Konami!

This one's for all you comic book fans.

1.  Go to Marvel's Web site.
2.  Once the page has fully loaded and you're browsing it, hit the following keys:
     Up
     Up
     Down
     Down
     Left
     Right
     Left
     Right
     B
     A
     Then hit enter.

Nothing bad happens, I swear.  It's just a little easter egg Marvel planted on the site, in line with most of the variants covers the company has been shipping lately.

Still not sure who I'm talking about?  Then ask yourself, which fan favorite Marvel sociopath suddenly has something like five titles coming out this month, a movie in the works, and a sidekick named Bob?  Yeah.  You know who.

Marvel even used the old Konami classic code! If you were even a casual videogamer throughout the eighties and nineties, you've probably had to memorize this code at some point. (I didn't discover this myself, in case you're wondering.  I read about it on Bleeding Cool.)

J.D. Salinger, 1919-2010

Two in one day.  Christ.  Don't even want to think about the old "comes in threes" adage.

From the New York Times:

J. D. Salinger, Literary Recluse, Dies at 91

J. D. Salinger, who was thought at one time to be the most important American writer to emerge since World War II but who then turned his back on success and adulation, becoming the Garbo of letters, famous for not wanting to be famous, died on Wednesday at his home in Cornish, N.H., where he had lived in seclusion for more than 50 years. He was 91.

Mr. Salinger’s literary representative, Harold Ober Associates, announced the death, saying it was of natural causes. “Despite having broken his hip in May,” the agency said, “his health had been excellent until a rather sudden decline after the new year. He was not in any pain before or at the time of his death.”

Mr. Salinger’s literary reputation rests on a slender but enormously influential body of published work: the novel “The Catcher in the Rye,” the collection “Nine Stories” and two compilations, each with two long stories about the fictional Glass family: “Franny and Zooey” and “Raise High the Roof Beam, Carpenters and Seymour: An Introduction.”

“Catcher” was published in 1951, and its very first sentence, distantly echoing Mark Twain, struck a brash new note in American literature: “If you really want to hear about it, the first thing you’ll probably want to know is where I was born and what my lousy childhood was like, and how my parents were occupied and all before they had me, and all that David Copperfield kind of crap, but I don’t feel like going into it, if you want to know the truth.”

Though not everyone, teachers and librarians especially, was sure what to make of it, “Catcher” became an almost immediate best seller, and its narrator and main character, Holden Caulfield, a teenager newly expelled from prep school, became America’s best-known literary truant since Huckleberry Finn.

With its cynical, slangy vernacular voice (Holden’s two favorite expressions are “phony” and “goddam”), its sympathetic understanding of adolescence and its fierce if alienated sense of morality and distrust of the adult world, the novel struck a nerve in cold war America and quickly attained cult status, especially among the young. Reading “Catcher” used to be an essential rite of passage, almost as important as getting your learner’s permit.

The novel’s allure persists to this day, even if some of Holden’s preoccupations now seem a bit dated, and it continues to sell more than 250,000 copies a year in paperback. Mark David Chapman, who killed John Lennon in 1980, even said the explanation for his act could be found in the pages of “The Catcher in the Rye.” In 1974 Philip Roth wrote, “The response of college students to the work of J. D. Salinger indicates that he, more than anyone else, has not turned his back on the times but, instead, has managed to put his finger on whatever struggle of significance is going on today between self and culture.”

Many critics were more admiring of “Nine Stories,” which came out in 1953 and helped shape writers like Mr. Roth, John Updike and Harold Brodkey. The stories were remarkable for their sharp social observation, their pitch-perfect dialogue (Mr. Salinger, who used italics almost as a form of musical notation, was a master not of literary speech but of speech as people actually spoke it) and the way they demolished whatever was left of the traditional architecture of the short story — the old structure of beginning, middle, end — for an architecture of emotion, in which a story could turn on a tiny alteration of mood or irony. Mr. Updike said he admired “that open-ended Zen quality they have, the way they don’t snap shut.”

He also perfected the great trick of literary irony — of validating what you mean by saying less than, or even the opposite of, what you intend. Orville Prescott wrote in The New York Times in 1963, “Rarely if ever in literary history has a handful of stories aroused so much discussion, controversy, praise, denunciation, mystification and interpretation.”

Here's a link to the rest of the article.

Howard Zinn, 1922-2010

Via Huffpost

Howard Zinn, an author, teacher and political activist whose leftist "A People's History of the United States" became a million-selling alternative to mainstream texts and a favorite of such celebrities as Bruce Springsteen and Ben Affleck, died Wednesday. He was 87.

Zinn died of a heart attack in Santa Monica, Calif., daughter Myla Kabat-Zinn said. The historian was a resident of Auburndale, Mass.

