Archive for the ‘Things I Love That I Go to Inappropriate Lengths to Track Down’ Category

Desert Rose

March 6, 2025

Guys, remember when the Syrian government was overthrown?  Me neither!  There have been so many awful and engrossing news stories since then––the wildfires in Los Angeles, the inauguration and the return of Trump, the global wars still raging––that my puny, addled brain can barely recollect the experience of reading the news the day Syrian rebels swiftly and easily captured Damascus.  

But apparently my long-term memory is, unlike my short-term one, in decent shape, because whenever I hear the al-Assad name I think: how’s Joan Juliet Buck doing?

In case you missed it, here’s the background: Joan Juliet Buck was a well-respected if eccentric writer for Vogue who, in 2011, took an assignment from her editor to write a profile of Asma al-Assad, the British-born wife of then-Syrian president (he was president in 2011, when Buck profiled his wife, not when they met).  In her retelling of this afterward, she was uneasy from the get-go.  “Absolutely not,” she wrote in an essay for Newsweek. “I don’t want to meet the Assads, and they don’t want to meet a Jew.”   Nevertheless, she said it was “more interesting” than her usual assignments profiling models and actresses, and she was eager to see the antiquities in Syria, so she went.

You can probably guess what happened next.  Shortly after Buck’s article came out, the brutal Syrian Civil War began, during which al-Assad killed many Syrians.  Scrambling for a justification for printing a glossy profile of a woman married to a mass murderer, Vogue threw Buck under the bus, even though anyone in or around publishing would––should––have recognized that the buck didn’t stop with her, and Vogue would have had to be complicit in many ways, if not the sole reason for such a misstep.  

Regardless, Buck’s article vanished from the Internet, and her contract wasn’t renewed.  As of 2017, she was living in a rented apartment in Rhinebeck, New York and working on her memoir from the basement of a local library.  

I’ve long been curious about what happens to documents deemed no longer reliable because of social reasons, like this, or because they’ve been found unreliable due to plagiarism or authorial dishonesty.  (For a long time, I was obsessed with wondering who would actively choose to read James Frey’s A Million Little Pieces post-Oprah debacle, and what that person’s experience of the book would be.)  So naturally I went on Ebay to track down a copy of Vogue’s Power Issue from March 2011.  (Don’t worry––it wasn’t that expensive.)  

My first thought upon receiving it is how weird it was to hold a bulky magazine like this again, actually.  Given how much we’ve moved away from print in recent years, and how most of the publications I now do read IRL are slim or literary journals (so therefore kind of thick but much smaller), I had a shocking jolt of recollection––I wouldn’t call it nostalgia, really, because it wasn’t entirely pleasant––when I flipped through what felt like dozens of pages of ads before I even got to the table of contents.  As a person who can fetishize the analog, I was sort of surprised to find I didn’t actually miss this tactile experience.  

At the time I purchased it earlier this year, you couldn’t find the article itself anywhere online, although a friend told me she’d heard Gawker had a copy up for a while.  You could, however, find recounting of the debacle like this one, which quoted or paraphrased the piece in a few places, including the Guardian (here).  Most of those articles about the article focused on the rather gauzy, Vogue-appropriate physical descriptions of the first lady, which play pretty, uh, poorly in retrospect.  “[G]lamorous, young, and very chic… [A] thin, long-limbed beauty,” Buck calls the woman currently believed to be holed up in some opulent Moscow apartment.  

I agree that a lot of her descriptions read as unsavory in the light of the present, but actually, the article isn’t as glowing as many of Buck’s detractors made it out to be.  Right in the second paragraph, she calls out the assumption of Syria’s safety as based upon the fact that its government “conducts intense physical and electronic surveillance” of Syrians and foreigners alike.  When the first lady feeds Buck a bunch of bromides about coexistence in Syria, Buck segues into a description of the desolate Jewish quarter in Damascus.  

By far the weirdest and saddest thing in the piece is not Buck commenting on Mrs. al-Assa’s quiet luxury or whatever; it’s her description of their visit to one of the Massar centers, youth civic centers where kids are, on that day, learning music and chess on computers.  Then:

“Asma al-Assad stands to watch a laborious debate about how–-and whether––to standardize the Arabic spelling of the word Syria.  Then she throws out a curveball.  ‘I’ve been advised that we have to close down this center so as to open another one somewhere else,’ she says.  Kids mouths drop open.  Some repress tears.  Others are furious.  One boy chooses altruism: ‘That’s ok.  We know how to do it now; we’ll help them.”

Then the first lady announces, ‘That wasn’t true.  I just wanted to see how much you care about Massar.’

As the pilot expertly avoids sheet lightning above the snow-flecked desert on the way back, she explains, ‘There was a little bit of formality in what they were saying to me… Tricks like this help––they became alive, they became passionate.’”

Tricking refugee children into believing a major source of support is about to disappear: this is jaw-droppingly insane!  Buck touched upon this in her Newsweek piece, but it doesn’t pop up much elsewhere that I’ve seen, and I mean honestly, just getting that in there I think makes Asma come off really poorly.  Am I wrong on this?

