trilby hat on at all times, even in bed.

Photographed alongside football and music world celebrities I look awkward, paranoid, nervous. I never smile. My cellphone, keys and personal organiser are beside me at all times. There's no sign of a significant other, but that's probably because she appreciates privacy. My successful self has approximately the same number of friends as my failed self, but they're -- in general -- older, more British, more supportive, less pretty, less articulate. They seem to be doing well, but the most important thing in their life is that they know me -- a very wealthy and successful person -- and that we might, you know, hang out one day. This bores me slightly. My life is full of unfulfilled promises to meet up with people abuzz with the idea that I'll transform their lives, and make them winners.

As a restless, risk-addicted entrepreneurial type, my tycoon self isn't enjoying being retired, living off art collecting ("upcoming artists like Howard Hodgkin") and property deals. On the Maldives beach my body is incongruously white. I'm a working class Glaswegian, and it's a fucking miracle I'm here at the Hilton, but somehow that miracle, thanks to the hedonic treadmill and my own restless personality, is not quite enough to guarantee the huge happiness that the world believes belongs to the successful, and the successful alone.

Anyway, thanks, Alan, for adding me -- and thank you for giving me the chance to make these six albums. You're probably happier than you look.

I want to end with a word about Harold Pinter. The man was a colossus, both artistically and as the conscience of a West that seemed, this decade, to have abandoned its moral compass. In his plays Pinter -- the missing link between Beckett and Steptoe and Son -- hinted at "the weasel beneath the cocktail cabinet". Later, in his poetry, activism and especially his excoriating Nobel Prize talk he turned his fire on the weasels in the Cabinet Office. 2005 was a time when many were thinking these things ("I haven't heard anything about the US population saying: 'We can't do this, we are Americans,'" Pinter told The Guardian) but lacked the daring or the literary skill to say them. Pinter had both in spades.

I tutored my sister through The Homecoming to get her into drama college, and it's my favourite play of his -- an extraordinary combination of Ionesco-esque (a much clumsier word than "Pinteresque") plot audacity, the kind of Cockney music hall echoes heard in Eliot's The Wasteland, Jewish vaudeville acts, Orton, Berkoff, Freud. Pinter's poetic ear was attuned to undertones of violence and sudden switches in power. Here's a scene from the best production of The Homecoming, Peter Hall's 1973 film starring Vivien Merchant, Pinter's first wife:

[Error: unknown template video]

I used to listen to the box set vinyl version of this production of The Homecoming in the same listening bunker I'd play Birthday Party and PiL Records in. Nick Cave had taken the name of one of Pinter's plays for his band, John Lydon shared his taste for absurdist menace. Neither of them retained their fierceness or their fight the way Pinter did. "Punk rock!" as Alan McGee would probably say.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-12-26 12:23 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kumakouji.livejournal.com
This entry's a bit brutal.

"2005 was a time when many were thinking these things but lacked the daring or the literary skill to say them. Pinter had both in spades."

Regardless of how I feel about this issue, you can't evoke Godwin's law and expect to be taken seriously. All I see in that Guardian piece is a lazy tirade of the 'Reductio ad Hitlerum' variety.



()

(no subject)

Date: 2008-12-26 01:26 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com
Reductio ad Hitlerum was the media's reductio ad soundbitum -- you have to watch the whole Nobel address (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GY2Z27Y-HJE) to get the whole argument.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-12-26 04:19 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cheapsurrealist.livejournal.com
Fuck Godwin's law.

After living in the U.S. for the last 8 years I've grown, to put it mildly, impatient with people who are afraid to look at the similarities between Hitler's rise to power and the neocon's power grab.

I'm a supporter of the EFF but I'm not following any "laws" made up by some internet dude.

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-12-26 07:56 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] cheapsurrealist.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-12-26 08:25 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

Date: 2008-12-26 01:30 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
hmm.. so this is what you mean by friendship? Can't wait for the friendship album.

cockney red

(no subject)

Date: 2008-12-26 01:48 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com
Och, Alan, it's not un-friendly. I'm just wondering whether you're happy.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-12-26 01:38 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] robinsonner.livejournal.com
I like how Channel 4 can still wheel out guys like Pinter and - on an earlier occasion - Potter when they are known to be chronically ill so we can excuse them for getting a good kick into the "weasels".