Published in 1980 with little promotion and a first printing of 5,000, "A People's History" was – fittingly – a people's best-seller, attracting a wide audience through word of mouth and reaching 1 million sales in 2003. Although Zinn was writing for a general readership, his book was taught in high schools and colleges throughout the country, and numerous companion editions were published, including "Voices of a People's History," a volume for young people and a graphic novel.

"I can't think of anyone who had such a powerful and benign influence," said the linguist and fellow activist Noam Chomsky, a close friend of Zinn's. "His historical work changed the way millions of people saw the past."

At a time when few politicians dared even call themselves liberal, "A People's History" told an openly left-wing story. Zinn charged Christopher Columbus and other explorers with genocide, picked apart presidents from Andrew Jackson to Franklin D. Roosevelt and celebrated workers, feminists and war resisters.

Even liberal historians were uneasy with Zinn. Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. once said: "I know he regards me as a dangerous reactionary. And I don't take him very seriously. He's a polemicist, not a historian."

In a 1998 interview with The Associated Press, Zinn acknowledged he was not trying to write an objective history, or a complete one. He called his book a response to traditional works, the first chapter – not the last – of a new kind of history.

"There's no such thing as a whole story; every story is incomplete," Zinn said. "My idea was the orthodox viewpoint has already been done a thousand times."

Here's a link to the rest.

Differing opinions

One of my resolutions this year was to avoid getting into long, drawn-out fights in the comments section of my friends' Facebook pages.  I'll admit, I can get a bit carried away now and again and before I know it I've maxxed out two responses and am well on my way to filling up a third.  It's a bad habit, one I've addressed before, and one I'm always mere diatribes away from falling back into.

So tonight, instead of filling my poor friend's comment section up with my ranting and ravings, I thought I'd transfer the conversation over to my blog, where I can stretch my feet out a little, so to speak.

To catch you up, here's been the conversation so far, from my friend B's page (all of my responses are in bold and i've also added some ongoing comments to the conversation in [brackets]):

B:  I got an email today saying that in an effort to show Obama that the people of the US are tired of his shoving things down our throats we should all boycott the State of the Union address tomorrow night... food for thought...

From someone on the other side of the political fence, I'm curious as to what things you're referring to. Personally, I'm dissapointed in the president's first year in office too, but it stems from his office's abandonment of what little there was of the progressive stance he took on some issues during the election. What do you think he's shoved down your throat?

(Not trying to pick a fight here or anything, just genuinely curious.)

(new poster) A: i can't listen to Obama he makes me want to vomit!! PS can you say health care, socialism! They don't care that the American People don't want it. They are trying to further their socialist agenda and they don't what America stands for.

(new poster) C: I always boycott the state of the union address....

Three things, A
a. Define "socialist agenda"
b. What's left in the healthcare bill that resembles socialism? The public option's out. Expanding medicare and medicaid's out. Redundant anti-abortion and anti-immigrant coverage is in. What's left to call socialist? (For the record, i'm not fond of what's left of the bill either.)
c. Which American people are you talking about? Obama ran on a univeral-healthcare ticket and the majority of American people voted for him. Gallup still polls a majority of Americans want their legislators to support the healthcare bill.

B:  Judd ~ I won't even pretend to be mildly informed about this... I was simply repeating what was told to me. I don't care for Obama, at all, that I will state, simply because I can't see where the changes he is trying to make are for the greater good... This country is not headed up, I feel. I knew this would stir someone up, but posted it anyhow... See More, and deeply wish I could fire back with some sort of highly informed info, but cannot. serves me right for sticking my neck out without backup! I seldom watch the news even, so that is that! But I still don't agree with Obama. Call me stubborn republican!

[I really wasn't trying to pick a fight at this point.  I was just mildly curious to hear how B would back up her intitial post.  So I wrote the following in response]

no worries. i'm not stirred up, i was just curious. it's one thing to to hear people arguing on tv or the internet, but i also like to hear contradictory opinions from people i know and respect.

[then A showed up again]

A:  a)They are advocates for socialsim. This is when you possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods. They want a system where they take from the American people who work hard and give to those who don't. This presidence is all about making people rely on the government for everything. They need to make people stand on their own to feet and support themselves. They have created a welfair state. California is a great example of what is going to happen to the whole country if we continue down this road. They are going to break this country and we are all going be be screwed. If they don't turn things around it will happen.


b)It is a good thing all of those things are out because they will break this country!! If it wasn't for Scott Brown they would still be trying to pass this through. The people of Massachusets has state run health care so if that doesn't say something i don't know what does. The demacates know they don't have the votes and that is why the want to back off. It is a little disterbing that they had to bribe Senator to vote for it. They were willing to jam a half ass bill through so they could have a place to start. There is nothing about the bill that is good when they started or when they finisher. They need to reform health care not re-shape it. They need to get a handle on insurance companies and bring cost down. People need to make there own way and support themselves. I don't expect anyone to pay for anything that i consume. People should work hard and live with in their means.