Anyway if you want to see the thing in full reach out to me, I’ll just scan this sucker and send it along! 

Fake McFake Face

April 28, 2024

This is a two part series, subtitled “Things I’m Pretty Sure Are Fake But Can’t Prove,” which just about sums it up. This first one will be long, and the second, because it’s kind of a live issue, much shorter.

One of the things I used to write about a lot––like professionally, not really here as much––is the Sad Girl Lit of the 90s, including titles like Prozac Nation and Wasted . I can’t really say whether there’s a pipeline here, but my theory is one gateway drug to this genre is Sad Kid Lit. I don’t think this is a thriving genre anymore, but Sad Kid Lit were stories about “disturbed” (the parlance of the time) children with diagnoses like autism, trauma, elective mutism, and so on, often (but not always) written from the perspective of the healers who rescued them from this darkness. And the uncontested queen of this genre is Torey Hayden.

Hayden is a special education teacher, with a focus on elective mutism, who was born in Montana and worked largely in and around the Midwest and the Pacific Northwest, at clinics and in school settings. In 1980, she published her first book, One Child, about a little girl named Sheila who was a student of hers. Per the book synopsis, Sheila “never spoke, she never cried and her eyes were filled with hate.” But then Hayden put in extra time coaxing the girl out of her shell, including even saving her from her mother’s rapist boyfriend (IIRC––I haven’t read it in over twenty years), and then Sheila thrived (short version). The book was a big hit––it was reprinted as recently as 2016––and made Hayden at least somewhat famous. For some godforsaken reason, my teacher let me do an oral book report on it in the seventh grade, even though it included at least one episode of child rape. But hey, it was the nineties––things were different then.

Back in the day, I read a lot of Hayden thirteen books, except for the fiction ones, IIRC. They follow a fairly predictable pattern: Hayden enters a new environment––a new classroom, a new clinic, etc.––sees a “gem” underneath one child’s hardened or bewildering exterior (pity the poor average autistic child in her class!) and then the child is cured of his or her issues. The one that I remembered the best––nay, vividly––was called Ghost Girl: The True Story of a Child in Peril –- And the Teacher Who Saved Her. The setting this time is a small podunk town somewhere in a Plains state; Hayden has moved here, somewhat inexplicably, for a change of scenery after a stint at a clinic in a nearby larger city (she doesn’t use its real name, but it has an Omaha vibe)? She presides over a classroom of just a handful of children, one of whom is Jade Ekdahl, a selective mute who lives up the street from the school, who dresses in a slovenly way, has abhorrent posture (she’s described as being basically bent over at the waist), and is notorious for breaking the will of her previous teachers with her refusal to speak (the teacher just before Torey committed suicide, and it’s heavily implied it was because she was so despairing over her inability to make Jade talk). Hayden also mentions an awkward number of times that Jade is sort of “erotic” looking for a child.

Meanwhile, Torey saunters in, literally asks Jade two questions, and the girl responds. I can’t exactly fault Hayden for this: she says in all her nonfiction books, she has to go to some lengths to disguise the people in it. Plus, it’s a book: if it was a really protracted process, it might make the text prohibitively lengthy to tell the whole version. Still, the shortened one does really play into this whole Neurotypical Savior thing Hayden has going on.

Anyway, after Hayden breaks Jade’s spell, Jade starts to reveal little things to her, things that sound impossible, like that characters from the TV show Dallas kidnap her at night and sodomize her, and that she had a friend named Tashee who was sacrificed on an altar in front of a group of people, and that her cat was murdered on top of her Jade’s body and its guts spilled over her.

By chance, while visiting an ex-boyfriend in the city, Hayden learns that one of the symbols Jade has drawn at school has occult significance, so she starts to wonder––aloud to her boyfriend, then floated to others at the school––if Jade is being abused in a ritualistic way. This suspicion is doubled when she catches Jade about to perform a very *adult* act on a profoundly autistic classmate of hers. Hayden has met Jade’s parents and found them odd (for example, they’ve never hired a babysitter for their three daughters, for any length of time) but largely harmless; plus, Jade has always said they were asleep or otherwise not there when she and her friend, and later sisters, were abused. So that would mean a mysterious cabal of Satanists are kidnapping the Ekdahl girls and molesting them at night, murdering other kids and animals and somehow doing all of this undetected. Sure.

She spends an egregiously long (IMO) time waffling with the idea of whether or not to report suspected abuse and indulging this idea that it might be occult-related. (Also to file under “it was a different time”: the near-fellatio––which involved biting––was solved by Hayden apologizing to the boy’s mother and that was that.) Finally, with a little condensing from me here, it’s revealed that Jade’s younger sister, who appears developmentally normal, has a scar carved onto her in a shape similar to the one Jade draws, of a circle with an x inside of it. Even though Jade’s sister tells Hayden Jade carved it onto her, Hayden summons the principal and the two agree to report the abuse.

