Amulet

Kazu Kibuishi is one of my favorite comic artists, so when I heard he was doing a color graphic novel, I was naturally excited. I awaited it with anticipation.

Well, I got my copy a while ago, and...what can I say? I was disappointed. I expected more of Kazu than the standard "fantasy adventure with kids" plot. It reads almost like a computer game, mostly consisting of a succession of perils that have to be overcome, with a little Harry Potter magical destiny drama thrown in. Besides the not-very-intriguing plot, I also found the characters flat. The main heroine, for example: we barely know her. All we find out from the story is that 1) she suffered a great personal loss a few years ago, and 2) she's more daring than her little brother (who doesn't have much defining him except that he is his sister's less-daring counterpart.)

Now normally I'd put this down to expecting too much of a short (well, relatively short) little comic book. But this is Kazu Kibuishi. His prior work has led me to expect more, not just another Harry Potter knock-off.

There is no doubt that there is a great deal of artistry and polished craft at work here. Part of the reason he I was anticipating this book so much was reading what Kazu was saying about the thoroughness with which he was constructing it. He had a number of very interesting things to say about comics in general, which you can read on his blog. I wouldn't have imagined that he would've ended up putting all of this skill at the service of such a cookie-cutter plot. More so since Kazu is not a cookie-cutter plot person--his stories are always thought-provoking, even deep, and certainly never genre-typical. Except this one.

This book is, of course, just the first volume of a two-volume book. Hopefully the second volume will pack a bigger punch. First chapters are often the dullest in a book, since they have to introduce everything. This one could've used to have spent more time introducing everything, but hopefully Kibuishi has something big planned for the second chapter, one that will put the first in a new light, thus making this review meaningless and shortsighted. I'm not such a cynic that I don't actually want that to happen.

Churchill's Alternate History, Pt. 1

Recently I have been consuming with great gusto a couple of biographies of Winston Churchill, and I've pretty much decided he was the most important person in the first half of the 20th Century (as corny as that sounds.) The events he was personally involved in! Most of them were wars, of course, and that's what he's generally associated with in the public consciousness. He wouldn't mind. He loved warfare himself, regarded it as a brutal but glorious fact of life--the proving-ground of nations, citizens, and leaders like, well, him. And he always made sure he was in the thick of things.

Now history can be quite a fascinating study. If people think of it as boring, it is because of a certain lack of imagination--you have to realize that these were real people dealing with the problems of the day, just as we do know, with one vital difference: we know how it turned out. It has been said (by whom I cannot remember right at this moment) that those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. Many people who fit into this category are skeptical of this statement. Those who do know history know it's happened several times just this millennium, only eight years old that it is. (For example, did you know the British were driven out of Iraq by insurgency leaving behind an unstable semi-democratic government they had set up to fend for itself? Read the Foreign Affairs article. It's fascinating--and Churchill was involved in that for a bit too, though not much.) However, for history to transcend mere study and become something absorbingly relevant, one must open up one's mind even further and think about what didn't happen, what might have happened, and why not.

Thinking about Churchill's career in this manner is, to put it succinctly, amazing. The man was so often frustrated in his plans by incompetent subordinates and superiors, which, in their inertia and narrow-mindedness, sabotaged his efforts for victory and peace while blaming him for their failure. I am, of course, speaking of his involvement in World War I, something which is often overlooked, overshadowed by his leadership in World War II. The latter is interesting of course, but the more fascinating for the imaginative historian is the more turbulent, controversial and, yes, failure-ridden time of WWI. (And don't let that term, "historian," scare you off--anyone can be a historian to a certain extent, just as anyone with a copy of the Bible can be a theologian.) These years, when Churchill was a hyperactive and ambitious Cabinet minister, are marked by a triptych of failed attempts to fend off the preventable disaster: Antwerp, Gallipoli, and the Russian Civil War. All three of these were derided as follies by some, supported weakly by others, and, if "put through with vigor," would have saved literally millions of lives. The problem was, Churchill put all the vigor he could into them--more than most people would even be capable of giving. But he couldn't be everywhere, nor did he have the authority to get things done the way he wanted. And when others blundered or dawdled, he took most of the blame, further diminishing his political capital and credibility.

"Battles are won by slaughter and maneuver. The greater the general, the more he contributes in maneuver, the less he demands in slaughter."

"I never worry about action, but only inaction."

