Not bad for a professor

JD009RTC Cweb

In the entryway to the large, central cube, Vonderwelt finds a letterboard announcing an event hosted by a certain Dr. Glenn Bacca, Ph.D.: “Building Trust, Building Sales: It’s Your Move!” On a fold out table to the side there is a cardboard box filled with glossy pamphlets describing Dr. Bacca’s many accomplishments. “Dr. Glenn Bacca, Ph.D., is one of the most sought-after motivational speakers in the country,” the pamphlet announced. “Known to earn up to $20,000 for a single engagement, Dr. Bacca has made a name for himself wowing crowds and boosting sales from Palm Beach to Palm Springs.”

That’s from a very bitter short story about conferences and the dregs of the academic life. It’s by Justin E. H. Smith, who is a professor of, I think, philosophy at Concordia University in Montreal. The fellow above is posing as Dr. Bacca, the motivational expert.

The protagonist of the story is a poor schmuck who can’t find the conference room for the talk he’s supposed to give. The reason is that the talk has been canceled, and the reason for that is there was never a good reason to give the talk, as the fellow himself realizes. Reflecting on the sign for his talk:

Dammit! Vonderwelt thinks. Why do they always write ‘Ural-Altaic’ when it’s supposed to be ‘Aral-Ultaic’?! And where is that damned circumflex accent over nâk? Nak doesn’t even mean anything! Come to think of it, nâk doesn’t mean anything either. I thought it did when I did my thesis. I made up this whole big structuralist structure that made it mean something. That went out of fashion, the profession crumbled into a thousand little camps –dear old arrowhead collector here, indigenous advocate there, grating culture-studies clones all around– and I was left with my meaningless nâk: just a sound, really, just a meaningless sound the fates had conspired to make the center of my career. Nâk means employee benefits is what nâk means. Nâk means braces for the girls. Nâk meant braces for the girls anyway. Now it’s just this last meaningless talk of an undistinguished career, advertised with clip-art, to be given in the Minnetonka Annex of the Minneapolis Sheraton.

Ouch! Closer to home, Professor Smith is bitter about life at Concordia and the effects on his toilet of an imaginary Tom Friedman. Who can blame him?

(Via Sullivan, once again.)

Voices of Protest

I don’t believe a word of all of this. Berlusconi is a happy married man and loves his family, he would never do such a think. This is a conspiracy of the Comunists Party who wants to bring the governament down. GO HOME YOU COMUNISTS

Boobee, Lachine,

That’s a comment left on the Times of London web site under an article about Silvio Berlusconi’s alleged adventures as a consumer of paid sex. Boobee is amazingly determined in calling Berlusconi “happily married,” given that Berlusconi’s wife has told the press how pissed off she is that he’s spending time with an 18-year-old model. In fact Berlusconi was at the girl’s 18th birthday party, where he gave her an expensive piece of jewelry to honor their already extant friendship. But if you saw Colbert last week, you already know that part.

The latest stage of the scandal centers on women who were paid to attend Berlusconi’s parties and who allegedly did the sort of things you would expect. From the Guardian:

Nicolò Ghedini, Berlusconi’s chief legal adviser, defended his client over the D’Addario affair by describing his client as a mere “end user” of the women, who was not therefore at risk in the Bari investigation. For good measure, he added that “Berlusconi could have them [women] in large numbers for free”.

As an American, I didn’t know Italy could have a sex scandal.

I’m Okay, Fuck You

This is another review that originally appeared in the now defunct website, Culture 11. The ending is somewhat different in this original version than in the published one, I think.

****************************

Self-help is about helping yourself to great whopping heaps of stuff . Money, wives, prestige, adoration, a perfect body to house your pristine ego — it’s all yours for the asking if you’ll just turn your frown inside out, let a smile be your bludgeon, and follow our twelve simple steps!

