Palin: the good, the bad, the ugly (or should I say pretty?)

so it appears that McCain will choose Sarah Palin as his VP running mate, and I say the choice is a brilliant one, for three reasons. For starters, it will steal the thunder from the recently-wrapped DNC, specifically as it relates to the historic nature of the event. Although, if chosen, Palin wouldn't be the first female on the ticket of a national party (indeed the dems hit that bar over two decades ago), if McCain wins in November, she would be the first female VP ever. This would add even more cracks in the glass ceiling Hillary Clinton referenced late in the primary campaign. Furthermore, this could scoop up some disenchanted Clinton supporters who were anxious to see a female in the Whitehouse. And though this is morbidly inappropriate, at 72 years old, McCain could inadvertently hand the keys of the White house to its first female president... Posthumously. Finally, this move could increase the excitement factor for a campaign that has largely played second fiddle to media darling, Obama. Perhaps this could finally give McCain some TV time. However, choosing a governor of a tiny state (population-wise) with only two years' experience will effectively nullify his argument that Obama doesn't have the experience to lead the country, which was his most potent argument. While VP picks tend to have very little to do with how people vote, these are different times, and who can say how this pick will affect his campaign. Still, it speaks into what kinds of decisions McCain would make as POTUS. We'll see...

Side note: this is the last time I blog from my phone!

Random Thoughts

I've been watching the Olympics a little more closely than normal. I think the Phelps phactor is probably a good reason, though I will take any excuse possible to get away from the terrible television that Dara has been watching. Try hundreds of episodes of Criminal Intent, hundreds of episodes of Animal Precinct, and dozens of episodes of the reality show "I Love Money." But even one episode is like an eternity of bad TV, so bring on the Olympics. But as I watch this terrible, terrible television, I thought up a few reality TV shows of my own:


-Bloods vs. Crips. Talk about a ratings!

-How about a reality show where you drop contestants (practically) naked in the middle of Manhattan, with no money, no ID, and force them to build up as much of an empire as they can in the space of, say, two months.

-A reality show where all the former reality show contestants are gathered up and forced to fight for their lives. Fight to the death! I think it would come down to New York and Omarosa.

Those are my ideas.

Twilight: a Comparison

Okay, so it may seem a little late to review a book that was first published in 2005, but I was swept up by all the anticipation for Breaking Dawn, the last in the Twilight series and I figured I’d give the series about teenage vampire love a try. The last time I did something like this was in the months preceding the release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Though I had never actually read a single Potter book, I was caught up in the buzz (uproar might be a better word) that was ringing in the months before July 2007 and I wanted in on the fun. And so I read the entire series and was pleasantly surprised by what I discovered therein. Sure enough, I was in line at 11:30 on July 20, waiting excitedly amongst the crowd, and although I wasn’t sporting a robe and a wand, and hadn’t penciled in a lightning-bolt scar on my forehead, I had become a Potter convert. The same cannot be said about the Twilight novel.

Although they stem from completely separate universes, and share very little of the same audience (Twilight’s feet are planted firmly in what is pejoratively known as ‘chic-lit,’) much has been made about the similarities of these books. A recent “Entertainment Weekly” article on the Twilight series referenced J.K. Rowling and her Harry Potter universe no less than a dozen times. Because of the frantic sales of the Twilight series (over 50 million copies sold worldwide), people have appointed Twilight author Stephenie Meyer the ‘next J.K. Rowling.’ Nothing could be further from the truth.

As I’ve hinted, the intended Twilight audience is decidedly female. I had a friendly, somewhat embarrassing conversation with the sales lady at Barnes & Noble about how much my sister/mom/girlfriend is going to love the book I was buying for her. “Um, it’s for me,” I sheepishly declared. She hesitated. “Oh that’s okay. I’ve been trying to get my husband to read this too!” But while the terminology of ‘chic-lit’ may be derogatory, I think the insult here lies not with Twilight, but rather with ‘chicks.’ That is to say, the chic-lit moniker does not debase the book, but to label this book in such a way, debases the chic-lit moniker itself. This book is atrocious.
I approached it with an open mind, excited to be pulled into a new universe with new and exciting characters. But while Harry, Ron and Hermione have become flesh-and-bone people to me, the characters in Twilight are as flat and limp as the acid-free bond paper they’re printed on. Harry is a great (though imperfect) protagonist: conflicted, full of emotion, yet rooted in a strong sense of morality (he rarely lies, and is intensely loyal). Myer’s Isabella Swan, on the other hand, besides having a subtle-as-a-freight-train moniker, is flat and uninteresting. She’s deceptive, but not in an interesting, literary way. More in the way you wouldn’t want your teenage daughters to behave. Her would-be lover, vampire Edward Cullen, is instantly smitten with her ‘fascinating’ personality. Personally, I find the lint in my bellybutton to be much more interesting.

The writing itself is vague and uninspired, reminding me of the journals I kept in my pre-teen years. In fact, that may have been Myer’s master stroke here. Setting the book up with a first-person narrative, when your narrator is an immature teenager, and your writing style is painfully sophomoric—it’s a match made in heaven. But from a reader’s point of view, it’s like drinking a light American beer with too much head: all froth and no taste. While Rowling adeptly takes you from scene to scene with seamless transitions and chapter endings that make you want to turn the page and keep right on reading, Myer clumsily spools out narrative like a first draft English paper: choppy and full of stuffing. Rowling will advance a scene and reveal much about her characters in just a few lines of dialogue, while several chapters in Twilight can go by and the reader will wonder, what was the point in all that?

I’m not saying Rowling is the perfect author, either. She can often oversimplify the emotion of a moment, and has a recognized fondness for adverbs. But Rowling’s sins as an author have been Xeroxed and magnified 150% in Stephenie Meyer’s writing. Unconvincing teenage over-emotion: check. Excessive use of adverbs: check check.
I’m a strong opponent of praise for praise’s sake; success for the sake of success, such as Dan Brown’s steamy-pile-of-Mona-Lisa-extrement, The Da Vinci Code. Even the writing in Harry Potter, does not deserve the accolades it commands worldwide. But if Potter is a B+ book getting A++++ treatment, Twilight is a D- book getting A++ treatment. And that just doesn’t seem right.

Knee-jerk Reactions

Over the last month or so, I've devoted a small portion of time to the matter of the knee-jerk reaction. I've been studying various reactions to specific stimuli and I've noticed just how common we as a species revert to our automated responses. We’re almost a slave to these responses.

Mention the name of Bill Clinton to your average Orange County resident and watch the eyes roll back in his head. Conversely, drop George W. Bush’s name in a pub in highly-liberal Toronto and you can reasonably expect that no one will pick up your drink. This reflex isn’t limited to the arena of politics. Favourably mention your average top-40 band to the local music snob and you can almost see their respect for you drop. Mention Rush Limbaugh to anyone left of Mussolini, and— well, you might see a little vomit.

Pop culture, music, movies—there’s some innate part of us that reacts before it thinks. Consider your own reaction to the following:

-Rush Limbaugh

-Howard Stearn

-Nickleback

-Fox News

-The New York Times

-Coldplay

-Miley Sirus

-Country Music

The knee-jerk motion is extremely frustrating. While these reactions are informed by our core beliefs (which are legitimate), there is a point where ideology takes over critical thought. It’s important to fight against this so that we don’t become static in our world view; so that we keep an open mind; and so that we don’t react like automatons reading from the playbook. Because we’re people, not robots.

If you hate Bill Clinton, try to explore those feelings and determine weather they’re legitimately yours, or whether you’ve picked up on the rhetoric of talk radio and TV news. So many times I’ve heard people recycle others’ comments and have thought to myself, “how often do I do that?” While I’m an Obama supporter, I must constantly reexamine what it is about his policies and persona that I find appealing, rather than buying into the extensive media machine that sycophantically drools after him.

In the music arena, Coldplay are often derided as top-40 hacks who write overly sensitive songs in a way that vaguely, and inadequately, mimics Radiohead. This, only after their first standout album brought them riches, uncounted radio hits, and legions of fans (not to mention critical acclaim). But Chris Martin and co. deserve a closer look at the product they work hard to put out. If you listen and decide, ‘this isn’t for me,’ it’s fine. But you must listen first before making up your mind. Don’t write off the band just because they’re successful.

Read “My Life,” before you put that final nail in Clinton’s coffin. Check out “The Audacity of Hope,” to help inform your opinions about Obama. If you find you’re not a fan of the McCain, talk to your local member of the Straight-talk Express. I guarantee you will be enlightened. If you end up as an opponent of McCain, at least you gave him a chance. Oh, and if you don’t like Rush Limbaugh, talk to… uh, wait, you’re on your own there.