The quotes above seem to me to stem directly from Churchill's experience in WWI. This is what he learned from the actions of the other managers of the war. WWI, you will remember, was defined by the wholesale slaughter of trench warfare, largely because of a lack of vision and intense inertia possessed by those in power: overwhelmed, they threw men at each other in futile offensives, ironically, out of a fear of taking risks. Churchill tried to find creative ways to circumvent this slaughter, both technological (such as the tank) and strategic (such as the Dardanelles), but he was hampered by the realities of war by committee. Maybe I've said that just a bit too much. Reading through the unfolding facts, it got beaten into my head--this recurring pattern of Churchill's life during this time. He also said, "Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm," which is what he did. It wasn't all bad, obviously. Some of the leaders of the time, such as David Lloyd-George, recognized his usefulness and kept him around as much as they could, considering the political furor that followed him.

(To be continued?)

Journal: A Monday Miscellany

I have a bad habit of starting books in the middle. Usually only nonfiction books, obviously--I do have to have some idea of what came before--though I have been known to do this with fiction, too (usually things I've already read, though.) Right now I'm on page 285 of The Last Lion: Alone, the second volume of a biography of Churchill. Since I haven't been reading it for long, this would be great--except that I started somewhere around page 230. XD
Unsurprisingly, I tend to have lots of books around that I've read only parts of. I am always getting more, too. We have a great bookstore in our little town where I can often find the esoteric objects of my fancy for cheap.

We have 19 inches of snow outside. It was snowing all day yesterday--my dad got stuck in an unplowed section of our driveway and I had to pull him out.

Now, I did say I'd talk about the answers to some of those silly questions I put up the other night. I'm not entirely sure what was going through my head at the time, but I might as well just deal with it.
--I haven't actually come up with a name for my new comic yet. In fact, I haven't even talked much about it here, though I did talk about the characters on Define Cynical. I'll get to delving into the subject more thoroughly here later. Suffice to say all three characters are pictured in the sketch dump I posted last week. I don't want to talk about the characters too much anyway, for fear of spoilers. (Don't you just wish you could read my sketchbooks? One of you is actually mentioned someplace in all the character description and plot snippets. Heh, heh, heh.)
--It's obvious considering both my right-wing leanings and my name that I would like David Cameron, the current leader of the British Conservatives. Plus, I always favor the fresh face over the longtime political operator, especially when he bungles things (read: that poor Gordon Brown.)
--Tristan-Chan [link] adopted me as her big brother for her "dA family."
--I called on Friday and, as it turns out, no jury duty for me. So I was just kept on my toes all month for no reason. (I'm actually sort of disappointed. It would've been interesting.)
--Heh, I was voted Best Newcomer and Best Artist in the Annual Define Cynical Awards. (Javsthemute was the pollster.) Didn't win Most Charismatic, though. Wonder why.
--The last question was a lame attempt at humor. Staying up late makes me act strangely sometimes. Maybe I was hopped up on chocolate.

Just a reminder: still taking commissions! Still have unsold books!

Any Floridians reading this? Just a voting reminder for you: vote for Guiliani or McCain and I will kick your butt. Vote for Ron Paul, and you get a yummy cookie. If, on the other hand, you were planning on voting Democratic, then I'll just pity your exercise in futility (but don't vote for Clinton anyway.)

Anything else? Oh, yeah, almost forgot--I've started using my blog again. It's my website link below now. I'm duplicating these journals there, in addition to lots of random thoughts on life, the universe, and something.

Have a most excellent Monday.*
~Cam

*If it is actually Tuesday by the time you read this, my apologies.

The Problem of Poverty

It is a problem right-thinking societies have always had to wrestle with: no matter how rich, advanced, or well-ordered a society is, there will always be an underclass of people whose lives are less comfortable (poverty is relative) than the rest of the populace. It seems to be a natural settling process in eco-social relationships: certain people will always do better than the rest, some will underperform, ergo, there will be inequality.

Boom times shuffle things around, bettering the lot of all, but they cannot be sustained. Human activity cannot proceed at full tilt all the time. Things fall into disorder and have to be rearranged, imbalances occur, and the economy has to recharge through the saving that occurs during a recession. However, this hurts those who do not have enough to save (or lack the discipline to do so.) Government income redistribution is generally accepted as a solution. However, the value of this does not stand up to scrutiny, no matter the altruism at play. It is not morally defensible--at their base, such programs are little more than Robin Hood all over again, only with the help of the Sheriff of Nottingham. The legality of it does not change the fact that it is not a solution desirable to have in a truly free society. In addition, these programs never have the intended affects--they produce dependency, laziness, government debt, and a mindset of tolerance toward government interference. Plus, they never get everyone. There are always people who slip through the cracks. It is apparent that poverty is a fundamental flaw in human society, one that is a natural byproduct of liberty; i.e., true liberty must include the "freedom to fail" as well as the freedom to succeed. Yet at the same time it is evident to anyone with a smidgen of idealism and humane feeling that there must be a "safety net" someplace to keep those who fail (due either to their own fault or through genuine misfortune) from becoming irretrievably miserable and possibly dead, through neglect. To not have such a thing would be callous in the extreme. This leads us again to government programs, since the government is the only authority that we all recognize to, well, govern our societies' comings and goings this way. But even in the era of the modern welfare state there are still many who exist on the streets, unhelped and unaffected by it.