As an adult, when I thought of this book, I couldn’t remember the exact details of the ending, only that it was anticlimactic in some way. When I read it again, to write this, I remembered why: though Hayden, despite describing herself as torn many times, clearly is favoring the Satanic explanation for Jade’s behavior and stories, no evidence for this was ever found. I remember being distinctly disappointed because, more baldly than Hayden, I completely believed Jade’s story and was incensed they couldn’t prove it. Still, even without concrete evidence of abuse, all the kids are removed from the home––another era!––and placed in foster care. Some time later, their dad is arrested for molesting a young girl, and so this seems to validate some of Jade’s claims but not the hardcore ritual stuff. (For example, they could never find any evidence of Tashee, the girl supposedly murdered by the coven, ever existing.)

When I started thinking about this book recently, it occurred to me that it must be totally made up, despite it being classified as nonfiction. It seems really odd that a teacher––a really good one, supposedly––would toy with this whole sordid theory for a long period of time without calling in the authorities. It seems even odder that someone would write this book at the height of the Satanic Panic and not once mention the McMartin Preschool trials, which overlapped exactly and were huge news (the McMartin scandal began in 1983 but the trials took place from 1987-1990; Ghost Girl was published in 1991, which means she would have been writing it as the trials were winding down.) The most she does is include a paragraph in the afterword in which she subtly lends credence to the idea of Satanic ritual abuse: “[The reports of abuse] are not only quite consistent among even very young children, but they are widespread, occurring in vastly separated parts of the United States, as well as Canada, Great Britain, and continental Europe,” she writes. “… [D]espite the elusive nature of ‘concrete evidence,’ a large body of people have chosen to believe these children.” This “large body of people,” she implies, are therapists, doctors and others from the “medical community,” thus pitting them against the bad meanies in law enforcement who have such pesky requirements like “evidence.” This is one of many, many instances in the book in which she rather transparently lends credibility to the whole Satanic thing, painting it as the kind and child-centered option, or just at least as baseline plausible, even though by the early nineties the panic was definitively beginning to wane. In 1991, a report was released by an FBI agent who dealt with many of these cases in which he explained his broad skepticism; two years later, the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect revealed research that stated they couldn’t corroborate a single one of the roughly 12,000 reported cases of Satanic ritual abuse.

So after some time sitting with it post-re-read, I don’t know that I still feel like she made the whole thing up. On her website, she describes a fairly laborious process of ensuring she is behaving ethically when writing about real people. “My experience is that one needs an extremely comprehensive consent form to deal with these kinds of eventualities, so if you plan to write about real people, my best advice is to get a good lawyer first!” Presumably these consent forms exist somewhere in Hayden’s archives or her publishers’, and it would take a really calculating person to write something like the above when such forms didn’t exist anywhere, and I don’t like to imagine this kind of personality type unless it seems warranted (see next entry in this series). I mean, stranger things have happened than this lie––see: JT LeRoy––but I wouldn’t put money on it. As a person who writes nonfiction, I also am very sympathetic to the complications of writing about your own life when it means depicting other people who may or may not be so keen to be in a book. There’s really no way to win there, unless you get everyone’s written consent and refuse their right to fact check/read over anything (because then it would get too murky). So I think it’s quite likely at least some of the story in Ghost Girl is true, but the odd, or perhaps fortuitous, timing of it, the babe-in-the-woods quality to Hayden as narrator especially vis-a-vis Satanism, the use of stock types (savior teacher, manic pixie disturbed child) makes one raise eyebrows a bit.

Here are some plausible explanations, as I see it:

  1. She did have a real student like Jade, but the Satanic stuff was very much downplayed in the actual case. Sensing an opportunity to ride the coattails of current events, Hayden emphasized them in the book, perhaps with all parties involved (i.e. publishers and Hayden herself) telling themselves that by doing this they were obscuring the details so much that people wouldn’t recognize themselves as characters.
  2. Jade was being abused by her father, and also was mentally ill in some way (whether as a result of this abuse or a birth trauma, as was her mother’s explanation; either seems possible to me) and saw some of the news footage of McMartin Preschool or another Satanic ritual abuse story and it became woven into her fantasy life/she used those details to create an outlandish story that at once revealed the abuse but also not have to name her actual abuser.

Or some combination of the two.

As one poster on Reddit said, it’s kind of surprising, given Hayden’s fame, that none of her former students have ever spoken out about their experiences, just generally and with her specifically. It’s either a testament to them/her treatment that they never felt the need, or deeply suspicious, or just the way it’s all panned out. All this to say, I’d be extremely curious if any of these kids surfaced! You know how to find me!

    Fancy Mennonite

    January 5, 2024

    I had to email an academic asking for a very specific piece of information on early Anabaptist attitudes towards agriculture, and he told me to look up Conrad Grebel, one of the founders of the Swiss Brethren movement and “urban Anabaptist.” Two Wikipedia pages later, I’m still not exactly sure what Grebel has to do with early Anabaptist attitudes towards agriculture, but wow is this a great outfit or what? Not Plain at all, though!