For a channel which has become hybridised with Channel 5 mentality, becoming the supposed Channel Nine while actually becoming just another cable channel, it was somewhat daring for its alternative Xmas message to the Queen to be given by the Iranian President.

I know it was just a part of his work but I admired Pinter's talking around a situation style, when two voices would prattle on inanely almost ignoring each other but somehow creating a third dialogue. Real Life.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-12-26 02:30 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Unkind conjectures and bitter comparisons don't do you any favours - it's posts like these that make me wonder if you're really happy or if in fact you're gutted that you never became David Bowie...

(no subject)

Date: 2008-12-26 02:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com
Well, I think it's sweet that we're all concerned about the happiness of old colleagues! It's actually very much in the Christmas Spirit, no?

I think David Bowie makes a pretty good job of being David Bowie -- I'd be rubbish at it, what with my tombstone teeth and wonky eye.

(no subject)

From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-12-26 03:39 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-12-26 04:13 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-12-26 04:41 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-12-26 04:51 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] fishwithissues.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-12-26 05:52 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-12-26 06:31 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] fishwithissues.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-12-26 07:32 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-12-27 09:35 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-12-27 09:38 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

Date: 2008-12-26 06:37 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
It's possible to say such things without being mean-spirited, and even without being jealous. It's the interpretation that adds, or at least accentuates and harps upon, those emotions. However, I'd believe that you weren't being intentionally 'socially sadistic' more readily if the word 'anyway', synonymous with nonetheless, hadn't been used in the afterthought of thanks. This particular sort of error is far too often blown way out of proportion by responses, though.

RIP Pinter.

plutonic luv

Date: 2008-12-26 07:38 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] st-ranger.livejournal.com
I just can't bring myself to feel sorry for gazillionaires. I try, I fail. Ohwell!

(no subject)

Date: 2008-12-26 07:47 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com
I think equivocation is seen as condemnation sometimes. In other words, the two meanings of "criticism" get mixed up (criticism as analysis, and criticism as blame). When Vampire Weekend sent me their album in January (http://imomus.livejournal.com/350070.html) I found some things to like about it, and some things not to like. But apparently reacting "critically" in this way wasn't seen as the appropriate response to a band who'd declared unilateral friendship, so my -- I thought -- fairly balanced account got me branded an asshole (http://stereogum.com/b-sides/momus-to-vampire-weekend-bugge-008114.html) by the band's fans. I thought I was saying "There are some good ideas here, but they all lead to things I've heard elsewhere", but the soundbite became: "Bugger off!" The band themselves, to their credit, responded much more thoughtfully, wondering what their "next level" of originality might be. I still think it was a useful conversation to have had, but I took some hits.

But I do want to say that being critical (in the non-blame way, ie equivocal and considered, praising some things, questioning others) is a much bigger thing than the jealousy it often gets mistaken for. Criticism is about caring about things-in-themselves -- more, sometimes, than the relationships between the people involved. And of course for that reason it can be risky and destructive as well as creative and constructive.

I do think it's a risk worth taking, but there's a Catch-22. If you don't have the social bonds with someone to assure them that, whatever you say, you still love them, it's likely that your criticism will be seen as blame and rejected. But if you do have those social bonds, it's hard to judge objectively, and the relationship will tend to take precedence over the criticism.

I've been thinking about this recently because I've been working with an editor on my book, and an editor is there to offer criticism. Since it's the first time I've worked with a literary editor, I've had to learn not to be touchy, snappy, defensive, possessive, or to assume that my own built-in literary editor had done the whole job already.

Prank Rock

Date: 2008-12-26 08:47 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
We are all fake. Momus and his truer self is busted again. Jealousy is an ugly head on anybody.

Re: Prank Rock

Date: 2008-12-26 09:19 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com
Jealousy and bitterness are charmingly simple explanations, but strictly amateur psychology. I think we can do better: this is underachiever post-rationalisation. It goes like this:

1. What would it be like to be very wealthy?

2. Great! Much better than being poor.

3. Actually, maybe not so great. Everyone would want a piece of you, and having those houses and holidays would be a big hassle, and somewhat hollow in the end.