c)Obama ran on a Hope and Change ticket. He made the American people think he was going to change goverment and he hasn't. He promised to make things more transparent and clearly that isn't happening. You as a Obama supporter are clearly not happy with what you voted for. Im not sure on those Gallup polls, that isn't what i have heard. I think the wide spread outspokeness of the American people at massive tea parties and town hall meets paints a clear picture of what the America people think. You are right I think a lot of people believed in Obama and the plat form he ran on but he hasn't done a thing he said he was going. He has done nothing positive or productive in his time in office. He is the worst president in the history of this country!!!

[at this point, I'm dying to jump in here.  Alas, resolution.  So I copied and pasted A's reply into a word file, and inserted my own steely logic directly into her arguements, and resolved to dirty up my own webspace instead of poor B's]

a)They are advocates for socialsim. I’m sure they, the democratic members of Congress (which is what I’m assuming you’re talking about), would have a different theory about this. Most would say (maybe not the blue dogs) that they’re advocates of social contract; that is, ‘an agreement among the members of an organized society or between the governed and the government defining and limiting the rights and duties of each.’ Call it socialism, communism, or whatever other scary buzzword Glenn Beck is using this week, pitching in and being an active part of your government isn’t sinister. In my mind it’s the responsibility of all citizens to do their part.

This is when you possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods. In a totalitarianistic sense that’s true. But that’s socialism on a Police State level, not on, say, as single-payer healthcare level.  Socialism is already an intrinsic part of our society, whether you like it or not.  Public roads, parks, emergency services, Social Security, the FDA; they're all varying degrees of socialism.

They want a system where they take from the American people who work hard and give to those who don't. Here I’m assuming you’re talking about the president and Congress’ plan to let the Bush tax cuts expire. So when you say ‘American people that work hard,’ you’re talking about individuals who clear over $250,000 a year (also known as the wealthiest 5 percent in the nation). And when you say ‘give it to those who don’t,’ you’re then referring to working-class people; those who make at or near minimum wage. Those who can’t get on full-time with their employers because it would make them eligible for health insurance, so they work two or three part time jobs to get by. Work ethic can’t be measured by income or by need. That’s a route the greedy take to justify their avarice.

This presidence is all about making people rely on the government for everything. I disagree. If I can’t afford health insurance, or if I need food stamps to get by while I’m looking for a better job, then I’ll take the help. Consequently, when I’m in a position later in life to help others who can’t afford health insurance or need food stamps to get by while THEY look for a better job, I’m not going to begrudge them. It’s people relying on people.

They need to make people stand on their own to feet and support themselves. Which is the goal of most welfare programs, actually; to help people get on their feet and provide them with the skills to fend for themselves.

They have created a welfair state. No offense, I don’t know your personal situation, but this sounds like it comes from someone who’s never had to choose between paying the electricity bill or eating lunch for the week. It’s nowhere near as black and white as you make it out to be. Sure, there are some abusers within the system. But they’re the exception, not the rule. The vast majority of people who have to accept some type of charity make it a point not to make it a habit.

California is a great example of what is going to happen to the whole country if we continue down this road. I disagree (big surprise, right). California’s in a tough spot, that’s true. But it doesn’t have anything to do with some phantom socialist menace. They took a tremendous blow when the housing bubble popped. And thanks to a lack of solid progressive tax structure, the knockout punch came in the form of a drastic dropoff on income and especially sales tax (the state’s primary income base). Socialism and welfare doesn’t have anything to do with how that cookie’s crumbling.

They are going to break this country and we are all going be be screwed. If they don't turn things around it will happen. Again, I think you’re taking an overly pessimistic, doomsday stance on this. They’re in a pickle, that’s true. It’s gonna suck getting out of it. I’m guessing the solution will have a good deal to do with tax reform and (hopefully) the tax revenue generated off of legalized marijuana. But I don’t think they’ll be dragging the rest of the country down into some debtor’s hell. That’s Glenn Beck logic.

b)It is a good thing all of those things are out because they will break this country!! So at this point, what’s the harm to you? Are you worried that forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions and allowing policies to be carried over from one job to the next will be the end of the American way of life? I don’t see the connection.

If it wasn't for Scott Brown (who I promise you, will be referred to as a RINO by the end of the year) they would still be trying to pass this through. Oh, they still are. There’s always reconciliation. That’s how Bush got his upper-class tax cuts passed when he came in to office.