    Job Idioms

    September 20, 2023

    A list of idioms, phrases or words in the Book of Job of uncertain meaning. (Some of these I’ve put into context––you’ll know they’re the uncertain ones because they are bolded.)

    The Adversary answered the LORD

    Skin for skin—all that a man has he will give up for his life.

    May what blackens the day terrify it.

    But the teeth of the king of beasts are broken.

    And casts reproach on His angels,

    May the hungry devour his harvest,
    Carrying it off in baskets;
    May the thirsty swallow their wealth

    You will come to the grave in ripe old age,

    That is why I spoke recklessly.

    Does mallow juice have any flavor?

    As I writhed in unsparing pains:
    That I did not suppress my words against the Holy One.

    A friend owes loyalty to one who fails,
    Though he forsakes the fear of the Almighty;

    They are dark with ice;
    Snow obscures them;

    How trenchant honest words are;
    But what sort of reproof comes from you?

    When I lie down, I think,
    “When shall I rise?”
    Night drags on,

    Whose confidence is a thread of gossamer,
    Whose trust is a spider’s web.

    His roots are twined around a heap,
    They take hold of a house of stones.

    Who made the Bear and Orion,
    Pleiades, and the chambers of the south wind;

    It is something to be proud of to hunt me like a lion,

    That You put my feet in the stocks
    And watch all my ways,
    Hemming in my footsteps?

    Who can produce a clean thing out of an unclean one? No one!-

    How your heart has carried you away,
    How your eyes have failed you,

    Troubles terrify him, anxiety overpowers him,
    Like a king expecting a siege.

    He will not be rich;
    His wealth will not endure;
    His produce shall not bend to the earth

    He will never get away from the darkness;
    Flames will sear his shoots;
    He will pass away by the breath of His mouth.

    He shuts off the view of His throne,
    Spreading His cloud over it.

    I persist in my righteousness and will not yield;
    I shall be free of reproach as long as I live.

    They open up a shaft far from where men live,
    [In places] forgotten by wayfarers,
    Destitute of men, far removed.

    Of what use to me is the strength of their hands?
    All their vigor is gone.

    Driven out from society,
    They are cried at like a thief.

    They come as through a wide breach;
    They roll in like raging billows.

    With great effort I change clothing;
    The neck of my tunic fits my waist.

    Surely He would not strike at a ruin
    If, in calamity, one cried out to Him.

    But since now it does not seem so,
    He vents his anger;
    He does not realize that it may be long drawn out.

    Will your limitless wealth avail you,
    All your powerful efforts?

    Its noise tells of Him.
    The kindling of anger against iniquity.

    He keeps turning events by His stratagems,
    That they might accomplish all that He commands them
    Throughout the inhabited earth,

    Why your clothes become hot
    When the land is becalmed by the south wind?

    Shall one who should be disciplined complain against Shaddai?
    He who arraigns God must respond.

    Shall traders traffic in him?
    Will he be divided up among merchants?

    I will not be silent concerning him
    Or the praise of his martial exploits.

    Clubs are regarded as stubble;
    He scoffs at the quivering javelin.

    Solomon Silverfish

    September 10, 2023

    So friends! Remember this? The early DFW story about a man who pretends to be Jewish, called “Solomon Silverfish”? Well, I found a copy of the literary magazine it was published in (Sonora Review, issue 55, in which it is re-printed as a tribute) on Ebay and bought it for a cool $10 so I could read! And the verdict is…

    … it wasn’t good!

    I mean, the truth is, I kind of saw this coming. I am actually a fan of what James Wood called “hysterical realism”: I’m a maximalist and I enjoy things that are fast-paced, so Infinite Jest suited me just fine (as did, for what it’s worth, White Teeth). But I think that in order to pull off hysterical realism, every detail needs to be absolutely not one tenth of a centimeter out of place, or else the rapidity of the tone gets thrown off. And so perhaps I’m at a disadvantage reading this piece as a Jew, because it just became so clear, via the details, that David Foster Wallace knows nothing about Jews.

    The basic plot is as follows: Solomon Silverfish, a lawyer of indeterminate specialty (sometimes he represents his brother-in-law, prone to drunk driving, and sometimes some unsavory pimp-types) has long been devoted to his wife, Sophie, who is in the end stages of dying from cancer. He’s called out by said brother-in-law in the middle of the night to fetch him from the drunk tank, but when Solomon goes, his friend is there with another acquaintance and Silverfish’s otherbrother-in-law. The trio tells Silverfish they know he isn’t really Jewish and he’s been lying about it all these years; Silverfish essentially says he never told them one way or another, so it doesn’t really count as lying. Meanwhile, Sophie’s parents visit her at her home and tell her what’s happening; Sophie stands by her husband, but in the midst of her defense, gets violently ill and is rushed to the hospital. The piece ends with a section in the first-person (most of the rest is, like Infinite Jest, sections in rotating close-third) voice of the pimp, who’s describing Solomon’s first attempt to buy weed for Sophie, to alleviate her nausea, and then a questionable vision of Silverfish committing adultery (I think it’s a hallucination but what do I know).