4. Thank god I'm just a poor post-rationalising underachiever!

There's a lot of this stuff in Christianity and Socialism, and in British people. Nietzsche and the Americans won't have any of it, of course.

Re: Prank Rock

From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-12-26 09:36 pm (UTC) - Expand

Re: Prank Rock

From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-12-26 09:46 pm (UTC) - Expand

Re: Prank Rock

From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-12-26 10:29 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

Date: 2008-12-26 09:12 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Pop-pop-pop-popocatepetl.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-12-26 09:47 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] obliterati.livejournal.com
A crazy man in a billiards room was drunk off his ass one night and squealing incoherently and dancing violently into my friends and actually humping the pool table at one point. It seemed kind of disturbing and rude. I guess he wanted to be nice though, so he offered me a pez from a pez dispenser and asked me if I wanted any candy but I didn't trust anything he'd recently touched and so hesitated. He pulled the pez dispenser back and said "you had your chance!" and we barely ever spoke again. A few years later his band Built To Spill became one of the biggest indie rock phenomena of the decade and even when he left the band he was still listed as a "charter member" and so gets to sit behind the nice velvet rope at BTS shows when they're all in the same town. I've found myself objectifying his success before and wondering what would have happened if I'd just taken the damn pez. Eventually I started complaining about it and getting upset with every force that ever tried to prevent me from playing with Built To Spill, before realizing of course that the biggest of these forces was Built To Spill itself, who has a perfectly fine drummer whose abilities suit the music far better than mine.

The crazy freak from the billiards room very kindly accepted my Facebook friending attempt a while ago and so far I've managed to draw no attention to the fact that he is part of an AMERICAN ROCK LEGEND and I am sitting here coughing up blood from hand rolled cigarettes, when originally he was the jerk who ruined our pool game. Turns out he's a pretty nice guy.

But the thing is though, I do have my rewards, and if I were to talk about them out of context I would get a pretty harsh reception I'm sure. And I bet the Maldives could use the income considering what happened to the tourist industry (and tourists of course) in the Pacific a few years ago. I wonder if they have new official maps yet.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-12-27 12:10 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kineticfactory.livejournal.com
Are Built To Spill indie-rock? I thought they were emo.

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] obliterati.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-12-27 12:40 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

Date: 2008-12-26 11:18 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cap-scaleman.livejournal.com
Many comments on this entry seem to find it quite negative. Personally I find it sincere. It is here, it is the "truth of the moment", and why regret and delete? Surely, it would be more of a regret to delete an entry or comment.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-12-27 12:58 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] fishwithissues.livejournal.com
not sure about that, but that is an interesting opinion, and to his credit momus does not edit or delete anything he posts. i deleted an old comment last week on that vampire weekend entry that read stupid/snarky and don't really regret it, but is it really my right a year later to do that? it's up to the site designer i guess.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-12-27 08:58 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
This entry does come across as mean-spirited. Not for the first time, you seem to think that you aren't really insulting or betraying someone if you can find an instance of when you've also said something positive about them. That isn't how it works and I suspect you know that. Above, you write that Alan could definitely handle your teasing and then you later write "McGee has unfriended me now, and I can totally understand that" which suggests that you do realize you crossed a line. I wonder whether you ever apologize privately for some of your public barbs?

(no subject)

Date: 2008-12-27 11:50 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com
Oh, certainly I do. I made up with my cousin Justin this year after we'd both had to put up, for years, with my Wikipedia entry ending with the statement that I'd "been critical of his output at times". This was hardly slander of Boy George or Noel Gallagher proportions, though: it was me answering a 1992 NME quiz question of "What makes you cry?" with "Del Amitri".