The people of Massachusets has state run health care (which, ironically, was the brainchild of then GOP Governor Mitt Romney) so if that doesn't say something i don't know what does. Oh, it says something, but not what you think. It says the progressive stronghold of voters that is Massachusetts felt that Congress had shunned them by watering the bill down into a chopped up piece of crap, so they decided to take their ball and go home, so to speak. It’s not that the GOP has had some kind of sudden influx of people coming around to their way of thinking. It’s that Democrats and progressive independents are feeling disillusioned by the democratically controlled Congress and White House’s inability to get stuff done.

The demacates know they don't have the votes and that is why the want to back off. Like I said, reconciliation. The only reason they haven’t yet is because the president is still pandering to the Right, for some reason.

It is a little disterbing that they had to bribe Senator to vote for it. I agree with you here. The Ben Nelson Nebraska exemption thing was shitty. But for the record, he later came to his senses on the issue and amended the bill so that Nebraska’s no longer exempt from paying their way.

They were willing to jam a half ass bill through so they could have a place to start. See, I don’t buy this conspiracy theory crap. The bill is what it is. It’s not a foot in the door for a socialist takeover, it’s an attempt to wrest healthcare away from insurance companies who are currently making a fortune off of our health and wellbeing (how effective the bill will actually be is debatable, but the intention is clear). There’s not some secret clause that will grandfather in a KGB when we’re not looking.

There is nothing about the bill that is good when they started or when they finisher. Good before: public option, universal coverage, lowered medical costs, no denial of healthcare due to pre-existing conditions. Good after: universal coverage, no denial of healthcare due to pre-existing conditions.  Obviously the bill was a hell of a lot better before than after, but there are still good bits in it.

They need to reform health care not re-shape it. The literal definition of reform is to change the shape. The changes need to be massive. Tort reform and out-of-state buying won’t cut it. They need to get a handle on insurance companies and bring cost down. Agreed. People need to make there own way and support themselves. I don't expect anyone to pay for anything that i consume. People should work hard and live with in their means. See section A for what I have to say about this.

c)Obama ran on a Hope and Change ticket. Yeah. There was a hell of a lot more to it than that.

He made the American people think he was going to change goverment and he hasn't. I see your point, but I’m on the fence on this one. On one hand, he’s kept a lot of the policy of his predecessor. Which sucks. On the other, his administration and his worldview rhetoric (if maybe not yet his policy) has done wonders to improve our international image. We’re no longer the paranoid French-hating imperialists that we were for most of W.’s reign of terror. On the other, we’ve still got W.’s war policy to contend with. It’s an inherited mess, that’s true, but I would have rather the president take things in a direction other than perpetual sustainment.

He promised to make things more transparent and clearly that isn't happening. I’d say that his Open Government Directive is still a work in progress, but thus far you’re right. Hopefully with this new hardline stance on the financial sector we’ll see more transparency and accountability.

You as a Obama supporter are clearly not happy with what you voted for. Yeah, but for totally different reasons than yours. Don't get me wrong, he's a million times better than the alternative.  But he’s not liberal enough, in my opinion. Let’s see a withdrawal from Afghanistan, legalized gay marriage, a national cutback in fossil fuels and carbon emmisions of at least 25 percent, union support in non-union friendly states and single-payer healthcare for starters. Of course, I knew that wasn’t going to happen when I voted for him in November, the President’s a Centrist, not a liberal. But a guy can dream, right?

Im not sure on those Gallup polls, that isn't what i have heard. Here’s the link, read ‘em for yourself.

I think the wide spread outspokeness of the American people at massive tea parties and town hall meets paints a clear picture of what the America people think. Thank you, Fox News. This is the conservative base you’re talking about, in all it screaming, hyperbolic glory. They’re certainly out there. But they’re still only a fraction of the nation, as much as Fox News doctors footage to pretend otherwise.

You are right I think a lot of people believed in Obama and the plat form he ran on (still do. It’s only been a year, for god's sake), but he hasn't done a thing he said he was going. You’ve kind of got me here. He’s had several stalls some of his major initiatives, like closing Guantanamo, getting a healthcare bill through, and getting to work on climate control. But is that his fault, or the fault of the political opposition, which has literally kicked and screamed and held its breath in a temper-tantrum since he’s taken the oath of office? I suspect the latter.

He has done nothing positive or productive in his time in office. That really depends on where you look. For starters, he scrapped the F-22 program, he improved our country’s global image, he got China to commit to some respectable (but not great) environmental accommodations, he won a Nobel Peace Prize, introduced and implemented the stimulus package, and he’s just lately overseen a massive aid endeavor to Haiti. There are plenty more I could list, but this reply’s beginning to get a bit long. One question you should ask yourself is, has he done nothing positive or productive, or has he just done nothing that benefits me personally.