    At the risk of sounding like a total philistine, I really have no idea what the… point of this story was, overall? There were nods, I think, to the all-consuming power of romance and partnership––Solomon and Sophie’s devotion to one another is total and, at times, sweet––and to the great equalizing indignities of dying, but there seemed to be some kind of Bigger Meaning that was just completely lost on me. I say “seems to be,” because a non-Jew pretending to be a Jew––and maybe I’m biased here but it’s what I think––is an idea very pregnant with symbolism, and it was just completely unclear what it was symbolic of. Literally the only thing I can come up with is that Solomon feigned Jewishness because he was so instantly enamored of Sophie that he decided on the spot to live a lie, and the fact that they remained the Platonic image of love means that Solomon’s choice was the right one in the face of his small-minded identity-obsessed compadres. Translation: love conquers all, love is love, whatever. But this seems way too saccharine and quotidian for a guy who characterized his first novel as “a conversation between Wittgenstein and Derrida,” and who generally is not a sentimentalist nor one whose work betrays any interest whatsoever in community norms and politics.

    The other trouble here for me was again, the details. The characters were completely unbelievable Jews. And I recognize that I’m shooting myself in the foot here, because one hallmark of hysterical realism is that the characters are all kind of meant to be figures/symbols/composites of tics/quirks/antics and not really, well, real. And this largely did work for me in IJ, because I did feel that for the most part, there was some heart and authenticity there (it varied though: I felt it more in the halfway house than the tennis academy). Perhaps this is because DFW knows what it feels like to be a tennis phenom, a depressive, an addict, etc.

    But he doesn’t have a clue what it means to be a Jew, and it shows. I don’t mean anything as grandiose as carrying galut around in your soul; I mean he literally doesn’t know what words Jews use. For example, when the trio of Silverfish’s familiars are interrogating him about his deception, one of them says something to the effect of, “You sat with us in Temple! You did the mitzvahs! You ate the matzah at our seder! How dare you!” Never mind that this reads like someone looked up “what are Jewish words” and just threw them on the page; the fact that he used the word “Temple” automatically assumes these are Reform Jews, and for Reform Jews, the stance toward intermarriage ranges from “neutral” to “wholly embraced.” There is some nuance there: I don’t know when this story is supposed to take place, so perhaps the kind of light stigma of intermarriage would have been held by Sophie’s family just as a vestige of shtetl mentality, and obviously, the men are also reacting to the deception in addition to just the fact of him being not Jewish, so some of the anger might be more about that. But the truth is I don’t really think that’s why. I think DFW is trying to imply these are Serious Jews by using this kind of vernacular, but doing so without knowledge of what Serious Jews would look like or say––probably not Temple, probably not “annulment” when they talked to Sophie about ending the marriage (they’d like use afka’inhu, the halakhic equivalent, or say that she should force Solomon to give her a gett, or something like that). This is all to leave aside the fact that they speak basically like low level gangsters with the occasional Jewish term thrown in, nor do they do any of the things Serious Jews would do over the course of the story (like, IDK, pray, wrap tefillin, etc.).

    I would be really curious to hear another person’s take on this (and no, DFW bros on Reddit being like “This was great as always” doesn’t count as a “take”). I’m sure there is/are practical and/or philosophical reason(s) for specifically using a goy masquerading as a Jew in this story, and I would love to know what they are. There is a chapter in this book that seems to revolve around the thesis that DFW was interested in language as a way of “self-creation” and that “Solomon Silverfish” was an unsuccessful attempt at grappling with that idea in writing, but it’s $110 to get digital access so I’ll just have to assume her qualms with it were the same as mine.

    In closing, I’m still glad I spent the $10, and I still love you DFW! But this story was not good.

    Sopranos

    June 19, 2023

    I watched the Sopranos last summer, after a years-long campaign waged by my husband to convince me to get into it. I liked it a lot, but I wouldn’t say I thought about it terribly often, the way I think about some other shows. Fast forward to last month, when I started rewatching it out of lack of anything better to do, and now I am full-on obsessed. I have come up with no fewer than three thesis ideas for someone majoring in media studies based on the show (DM Siobhan for details), incorporated a long rant I tend to go on about whether or not Tony is a true sociopath into a lengthy essay which will likely never see the light of day, and, my shining moment, read the entire oral history of the Sopranos in less than 24 hours. It’s fine, not life-changing, but interesting enough. Below, a really hilarious interaction––that has nothing to do with the show––between Michael Imperioli (who played Christopher) and Steve Schirripa (who played Bobby).

    Steve: I would feel so terrible if I went, killed the deer, and I saw it laying there. I would feel terrible, especially for sport. If people do it, and they eat the food, that’s different.