Or, if twelve steps seem too complicated, you can always go see Yes Man and learn how to do it in one. Carl (Jim Carey) is a sad, sad, and lonely guy; his wife Stephanie (Molly Sims) ditched him after six months, and he has responded by going fetal. He is stuck in a boring dead-end job at a bank, won’t answer his phone, barely leaves his house, and spends most nights at home watching rented DVDs by himself, too bored (we learn) to even masturbate. Finally, he admits he has a problem, and goes to a self-help revival meeting of the “Yes-Men” led by one Terrence Bundley (Terrence Stamp). Terrence claims that “when you say yes…you embrace the possible!” Armed with this singular, and indeed, single, philosophy, Carey heads off determined to say yes every time the opportunity presents itself . Soon he’s giving rides to homeless people, learning Korean, sucking up to his apocalyptically nerdy boss, approving dicey loans, and — most satisfyingly — canoodling with the yummy Alison (Zooey Deschanel) who looks (and indeed, in real life, actually is) about two decades younger than him. Who wouldn’t say yes to that?

Indeed, the whole Yes Man concept is charged with a kind of lobotomized libidinousness. Saying “yes” to everything allows Carl to absolve himself of all personal responsibility. By replacing his conscience with an arbitrary shibboleth, Carl escapes from Adam’s curse. He no longer knows good from evil; he now literally knows only what he says. Liberated from moral choice, he is invested with an irresistible prelapsarian glamour. He charms his immediate supervisor, Norm (Rhys Darby) by attending his Harry Potter costume parties; he charms his best friend’s fiancée by agreeing to host her bridal shower; he charms a jumper back from the ledge by leading the onlookers in a rousing singalong. Moroever, Carl’s newfound charisma has a definite erotic edge. Women in bars and in bridal stores swoon and giggle when he flirts, his toothless septuagenarian landlady neighbor gives him a surprisingly skillful blowjob; Alison falls seamlessly in love with him. Even his ex-wife wants to get back in his bed.

Of course, there are some downsides to the yes-man program. If you never say no, people are going to take advantage of you — and, indeed, Carl’s home is virtually taken over by the parasitic Rooney (Danny Masterton.) More importantly, abdicating personal responsibility isn’t much different than abandoning personhood altogether; Carl sets no boundaries on his self, and therefore, his self basically disappears. His appeal is that he is all things to all people — a nerd to Norm; a daring adventurer to Alison; a drinking buddy to his friend Peter (Bradley Cooper); and so forth. The effect is magical, but it’s neither trustworthy nor exactly human; and when Alison figures out what’s going on, she’s repulsed. “How do I know if anything you did was really true?” she asks him in horror before dumping his bony ass.

It is at this point that the movie really reveals its diabolical genius. Losing Alison makes Carl realize that saying “yes” is not in itself a sufficient philosophy. There’s something else…something missing. But what is it? Confused, he seeks out guru Terence again, who obligingly explains that he must continue to say yes…but only when he actually, really want to! “Yes” is simply a step along the way to the goal of a new, exciting, and fully functional self.

But what kind of functional self is this, anyway? Both Peter and Alison mock the “say yes because you really want to” philosophy as an over-obvious tautology — you need a guru to tell you that? When you start to think about it, though, the philosophy is far from obvious. In fact, it’s the opposite of obvious. It’s flat-out stupid. In the first place, there are some things you simply can’t afford to say yes to, no matter how much you want to — Carl and Alison have mysteriously bottomless reserves of cash with which to indulge their consumer flights of fancy, but that’s hardly true for everyone. And in the second place — well, you don’t have to be a Kantian to realize that even the more complicated Yes Man philosophy presents certain moral problems. Even if you really, really want to do so, there are many things you just shouldn’t say yes to — unprotected sex with a stranger, for example, or murdering your boss, or invading Iraq. It is possible to deeply desire to do things that are harmful to others. Because you’re not the only one in the world, you have an obligation not to fuck your neighbors over just because you feel like it.

Of course, Yes Man pretends that it is about reaching out; helping homeless people, organizing bridal showers for friends, being truthful with your lover. Saying “yes” is supposed to be a way to open yourself to life. In fact, though, the opposite is the case: it is not the universe which fills Carl, but Carl who fills the universe. There he is saving the jumper; there he is match-making; there he is on television at a football game; there he is climbing the corporate ladder, there he is romancing a woman who, by all normal standards, is a good bit out of his league. His inner drama, his healing, is the focus of the narrative, and everyone revolves around it. Carl starts out as a failed narcissist; he ends as a successful one.