Having depressed myself by this philosophizing on unsolvable problems, I will now proceed to consider forms in which a solution may be found, one which will be in line with ideals of human conduct. Hopefully I'll think of something not totally impractical, though a certain level of impossibility is guaranteed by the very nature of the problem. We'll see.
(To be continued, hopefully.)

The Polymath Report

In case I hadn't mentioned it before, pretty much my main goal in life is to be a polymath (how's that for a goal, huh--"my goal is to do lots of stuff.") So, just for fun, I whipped up a little graph enumerating my interests and skills. It's just off the top of my head, but hopefully frank and possibly even interesting to someone besides my egotistical little self. The proportions on the pie chart roughly represent the amount of time and energy lavished on the different departments, and the labels say where my interest lies in the area and what my skill level in that area is. As you can see, I'm not as well-rounded as I'd like (note that mathematics doesn't even make a showing.) This is probably also a good predictor of the mix of things that will be on this blog, with a few exceptions.

Two CD Reviews

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix-Movie Soundtrack Composed by Nicholas Hooper
Rating: 4 stars
Number of times listened: 2

The operative word for this music is fun. Now it's an interesting fact that it's harder to compose music that is just happy than it is to write angstful tonescapes; this generalization generally holds true for all art forms, too. Now in this score Mr. Hooper has succeeded in doing just that, for this music is frequently joyous, hummable, and satisfying (yet innovative, though not for it's own sake.)
In fact, I really don't think of this as being a Harry Potter soundtrack. Hooper only quotes John Williams' signature theme melodies a few times, and the disc starts out with an excited little number that is distinctly un-Potterish: it sounds like a "western" hoe-down. The electric guitar doesn't sound like something Williams would have done, either. It's this willingness to do something new that makes it so refreshing, and, more importantly, stand on it's own as a piece of music. Now, I liked the movie, but it's always best when a soundtrack doesn't have to rely on a connection with film to be valuable to the listener.
A word on my rating system here. I really think this is a 5-star CD, but I have a little rule for 5-star ratings: I need to listen to them at least a dozen times. Then, if I still like them after that, they are 5-star discs. This disc is brand-new, so I've only listened to it once. But, I think it'll hold up. We'll see.



Prokofiev: 7 Symphonies & Lt. Kije
Rating: 5 stars
Number of Listenings: 20+ (?)

This is probably my favorite symphony cycle right now. Which is saying a lot, because there's some stiff competition: I own the complete symphonies of Beetoven, Mahler, Nielsen, Shostakovich, Sibelius, and Arthur Honegger. There is a lot of range in these symphonies, from the deliciously acrid modernities in the 2nd and 3rd Symphonies to the luxuriously updated Romanticism of the 5th. There is also the first, "Classical" Symphony, but I don't really consider it part of the set. It just seems out of place, stylistically and progressively. And anyway, I don't like it as much as the rest--of course, it's only, what, 15 minutes long? It doesn't exactly crowd out the other music. The set also includes the Lieutenant Kije Suite as a filler. This isn't remotely a symphony, but it's classic and pretty neat, and it's a new thing to hear certain parts sung like they were originally written to be.
It's hard to express or talk about the symphonies in any greater detail than just to say they're great because it's pure music all the way--no words, no subtexts that I'm aware of, nothing. Just wonderful sounds. Some are more recognizeable than others, of course, like the raucous step-up step-down fanfare that begins the 3rd Symphony, or that famous dancy bit in the 5th; but suffice to say they are all lovely. One of the interesting characteristics of Prokofiev's writing here is how varied his tonal pallete is. There are so many different "colors" here; unlike, say, Shostakovich, who seems to only compose in brownish-blues. Don't get me wrong, I like and admire Shostakovich, but I can't listen to him 20 times over. As near as I can tell (for I am no audiophile, as my own recordings no doubt make painfully obvious), the performances and sound quality in these discs is uniformly excellent. Deutsche Grammmophon CDs have a crisp, modern feel to their sound that I like, and that is present here, along with the affordability that is also often a trait of DG recordings. The only (not)real problem with this set is that it comes in one of those annoying cardboard boxes that won't fit in the CD rack.

A Quiet Relaunch

I'm just going to use this blog as my personal box of papers that you can look at--I'm going to duplicate my journal posts from dA, essays, rants, poems, etc. here. Much more relaxed than last time. I don't really care whether anyone reads it, 'cuz it's just my scrapbook. As such, though, it'll be the more interesting thing to go back and read, because it'll be highlights and fun bits. (Though not many drawings--those'll always fit best on dA.)