He is the worst president in the history of this country!!! Really? Because I can think of a pretty horrible one without even trying. The one I’m thinking of ignored FBI warnings which resulted in the worst attack on American Soil since Pearl Harbor, then after invading one country he cut-and-ran to invade another country that had nothing to do with the attack in the first place. He justified it by lying and saying this other country had weapons of mass destruction, and that they were a heartbeat away from destroying us and our freedoms. After that he sat on his hands while a whole city drowned in a hurricane. He did it again when the free-market cronyism market that he helped to establish and maintain fell apart right when he was leaving office.

Guess who I’m thinking of?

[I have, of course, invited A to continue this conversation in the comments section if she so chooses.  Which, hopefully she will.  So stay tuned.]

$3.99

Thanks to Rich Johnson's Bleeding Cool for pointing this out.  Blogsite Wallet Pop ran an interesting post a few weeks ago about some interesting price changes that have occurred over the past ten years.  For instance, one daytime adult ticket at Disneyland has gone from $41 in 1999 to $72 in 2009, an increase of 75.61 percent.  A ticket to view the observation deck of the Empire State Building  has seen a whopping 400 percent increase over the past 10 years, going from just $4 in 1999 to $20 in 2009.  A six-pack of Budweiser has gone from $4.01 to $5.99, an increase of 49.38 percent (which makes sense, considering it's now an import).  iMac desktops have dropped in price by just over a third, from $1499 to $999.

But perhaps the most disturbing change on the list is that of the comic book.  In 1999, an issue of Superman would set you back $1.99.  In 2009, an issue from the same Superman series costs $3.99.  Meaning the price of your average comic book has gone up 100.5 percent over the past ten years.

The price of comics is a bit of a hot-button issue right now among readers, especially Marvel and DC's decision to go from charging $2.99 to $3.99 on the majority of their titles over the last year or so.  And what the two giant gorrilias of the comic book industry do, the smaller publishers (like Dark Horse, Image, and others) are forced to eventually do as well, raising their title pricepoints by 1/3.  Both companies have offered various heavy-handed excuses as to why charging an extra buck is essential, ranging from "it's just inflation, we're just trying to make the books profitable (which is bullshit)," to "hey, you guys seem to keep buying comics in record numbers regardless to the price, so we're gonna exploit that (which is also bullshit, but at least it's honest)."

The thing that kills me the most about the rise in price is the ridiculous attempts to justify the increase within the actual comic book by adding a four page preview of some upcoming event.  I would much rather save a buck an issue than read a silly little teaser of something I was either probably going to buy anyway or don't care about in the slightest.

I think there's a direct link between the price increase and lower sales on less popular (and generally better, writing-wise) books.  Marvel and DC don't realize that they're essentially feeding off themselves at this point.  Sure, they can squeeze another buck out of me for New Avengers or Green Lantern, but that just means I won't have the budget to try out or keep up with Agents of Atlas or Adventure Comics.  The price isn't worth the cost; hopefully they'll realize that before they send their readers to the poorhouses and all their decent titles to Comic Book Heaven.

Blame it on the Pop

EXCLUSIVE!

[Below is an unaired segment from Glenn Beck's recent interview with former Alaskan governor and newly-minted Fox News correspondent Sarah palin]

Glenn Beck:  Governor Palin, how many miserable Billboard songs from 2009 do you think it takes to get a decent mashup video?

Sarah Palin:  Uhh...  All of them?

Glenn Beck:  Yeah.  That's right, baby.  Somebody roll that motherfucking tape, we gots babies to make.






Kudos to DJ Earworm for puting together a respectable mashup video together using nothing but this year's musical chum and a lot of Pro Tools.

My Top Ten Surprisingly Enjoyable Reads of 2009 -- Part 2

One week later (there goes that resolution), here are the rest of the ten surprisingly enjoyable reads I had had the good fortune to stumble upon. As I noted in the previous installment, just because I stumbled upon the works mentioned in this list, doesn’t mean that they were released over the past year. In fact, I think my number five pick is the only item on the list that actually did come out in 2009. The purpose of this list is merely to document ten favorite bits of literary gold that I managed to pan over the previous year. So, without further ado, here are items five through one.