    Michael: If you’re starving, maybe.

    Steve: It’s survival. Me, personally, it’s not my thing to kill a rabbit. I won’t kill it, it’s not my thing. Fishing is one thing.

    Michael: Why is fishing one thing? Fishing is okay?

    Steve: Fishing is okay.

    Michael: Why?

    Steve: People eat the fish.

    Michael: Fish don’t have feelings?

    Steve: I don’t know if they do.

    Michael: Sure they do. Of course they do, what do you mean? They’re alive.

    Steve: Fish cry? When they’re swimming, two of them, and a hook comes out, and gets one of them, the other one is crying?

    Michael: When you see a fish on the hook, that fish don’t look so happy to be on that fucking hook. They’re struggling with their last breath to get off it and get back in the water. You don’t think they suffer when they’re hanging on the hook?

    Steve: I don’t know if they suffer.

    Michael: Look at dolphins, what about dolphins? Dolphins are smarter than humans, you know that, right?

    Steve: They’re not smarter than me.

    Michael: They communicate telepathically and they’re smarter than human beings.

    Steve: I don’t think a dolphin is smart. I’ll take an IQ test.

    Michael: You know what else is smarter than humans, they say? Squid. Their DNA is unlike anything else on the planet. They think squids might have come from like a meteor from outer space, their frozen genetic material was on a meteor and landed here.

    Steve: What are you doing? Are you doing this to fucking drive me crazy? Do you hear yourself? Octopus from outer space, do you hear what you’re saying?

    Public Performance Idea

    June 9, 2023

    In my twenties, I used to have tons of ideas for public performances, which on occasion I would email people better suited than I was to try to have them come to fruition, always to no avail. There was the time I told Improv Everywhere to stage the dinner party “Day-O” dance scene from Beetlejuice in the basement of the Mercer Kitchen restaurant (they claimed Harry Belafonte wouldn’t grant them rights, which is a lame excuse); or the time I tried valiantly to learn the dance from Bande a Part so I could perform it in a friend’s restaurant (we tried to cast one of the male dancers from Craigslist and actually got a credible dancer almost on board); or the time I basically stalked Nitehawk Theater in Brooklyn to stage a sing-a-long performance of A Muppet Christmas Carol. Honestly I stand by all these ideas, they are GOLD, Jerry.

    Well, I had another one the other day, but it turns out I’m a little more sheepish in my middle age about pitching random entities with my schemes, so I hope someone with greater cultural cache than I have runs with this. Years ago, my then-boyfriend and I went to see a performance of There Will Be Blood during which a live orchestra played the soundtrack. (It was also in a really beautiful old theater in Harlem, which meant the ambiance was great too.) Well, considering how much everyone misses Succession, and what a musical masterpiece its theme song is, I think it would be amazing if the group that did the TWBB thing (yes, I make that title into an acronym, the film and I are that close) did a screening of some episodes, or maybe just the finale, with a live orchestra. They’re called Wordless Music and if you have more confidence than I do, definitely hit them up, but I’d love a hat tip if possible.

    The Real Star

    August 25, 2021

    Back when I was a wee sophomore in college, I developed this cherished ritual: maybe once a month or so, when my group of friends was going out or studying or something, I’d smoke *something or other* and head over our local outpost of the legendary (and much missed!) Kim’s Video.  There, I’d browse aimlessly through the selection and just pick a DVD or two, bring it back to my dorm room, and escape into another world.  Sometimes my selections were because I knew I was supposed to like those directors––like L’Avventura, or Hannah and Her Sisters––and sometimes it was based solely on the Criterion imprimatur.  More often than not, it was entirely at random.

    I had surprisingly good success with this (“surprising,” because I wasn’t taking film classes and clearly had no idea what I was doing).  Even the notoriously judgmental Kim’s staff occasionally nodded in begrudging approval of my choices.  I still own a lot of DVDs I purchased then, and to this day, I count some of my filmic discoveries of that time among my favorite movies ever, including the terrifying Dutch-French thriller The Vanishing (which I’ve actually never quite had the stomach to re-watch) and Robert Altman’s atmospheric, hazy Three Women.  

    But I had actually forgotten about one of the best finds of this era, Nicholas Roeg’s 1980 erotic thriller (kinda?) Bad Timing, until I fell down a mini-wormhole watching Criterion Closet Picks on YouTube (Ben Sinclair and Isabelle Huppert selected it)!  Bad Timing is the story of the beautiful, enigmatic Milena Flaherty, portrayed by Theresa Russell (who would later go on to marry Roeg) who seduces the clinical, controlling Dr. Alex Linden, an appropriately cerebral Art Garfunkel.  The two meet at a party and embark on an obsessive love affair, which eventually reaches a devastating, violent climax.  The film is set in Cold War Vienna, kind of the fifth main character here, which is depicted as equal parts decadence and paranoia, as evoked by alternating shots of paintings by Klimt and Schiele.