Things -- our inevitable differences in style and perspective -- get blown out of all proportion. But let no-one say that, were the tables turned -- were I enormously rich, and wearing a silly hat, for instance -- I wouldn't chuckle when people called me on it. I really hope I wouldn't have become the type to pull super-rich hissy fits. Sir Ben Kingsley (who even asks his cat to call him "Sir Ben" at all times) springs to mind.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-12-27 04:38 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
The reader response to this entry, and to the Vampire Weekend entry, mystify me. Granted, they were perhaps unprofessional in the sense that it would be better for Momus's professional career for him to network and gladhand and "if he can't say anything nice, not say anything at all." What confuses me is why any reader would want that. I can only imagine that it makes for "uncomfortable reading" because they are worrying what Momus would think of them? They love Vampire Weekend? Speaking as a longtime reader myself, I liked these entries, and I like this blog's predilection for sincerity over nicety. I would probably stop reading it if Momus turned into the kind of avuncular statesman of post-punk that some readers want to reform him into.

-Jace

(no subject)

Date: 2008-12-27 06:26 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Say what you like when you like. It's how you deliver it darling, what matters, nowt more.

(no subject)

From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-12-28 12:38 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-12-28 01:26 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-12-28 09:11 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-12-28 10:19 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-12-28 10:43 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-12-29 04:16 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-12-29 09:20 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-12-29 11:42 am (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-12-29 12:07 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-12-29 12:43 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-12-29 01:05 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2008-12-30 11:16 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

Date: 2009-01-03 05:36 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Part of the problem Momus is the issue that in all these occasions, think about what if you are 100% right? What if you were spot on in your assessment of certain parts of Alan McGee's life. Well, all that could be said would be, "You're totally right Momus, you win." But we all know in life that people are very complex and there is no real winning such arguments, casting certain things in certainties and black and white reduces such complexities, and also perhaps unfairly stereotypes some people. Everyone is complex, everyone makes decisions they're unsure and/or ambiguous about, things sometimes happen to people for no apparent reason--and no one wants to be made a stereotype or a cartoon, such as "now he's just a ___" fill in the blank, whether it be a "rich man" or "snobby famous musician/artist," etc.

This perhaps randomness of outcomes happens too with rewards in life.
So Alan McGee got lucky and rich--think of how many other would-be music or property entrepreneurs put in similar luck and were not equally rewarded. Think of how much more famous you are than many other musicians and artists, you have people who recognize you as an interesting person, artist, musician, writer, person on your blog, in the NY Times, previously in Wired. Most musicians, artists, people in life chug along with zip, zero, no recognition outside of a few friends/family/lovers. They work their 9-5's. or play out with their bands and try to get art shows and writing gigs, and most get lost in the shuffle. For most artists/musicians/writers, even having had records put out, no less by a "legendary" in some circles label like Creation, would be a miracle/having made it.

But I can understand, in our modern age, there is so much information and possibility available today for creative people, and our lifespans are so long, that when we have mastered certain genres of creativity, we often want to keep exploring, learning, expanding, even in other genres we may have not appreciated or looked down upon or distrustfully at earlier periods in our lives. You seem to be a very creative and arty person. But having achieved fairly well (I don't mean in the capitalist sense of remuneration) as an artist/writer, and seeming to be a genuinely curious person, maybe it's time to take up more adventurous projects--truly creative humans in our day and age sometimes expand into forms of creativity and expression beyond art and music once they've been successful at those things.

There's an article in the NY Times right now about Wall Street people who were laid off or are wary of the industry now are branching off into their artistically creative sides, pursuing comedy, writing, etc. Now, for Momus, a rather "pure" artist, it's possibly to to think about the creative sides of capitalism. Think of the creativity in industry, transforming on state of land or a community or whatnot into something else useful. Or think of the devious and slightly theoretically humurous, though dastardly and also tragic creativity of a liar like Bernie Madoff . Ponzi schemes? Wow! Or Pet Rocks? Wow! Or real estate development? Maybe think about somewhere with cheap property in Berlin and how you could make it a Starbucks with both luxury lofts above and a few units of low income housing, and how there could be a bookstore next door. Or maybe start making some artsy puppets and clothes to sell on Etsy and make your own craftmaking capitalist empire.