5. Batgirl by Bryan Q. Miller – The guys at my local comic book shop are always trying to smuggle new stuff into my weekly comic book pull file. They tend to exploit my weakness; for instance, I read “Batman” and “Detective Comics.” Therefore any time there are any new Batman-related titles or miniseries, there’s a good chance that copies will innocently end up in my file. Ninety-five percent of the time it’s utter shit (like Kevin Smith’s Hindenburg-esque failure “Batman: Cacophony,” for example). But every once in a blue moon they’ll hook me up with a gem. Enter Batgirl. Stephanie Brown (daughter of old Batman villain the Cluemaster; formerly the vigilante Spoiler, Tim Drake’s girlfriend, and the fourth Robin; formerly dead, then not dead, then boring) is the new Batgirl, a stark contrast to the previous incarnation (Cassandra Cain; rehabilitated child assassin, badass martial artist, not that great with talking/people, full-body costume). I gotta say, I was pretty disappointed to hear that Cassandra was being replaced as Batgirl. That disappointment lasted precisely one half issue. Turning a mediocre punching bag like Stephanie Brown into an interesting and compelling character is a testament to writer Bryan Q. Miller’s abilities. The stories are light, fast-paced, compelling and colorful. They’re like the dinner salad of comics. Miller has breathed new life into second-string characters with witty dialogue and narration that reminds me a little of Joss Whedon. Best of all, I’m pretty sure this is Miller’s first whack at comics (I think he came to DC from an extended stint as a writer for “Smallville”). Thus far, “Batgirl” is shaping up to be one hell of a freshman debut.

4. “Pop Candy: Unwrapping Pop Culture’s Hip and Hidden Treasures” by Whitney Matheson – This one’s a little different from the rest of my picks, in that it’s not a book, an audio book, or even a comic book. It’s a blog. The best way to describe “USA Today” culture writer Matheson’s blog is to pull a quote from her welcome page: “Cult movies, comic books, indie rock, sci-fi, '80s greats, sweet links, general weirdness -- this is all the stuff of Pop Candy.” Thanks to my friend Ryan for pointing this blog out to me, it’s quickly become one of my most regularly-visited stops while spending far too many long and lonely hours on the World Wide Web. And the more time I spend on Matheson’s site (she writes a LOT; just today she’s made seven long-ish posts), the more I realize that she’s into pretty much every single thing I’m into, and sooooo much more. If I want to know what will be coming out on the Criterion Collection this month, she’ll have a link to it. If I want to read about the latest rumors concerning the final season of “Lost,” she’ll have a link to the story. If I want to read cool stories about seeing Morrisey in concert, she’ll have ‘em waiting. Whitney Matheson is amazing. Over the past year I’ve added her to my very exclusive list of unobtainable women that I pine for, a list formerly comprised only of Rachel Maddow, Sophia Coppola, Naomi Wolfe and Betsy Braddock. Make of that what you will.

3. Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes – I’ll start this one by saying that I wasn’t pleasantly surprised to find I’d enjoyed this book. I’d read the first 100 or so pages in college, and really enjoyed what I’d read. But life as an English major being what it is, it’s sadly all to common an occurrence to start a book and have to put it down in favor of several others (simultaneously). This was the case with Quixote and me. So it was no surprise to me that I’d greatly enjoy reading this enormous history of the Gentleman from La Mancha. That was a given. No, the surprising joy I took in Cervantes’ masterpiece came in realizing how unbelievable similar the madness of Don Quixote is to that of the modern Neo-Conservative movement. Consider: Quixote is a character living in a romanticized world of his own creation, whose goal in life is to restore a “golden age” of chivalry and virtue onto a land which it never actually existed in the first place. He relies on the aid of an ignorant simpleton who doesn’t know better and who agrees to serve in exchange for possibly being named governor of an island some time in the future (even though he doesn’t actually know what an island is). During the course of his misadventures, Quixote regularly rearranges reality to suit his every whim, often reinterpreting actual people/places/events to better suit his own worldview. He’s routinely mocked and belittled by those who know better, but is very often dangerous because of the fanatical conviction and abandon he asserts in his beliefs. I’m telling you, there’s one hell of a thesis in here!  Quixote could accidentally be the accidetal hero of the Tea Bagger!

2. Buddha by Osamu Tezuka – Early on in Tezuka’s eight-volume saga, there’s a parable about a group of animals who find a dying monk lost in the mountains and resolve to help him. Some of the animals gather wood and start a fire. Some bring the monk water. Some build the monk shelter, some lay beside him and share their warmth. After the animals pitch in to help the monk, they turn to Rabbit and ask how he’s contributed. He was too small to gather wood or build shelter or try and keep the monk warm. How would Rabbit help the monk, they wonder. Rabbit saw this and understood that there was only one way in which he could help; Rabbit threw himself into the fire so that the monk might eat him and survive. I remember being pretty disturbed by this story when I read it in volume one. “Couldn’t the rabbit have just gone and gathered some berries or bugs or something?” I thought. “Wasn’t it kind of silly of him to kill himself instead of just going to find food?” But by the time the parable was related again in volume eight, my reaction was totally different. This time I marveled at the beauty of the story, and at the resolve and kindness of the rabbit, of the courage it took to perform such a selfless act and the great fear which the tiny creature had mastered. That’s kind of the best way I can sum up the experience which is reading Tezuka’s Buddha. It’s weird at first. Like an overdramatic cartoon with too much death and nudity. But by the time you reach the end it’s something totally different. This is the story of the life and death of Siddhartha Gautama, his pursuit and employment of enlightenment, and all the beauty and tragedy that are his legacy. Written and drawn over the course of ten years by the godfather of Japanese comics (try to picture a complete and thorough graphic novelization of the Torah by Will Eisner and you’ll have an idea of how truly amazing this is), Buddha is easily one of the most influential and amazing stories I’ve ever read. I can’t recommend this work enough. It’s not an easy read, especially if you’re not familiar with or a fan of manga. But it’s worth it.

1. Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card – Thanks again to my friend Ryan, this time for planting the Ender’s Game seed in my head years ago when I worked for him at Hastings. “It has one of the best endings ever,” he said, giving me a stripped paperback copy. Of course, I didn’t read it. But the name and the enthusiastic recommendation stuck with me. Imagine my surprise when I picked up the first issue of the comic book adaption of Ender’s, only to realize that the story revolves around a little boy. The actual novel confirmed it. Ender was the name of a six-year old boy, a nickname conceived by his sister when she had trouble pronouncing her brother’s actual name, Andrew. Ender’s Game is a story about children, training to be the last line of defense against an unstoppable force. The concept is ingenious; adults are too slow, too cautious to be super-soldiers. Only children, trained practically from infancy, could possess the speed and recklessness necessary to repel an alien invasion. I don’t want to expound on the plot too much, because letting it unfold gradually is one of the joys of the novel. Suffice to say, the book’s about children learning to be soldiers, and the toll it takes on them. This was my first exposure to Orson Scott Card as a science fiction novelist, and I’ve gotta say I’m very impressed. Since reading Ender’s, I’ve gone through the sequel (Speaker for the Dead) and enjoyed it just as thoroughly. It’s a totally different kind of book, but just as riveting. My hat goes off to Mr. Card. I haven’t enjoyed reading science fiction this much since wandering around on Mars in middle school with Ray Bradbury.

My Top Ten Surprisingly Enjoyable Reads of 2009 -- Part 1

Note: The works mentioned in this list weren’t necessarily published in 2009. In fact, I’m pretty sure that only one or two came out this year. The only qualifying factor the works share is that I picked them up some time over the past year and enjoyed them more than I thought I would.

Also, my reasonings got a bit windier than I'd originally anticipated, so I'm breaking this into two separate posts.  Stay tuned for numbers five through one.

10. Angels and Demons by Dan Brown – Allow me to explain this choice a little before you start booing and hissing. There were two reasons a Dan Brown novel made my list. First, to paraphrase my boss, this is a popcorn book. It’s the prosaic version of a grindhouse film, minus most of the gore and sex. It’s stupid, it’s illogical, it’s mindless fun. Second, I loved how bad the writing, plot and characters were. I mean, come on. It’s almost the exact same plot as The DaVinci Code! For instance: A mysterious murder occurs, dealing with a subject Robert Langdon has just published a book about. The killer is a secretive badass hired by a mysterious villain with nefarious plans that aren’t what they seem. The victim’s daughter is conveniently an expert on certain fields essential to Landgon’s investigation, and they end up fooling around after the big “twist” at the end. Oh, and one of the main characters is disabled. So did I just describe DaVinci or Demons? Or both? You’ll just have to suffer through these bad boys yourself to find out.

9. Rising Stars by J. Michael Straczynski – Fresh of his legendary “Babylon 5” run, one of Straczynski’s first stabs at the comic book industry came in the form of a 24-issue series chronicling the lives of 113 characters, called the “Specials.” All 113 Specials were conceived around the time a mysterious white light illuminated the sky around an Illinois city; as a result, all 113 developed some form of super power as children. The story takes off twenty-something years after the phenomenon. The Specials grew up reluctant celebrities, their powers and identities well-known among society. What begins as a murder mystery quickly metamorphs into something else entirely. And then that something else is switched around, and so on. The scope of Rising Stars changes more than the lousy artists. Honestly, this isn’t Straczynski at his finest; his artists were awful, his characters two dimensional. The appealing part of this read though, is the insight into the younger, fresher mind of Straczynski. All of the signature themes of his later, greater work are visible; the intimate narration, the benevolent collective consciousness. The seeds of his greatness are planted in Rising Stars. [Fun fact: Straczynski recently wrote the screenplay for “The Changeling,” staring Angelina Jolie and directed by Clint Eastwood. Who says comic book writers never amount to anything? Of course, he then went on to write the screenplay for “Ninja Assassin,” so…]

8. Don’t Know Much About the Bible by Kenneth C. Davis – I decided to give this hefty tome a try after reading a favorable review posted by my friend Christian. Generally I steer clear of Bible-related reading, but the lure of potential theological trivia drew me in. Thankfully so. Davis’ book is exhaustively thorough, covering every book in both the new and old testaments. I especially liked the bits about the five (was it five?  I think so) different narrative voices of the Old Testament, the chronology of Moses and his people’s flight from Egypt, and an explanation of who probably came first in the New Testament gospels. For such a big book, this was actually a really quick and pleasant read.

7. Caught Stealing by Charlie Huston – Ladies and gentlemen, pulpy noir is alive and well, and this book is evidence of it. I can’t remember who recommended this one to me, but whoever it was, I owe you one. I picked up the audiobook copy of Stealing soon after landing my first temp job in Washington; it was a thirty minute drive one way, and as a rule I’ll partake in ritual mutilation before I’ll listen to top-forty radio. So, presto. Book on CD, recommended by a mystery somebody. It’s hard to nail down the most appealing aspect of this book. It could be the protagonist Hank, a loveable young down-on-his-luck Sam Malone-esque loser with a drinking problem who was just at the wrong place at the wrong time. It could be the reader, who gave each character their own distinctive sound and did it without being incredibly annoying. Or it could be the inordinate amount of shit that Huston hurls on Hank to transform him into something else entirely by the time the book ends.

6. The Three of Swords by Fritz Leiber – Fantasy prose isn’t usually a genre I muck around in much these days. I paid my dues, I read my allotments of Tolkien and Howard, even made it through a Terry Brooks novel once. But these days if there’s a fantastic adventure in ancient lands to be had, I’ll just as soon read it in the form of a comic book, thank you very much. Which is how I first stumbled onto Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, Leiber’s iconic creations. Howard Chaykin and Mike Mignola did six comic book adaptations of Fafhrd and Mouser tales, and they were really good. Good enough to prod me into taking the plunge and try some of the original prose out firsthand. Three of Swords is a collection of the first three Fafhrd and Mouser books penned by Leiber; those three books are all comprised of short stories (I’m not sure, but I don’t think Leiber ever wrote a full-length novel about Fafhrd and Mouser).  The stories are great fun, most notably because Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser are both such shits. They’re petty, they bicker, they lie, cheat, womanize and steal. They screw stuff up as often as they get it right, and they’re better characters for it. The ingenuity Leiber shows in creating the world of Lankmar its supporting cast is second to none.  He's got more original content and thought packed into his cities and temples than most fantasy books have orcs.   Don't let the god-awful covers on any of the Leiber books scare you away from a highly enjoyable fantasy read.  If anything, just get a fake book jacket and indulge your inner dungeon-lover incognito.

Resolutus Interuptus

Hey, look, it’s the dawn of a new decade (give or take a day or two)! And what would any new year be without a compulsory list of resolutions.

My friend Michael made several good points about resolutions over on his blog, The Pastoral Urbanite. One of which was this; if you’re serious about setting resolutions for yourself, don’t tie yourself down with the New Year timeframe. Take your time, put some serious thought into it, and avoid letting your good judgment be tainted by the lingering effects of a New Years Eve hangover.

Sage words. I agree that often delaying change or commitment due to chronological constraints is stupid. Issues often arise that need a prompt response, not a brush-off to be addressed in the new year. Things don’t work that way.

That said, I’m still sticking with making my resolutions on the first of the year. Perhaps I’m ignoring the spirit (and definition) of New Year resolutions, but I like to think of resolutions less as commitments to make a radical change in my life, and more as a prescribed chance to take an honest assessment of myself and my actions over the past year. A proofread for the soul, if you will. No rigid new rules or mandates, just an objective(ish) critique of Judd in 2009. And while Michael makes a great point about not rushing yourself with meaningless dates, there is something to be said about composing a retrospective while the body of the previous year is still warm. I’m one who prefers to get my musings of the previous year wrapped sooner rather than later, eliminating one more distraction from my enjoyment of the new year.

Also, I’m not going to post them. Pretty anticlimactic, right? I started this post with every intention of shuffling last year’s skeletons on to the front lawn of cyberspace. Two days later, I’ve decided against it. My assessments/resolutions will remain classified. Not that there’s anything sinister in there. I wish. Basically it just got a little too introspective for me to feel comfortable throwing out in the open. Rest assured though that it is a beautifully crafted list, piercing yet comforting, both sharply humorous and blindingly melancholy, written in iambic pentameter.

So you’ve missed out (or lucked out, depending on how you feel about iambic pentameter) on one list, but take heart, dear reader! Already I’m practically hard at work composing retrospective top-ten lists and predictions for the new year, which will no doubt be much more entertaining than some silly resolutions.