This is perhaps most clear in the scene in which Carl’s ex-wife asks him to come to her house. She has just broken up with her lover, and is horribly distraught. Weeping, she comes on to Carl, asking him to stay the night. Trapped by his “yes” pledge, he almost agrees — but then he says “no”. Undoubtedly this is the right thing to do for both of them…but Carl doesn’t explain this, or try to comfort her, or show any especial sympathy for a woman who he claims to have loved. Instead, his voice, when he utters the crucial negative, is both triumphal and somewhat sneering. She made him suffer, and now he doesn’t need her.

Carl’s new self-confidence, his new self-identity, is, in other words, built on the most puerile kind of revenge fantasy. He gets to humiliate the woman who broke his heart. And, of course, the best part is that, once he’s free of her, she ceases to matter. We never see her again — she’s out of his life and now he can concentrate on what’s best for him and him alone. Her pain and sadness aren’t real, because nobody is real; they’re all just small cogs in the blandly improbable wish fulfillment that Carey and company have concocted. In this daydream, all that truly exists is Carl, the self he’s helped, and his own oblivious, ravenous chant — “yes, no, yes, no, yes, no” — spoken not to communicate with others, but to efface them.

Fusty quotes for frightened minds

If everything goes right and Ahmadinejad bites it, the following quote will break out across the American Internets:

Is not a Patron, my lord, one who looks with unconcern on a man struggling for life in the water, and, when he has reached ground, encumbers him with help?

That’s what Dr. Johnson wrote to Lord Chesterfield after finishing work on his dictionary of the English language. Chesterfield just hadn’t been there for him, okay?

As you know, Obama is being careful about what he has to say on Iran, and some conservatives want him to be more splashy. When and if the bad guys lose, Obama will have less reason to be cautious and will say some nice things. At that point the propaganda mills of the right will churn forth columns, blog posts, and TV spiels wrapped around the above quote.

One of the awful things about pithy Europeans of long ago is that their remarks keep getting served up as justifications rather than entertainments. Because an old quote sounds good, and because it has a famous name attached, a certain class of mind will consider the quote to be in itself an argument. In high school I had a teacher who thought that “Lies, damn lies, and statistics” was actually a reasonable counter to the citing of any figure. Thirty years later I thought of a comeback: “Cliches, cliches, and banalities.” That wouldn’t have done me any good, but neither did “So what? So the guy said that,” which is what I said at the time. Of course, that is a reasonable response.

In any case … Hey, Doc Lawton, this goes out to you.

(I apologize for writing “entertainments,” plural, but I’m too lazy to think of something else.)

Annie Hall

This item has been discontinued by the manufacturer.

That’s what it says at Amazon next to the dvd of Annie Hall, which apparently was issued in 2000. Go to my local Blockbusters back in Montreal, located near McGill University and on the edge of the fashionable Plateau district, and you’ll find that the nice young man behind the counter has never heard of Annie Hall and cannot find it in the computer. Damn. I thought the movie would be on hand forever, for as long as dim people take out middleweight films and tell themselves they’re experiencing art.

A haiku:

Time the destroyer.
Woody Allen‘s “masterpiece”
And my goddamn life.

TCJ 298: Percy Crosby, too

The new Comics Journal is out with a diverse lineup. The interviews are with twins Gabriel Bá and Fábio Moon and Perry Bible Fellowship creator Nicholas Gurewitch. R.C. Harvey weighs in & in on Obama caricature in political cartoons, while Tom Hart critiques Ron Regé’s first big collection. (I wish more cartoonists wrote criticism.)

Noah & Tom do not appear, more’s the shame, but I’ve got two pieces on very different manga.

One’s an introduction to a sample from Jiro Taniguchi’s A Distant Neighborhood, forthcoming from Fanfare/Ponent Mon. The other’s a review of the October 2001 volume of the alt-manga anthology AX, the one with the Jim Woodring cover. It’s my contribution to the discussion of the Top Shelf’s orthcoming AX collection prepared by Mitsuhiro Asakawa & Seán Michael Wilson. My article’s half review, half overview, with a look at the scuttlebutt from the end of Garo and the birth of AX.

One of the joys of print, other than shelving, is that I wrote it so long ago that it feels like somebody else wrote it. I’m not saying I read the whole thing nodding and got surprised at the byline, I’m just saying.