Anyway, I mean to say, you cast yourself and Alan McGee as sorts of Yin and Yangs from one original source, but you are a poor artist and him a rich capitalist now. But as a smart, intelligent, creative person, you probably realize that in today's modern world the boundaries are much more fluid. Your creative self probably sees the delight in exploring things on the other side, the Yang to the Yin or whatnot. That's truly hitting the Maslows hierarchy concept of self-actualization--exploring the possibilities in life further, exploring the worthy and creative parts of ideologies and ways of commerce and life you may have scorned earlier.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-01-03 05:37 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
(continued)

Then again you probably know this all, and make bitter posts as a meta-joke about your adopted moniker Momus, "the god (daimon) of mockery, blame, ridicule, scorn, complaint and stinging criticism. He was expelled from heaven for ridiculing the gods."

But yeah, in 2009, I think it's time to see Momus cash in more, make something concrete, or get involved in some deals on the physical and capitalist level...but in an enlightened and artistic way. Maybe intern for Alan McGee for awhile on his deals, drop your prejudices, and write about it from an artist/musician's point of view (but without any sort of stereotyping bitterness).

Probably harder done than said, but that's what being creative is about, no?

(no subject)

From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2009-01-03 05:45 pm (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

Date: 2009-01-03 06:15 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Momus, here's a case for embracing creativity by stretching out one's horizons, by working on property deals, making money working with bands one doesn't immediately like or tolerate like Vampire Weekend, etc. It's healthy, revolutionary, creative, and will keep your mind young. "In fact, the more new things we try — the more we step outside our comfort zone — the more inherently creative we become, both in the workplace and in our personal lives."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/business/04unbox.html

So it seems antithetical to talk about habits in the same context as creativity and innovation. But brain researchers have discovered that when we consciously develop new habits, we create parallel synaptic paths, and even entirely new brain cells, that can jump our trains of thought onto new, innovative tracks.

Rather than dismissing ourselves as unchangeable creatures of habit, we can instead direct our own change by consciously developing new habits. In fact, the more new things we try — the more we step outside our comfort zone — the more inherently creative we become, both in the workplace and in our personal lives.

But don't bother trying to kill off old habits; once those ruts of procedure are worn into the hippocampus, they're there to stay. Instead, the new habits we deliberately ingrain into ourselves create parallel pathways that can bypass those old roads.

“The first thing needed for innovation is a fascination with wonder,” says Dawna Markova, author of “The Open Mind” and an executive change consultant for Professional Thinking Partners. “But we are taught instead to ‘decide,’ just as our president calls himself ‘the Decider.’ ” She adds, however, that “to decide is to kill off all possibilities but one. A good innovational thinker is always exploring the many other possibilities.”

(no subject)

Date: 2009-01-04 02:32 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
oh momus you really are the Greek god of mockery.i suspect indeed accuse you of mocking all your congregation with these arguments and loaded statements.
i first suspected you of sophistry and tomfoolery after watching "man of letters " .although this is my fav dvd of all time i was left left wondering if you were in your dylan 65/66 mode and it was all a "put on".my mates thought you were being genuine......were you ??,i mean the edd ball scene surely that was staged.(your voice over was pure class though)anyways i still believe your " put on " mode is your default setting....if this is the case then all your pontifications and polemical views are of little consequence to truth seeking rational "normal" genuine readers/contributors.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-01-04 03:04 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] imomus.livejournal.com
Man of Letters is a documentary with real people saying real things, but framed and structured by a plot device borrowed from CS Lewis' book The Screwtape Letters, in which an old devil is sending a young devil out to capture the soul of a man, Momus. Ed Ball really came to my house in Covent Garden and gushed about how "It's what you deserve, Nick", but in the Screwtape framing Ball becomes "the Flatterer", a "useful tool" to achieve the capture of Momus' soul.

Is this "sophistry and tomfoolery"? No, it's structuring a film with a device drawn from fiction. It's not "all a put on", but the fiction and the fact are in a complicated relationship with each other. Actually, all documentary (non-fiction) films are structured according to some kind of plot device -- the honest ones are the ones which foreground this, in my view. Using, and foregrounding, this kind of device is not the opposite of being "truth-seeking" or "rational".

Profile

imomus: (Default)
imomus

February 2010

S M T W T F S
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28      

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags