Michael's Home

Have a look at my article on amaroK, an audio player on Linux, that was published at NewsForge:

In a recent issue of The New Yorker, Louis Menand wrote an essay on the rise and importance of the blockbuster. It was a good essay, but I thought he missed one important point. I sent in a letter to the editor, and they published it. What this blog entry is for, however, is to show how The New Yorker editors changed what I originally wrote. For the most part, the changes were approved by me.

Here's how it was printed in The New Yorker:

"The blockbuster's dominance in the Hollywood landscape makes a certain kind of sense (A Critic at Large, February 7th). A big special-effects extravaganza is arguably the only type of film for which there are no substitutes or counterparts in television, books, or theatre. Moreover, in many other film genres one doesn't lose much by waiting for the movie to come out on video. But if one wants to see 'Independence Day' at all, there is no choice but the local megaplex. It is natural that the studios focus their efforts where there is the least competition."

There were a few small changes between the edited text I approved and the printed text, but nothing worth discussing. Here is the original letter I submitted:

"Louis Menand's critique of the Hollywood blockbuster fails to mention one important point: The special effects extravaganzas, which only became possible in the 1970s, are the one type of film for which there are no other substitutes. All other types of films have their counterparts in television, books, theater, or music, often surpassing films in quality. Moreover, there generally isn't much lost in these other genres by "waiting for it to come out on video." But if one wants to see "Independence Day" at all, there is no choice other than the local mega-plex. It only makes business sense for studios to focus their efforts where competition is lowest."

My comments: Taking out the clause about the 1970s is fine, since it was a point made by Menand. I also don't mind reworking the sentence introducing this subject, except for the phrase "a certain kind of sense," where `certain kind' seems vague and unnecessary.

For the next sentence of mine, the dropped the reference to music and the comment about the quality of these other mediums. As an acquaintance likes to say, "Music is what humans do best." Music can have perhaps the evoke the strongest emotions of any art form, and the same song can evoke them repeatedly. In this way, music is an alternative to film. One need not see a Meg Ryan movie to experience love vicariously if a pop song is more vivid.

The quality of these other mediums is also important to the argument. To be a substitute for film, they must be of sufficient quality. Perhaps this point for books could be taken for granted, but surely it's not obvious that television or theatre can match film in quality. They may have taken the clause out because it's not obvious, and I didn't, nor would space allow, make an argument justifying that point. Fair enough. But to someone who thinks television is nothing more than a bad episode of "Just Shoot Me," an argument that television can replace film rings hollow.

I used quotation marks around the phrase "waiting for it to come out on video." Removing the quotation marks happened between the edited text I approved and the final printed version, and I would have opposed the move. First, I avoid cliches in my writing, especially obvious ones like this. I used the quotation marks to stress that this was a cliche, because the very fact that it is a cliche justifies my point that people do use video to subtitute for films in the non-special effects genres.

They improved the last sentence by switching to 'least competition', but they should have included the clause noting that it made "business" sense. At the very least, it would explain the ambiguous phrase they used in the first sentence. I thought the word `business' was important because it makes plain that the decision to focus on special effects is a profit-maximizing decision. That may be implied by 'least competition', but since the entire purpose of the letter was to suggest that the "smaller" genres may not have much profit potential, it should be plain that they're following the profit motive.

What I left unstated in the letter, yet should be inferred, is that the rise of the blockbuster by itself need not say anything meaningful about the dumbing down of our culture. I'm sure we are dumbing down, but the blockbuster doesn't make this point alone; it must be supplemented by showing that people aren't watching "Homicide", "The Sopranos", or "The Simpsons".

Depression is a cancer. There's no moment in time when the doctor can declare that you're healed. One only hopes to reduce the relapse rate as much as possible.

It's been five months since I would have characterized myself as depressed. It was a year ago, almost to the day, that I started what was my most serious battle with depression, and so as of late I have been frightened. I occasionally see a psychiatrist who monitors the three different medications that I take, but since I am unemployed, I can't afford to see a therapist. I'm doing all right, except with depression nothing is ever all right.

Last night, I couldn't fall asleep because until three or four in the morning, I recalled all that I had been through over the past year. I thought of my suicide attempt--why I tried; why I failed. I thought of riding BART for hours, crying, realzing that I had become one of those crazy people on public transportation. I thought of all the ways I had wanted to immolate myself, physically and metaphorically. I thought of how the worst thing about suicide was that I would just die and there would be no moment, however brief, where I could just rest.

I thought of how I had no assurance that I wouldn't return to that place tomorrow. How can I be anything but scared?

Just testing the blog format.