    I could have sworn I had the Criterion DVD of Bad Timing, but I guess I lost it somewhere in the ensuing decade-plus because I don’t see it on my shelves.  Bummer, as it isn’t, even now, easy to find: the film’s distributor released it only briefly in 1980, calling it “a sick film made by sick people for sick people,” and it remained largely unavailable until Criterion released in the early aughts, which is around when I would have nabbed it.  (It’s now sold out on that site but there are some slightly-too-expensive copies on Ebay.)  But luckily for me, you can rent it on iTunes, so the other night I charged my card and settled in for an evening of nostalgia.

    It was fascinating revisiting something that I remembered not only for itself, but for the particular reaction I had to it at that point in my life.  For example, I very much wanted to be glamorous and mysterious in exactly the way Theresa Russell was, so encountering her character was like locating a new icon.  And yet while watching it, I remember feeling like I had to consciously overlook one aspect of her character I found truly ridiculous: her HAIR!  Throughout the movie, Russell dons a truly baffling array of hairstyles, from the futuristic to the schoolmarmish.  Herewith, a compilation (incomplete):

    This look is from the scene where Alex and Milena first meet, at a party.  It’s hard to tell from this picture, but her hair is in a bun towards the front right side of her head, and obviously curled throughout.  (Not clear if her hair is naturally curly or straight, based on other hairstyles.)  This is the first of a few times she opts for this front-of-the-head bun thing, to which I say: why?  Just, why?


    Another angle.  You kind of have to see her in motion to get a sense of how hideous this is.

    Final shot.  Sorry for the poor photo quality.


    This is from the scene when she’s separating from her husband, played by Denholm Elliot, at the border of (then) Czechoslovakia.  This is one of my favorite of her styles: a kind of corporate hausfrau situation?  I’m sure there is a thesis written by an FIT student out there somewhere that explores the origin of this style.

    Back view.

    A similar look, from a scene where Alex Linden gives her a personality test.  (This photo is of Roeg directing Russell.)

    Here is Russell in some classic Von Trapp braids, which were a specialty of mine in my early and mid-twenties.  (I could do my hair this way without looking in the mirror!)

    Okay here is where it gets even weirder: after Alex asks Milena to move in with him, she goes back to Bratislava to have farewell sex with Elliott, and then does herself up nicely in this fancy rabbit fur situation and… some kind of space age hair wave?  This is truly confusing both on an aesthetic and practical level (meaning, how would one even accomplish this? Some kind of claw clasp)?

    Really, why?!

    And my absolute least favorite of the bunch: hair severely straightened and then put into a side-front bun, with a few loose baby wisps for added ugliness.  Mystifying! 

    Aside from the styles I liked on this list, there are some scenes where she looks truly spectacular, mostly when her hair is wild and down or the little strands at the side are pulled back neatly with small clips., kind of like this, or in the bar scene where she makes out with a rando and is rocking an eagle t-shirt.  You’ll have to watch the movie to see those looks.


    So in the end, I thoroughly enjoyed the re-watch, despite feeling occasionally distracted by the odd coifs.  On a more serious note, it was interesting to watch it now, knowing how sordid people thought it was upon its release––not that the denouement isn’t a terrible violation, but in the decades since, we’ve been subject to so much depraved behavior on screen––just to pick one example, anyone seen Antichrist? That was not a good day, for me––that it weirdly registers as anticlimactic, or maybe just not something that would induce a moral panic?  Or perhaps I felt that way this time just because I knew what was coming?  (Don’t cancel me, this is a purely academic consideration, obviously rape is terrible!) Oh and one last thing: anyone care to weigh in on whether Harvey Keitel is supposed to be like, an actual Austrian or an American expat who somehow got a job in the Austrian police? Anyway, the real moral of this story is a) buy me this DVD and/or b) figure out how to get me invited to do a Criterion Closets Pick.

    Food, Huh, Yeah What Is It Good For? Absolutely Nothing.

    July 28, 2020

    “Then she’d smelled spaghetti.  Byron had a tincture of this artificial odor on his desk, for sniffing when he ate his meals, which were flavorless nutritional shakes (the shakes were weird enough, but Hazel also couldn’t understand how the only food smell he used was spaghetti.  “Don’t you want to smell something else, for variety?” she used to ask him.  “A cinnamon roll?  A bucket of chicken?”  He’d blink once, twice, then shake his head no.)  Aside from these shakes he really didn’t eat, preferring to get weekly transdermal supplements via pneumatic injection guns.  Eating grossed him out; he felt it was antiquated and menial.  He’d want to get a implanted in his abdomen where he could delivery daily sustenance to his stomach via a gel or blended material, some texture just bulky enough that his digestive organs wouldn’t atrophy, but he’d decided against it since eating is such a metaphorical act across all cultures.  Byron worried that it might affect his business dealings if others, particularly foreign partners from European countries that didn’t romanticize efficiency, found out he did not participate in calorie swallowing and traditional digestion.”

    Made for Love, by Alissa Nutting (which you should definitely read right now)

    So anyone who knows me knows I have a knee-jerk horror of all the ways Big Tech attempts to hack human’s essential animalness.  Eliminating death, freezing your eggs and implanting them when you’re 80 and unable to put in 15 hours a day at Google so you can give birth to your grandchild: that kind of stuff gives me the willies.  And yet, and YET, I think I maybe coming around on the whole let’s-get-rid-of-food thing.

    This is undoubtedly due to the fact that I’ve been home with all three other members of my family, responsible for 97% of meals (save the breakfasts my husband makes––that’s the easiest meal of the day, though––and the very occasional evening we order out for dinner) since March 9th, when schools closed and life as we knew it ceased.  That’s a lot of meals.  Particularly for someone who from the word go, finds food pretty dull.

    I mean look, it’s fine.  It’s just a whole lot of work (and time! and money!) for fine.  If I could eat 1-2 enormous meals of my favorite food every day, I probably would basically like it (3 meals is a bit of a to-do for me).  If someone brought me a bagel sandwich or a plate of sushi or a steak with French fries and spinach whenever I was ravenous, that would be cool.  But given where we are right now in the world, it’s taking all my creativity to pour cereal into a bowl.  I think the other day I gave each of my kids half of a stale bagel with a pat of cold butter smushed into it and a cut up cucumbers and told them to get lost.

    So the other day I was wondering if there are any times in human history other than Soylent when people––scientists, wackos, wacko scientists––tried to eliminate food.  I don’t mean anorexics.  Even Gandhi or that chick Naveena Shine, who tried to go 100 days living on sunlight (she made it 47), aren’t really embodying what I’m looking for.  I’m not into eliminating food for either destructive or transcendent reasons: it’s solely just to avoid constant drudgery of deciding what to eat, procuring it, cooking it, cleaning up after it.  It’s just a bit much!  I’m hoping for a neat little pill, or that brown (but apparently tasty?) mush from Defending Your Life.  (Feel free to throw other cinematic or literary references my way.)  Unfortunately at the moment Soylent is really the only option out there, but it’s a little too corporate for my tastes.  There’s a whole DIY Soylent movement (hahahahaha people are so weird!) apparently, but now we’re asking for more of a time commitment than I’m comfortable with (it also has a whole “get healthy” agenda and again, I don’t care about that––I’m not out to optimize anything, just eliminate one more thing to do).

    When I was a young anorexic, in my second hospital program, they gave us Boost, commonly marketed toward the elderly, as replacement calories when we declined to finish a meal or snack.  This was not a unique feature of the program: the previous program I’d been in did the same with Ensure, and the one I went to after this one actually put you on an all-liquid diet if you came in below a certain BMI.  At this particular program I’m talking about, the Boost was meant to act as a punishment: even if you didn’t finish, say, one pretzel from a bag of pretzels, you’d still get an entire can of Boost, so obviously the calorie intake doesn’t at all even out there.  And yet at some point, for whatever reason, all the girls in our program decided that Boost was by far the easier way to go.  Forget the anxiety inherent in slicing your meant, the awkwardness of trying not to eat as fast as your neighbor, all those intrusive textures and flavors and temperatures, the occasional time we had to actually choose what to eat (the horror)!  Just make it all the same and get rid of all the headache.

    Eventually a therapist caught on to the fact that we had stopped thinking of Boost as something to be avoided and had started actively replacing our food with it (I think they overhead one of the girls saying offhandedly that it “tasted like cake”).  The main therapist, who probably smoked three packs a day and had the voice to prove it, gave us all a big lecture, but honestly, she should have just saluted us: we were the way of the future!

    jowen_soylent

    Or now.

    Long Post

    July 19, 2020

    I’ve really been hoping to do a longer post for a while now, but you know, pandemic living has got me (and basically everyone else) down.  So I’m just posting this dumb thing in hopes of looking like as diligent a blogger as Jason Kottke––better a stopgap measure to save face than nothing at all!

    Here’s my thought: I saw a think piece on why Twister is the best 90s disaster movie the other day.  I say “saw” because I didn’t actually read the think piece––who has that kind of time?!––but instead just nodded in bemused agreement.  Sure, that seems reasonable to me.  (Also, what else qualifies as a 90s disaster movie?  I guess I was thinking “natural disaster,” although when you Google the phrase it suggests films like Titanic and Independence Day.)  So I put it on when I was cleaning the other day, was mildly amused for the first fifteen or so, and then just started doing something else and didn’t bother to finish it.  But what those first fifteen minutes made me realize is that I am really missing something from my life: the thrill of the chase!  Not romantic chase, of course.  More like, that feeling when you’re with your pals and you all want a glimpse of something mighty and ephemeral and then someone says, “It’s close!” and you all race to jump in your cars and you’re radioing to each other, “Make a left!” and “Don’t let it get away!”  You know, the chase.

    I think maybe I just want to be a storm chaser, although I don’t love tornadoes.  A monsoon could be cool.

    Good talk eh?

    giphy-2.gif