Monday, June 09, 2008

The Best Kind of Popcorn


My life tends to be inelastic; the more things I try to change, the less my life seems to ultimately change in the long run.


If you watched old Tom & Jerry cartoons and ever saw Jerry run under the carpet and create a bump, and then saw Tom press down on the bump, only to have the bump pop up elsewhere, so Tom pressed there, too, and it kept on going like that until you got bored and turned the channel, you know kind of how my life goes. I, too, change the channel a lot. But also, when I press on one part of my life, it just bulges back up somewhere else.

Here's an example from my actual life: Way back, when I first decided to get in shape, I switched a lot of my snacking habits, as you have to do. I ate a lot fewer snacks, and when I did eat snacks, I tried to make them slightly-healthier kinds of snacks.

I know that sounds silly. A "snack" is about as healthy as "NASCAR" is "interesting" or "Jessica Simpson" can "sing." I make that point periodically to the kids, who will ask something like "Which is healthier, a bowl of ice cream or a Snickers bar?" to which I'll reply "Carrots," and then I go get a bowl of ice cream and sprinkle Snickers bars on it, because that sounded good.

But I tried, in the past, to have healthy snacks. I switched, for example, to popcorn, which is one of those foods people are always talking about that is a lot healthier than you think, like lettuce or, lately, bacon. I wish I'd been the guy to think up that diet where you can eat as much as you want of any food you want, except noodles, and still call it a "diet." That's where American society really crossed the line.

We used to be a country that thought that "fat" was admirable, because "fat" meant "successful." If you were "fat" that meant you could afford food and you had a job that didn't include hard labor. Food + not working = American success story. That all began to change with the Baby Boomers -- changed for the worse, as with so much of the Boomers' legacy -- and their obsession with getting "in shape" and being on "diets." They began jogging and jazzercizing (combining jazz with exercise... pleh. The only good thing to say about that is it made it easier to avoid two things I didn't like by putting them in the same place, like locking spinach in a closet with that guy Dean who used to beat me up in fifth grade) and watching their weight, and it all caught on.

Suddenly, fat was out and skinny was in as the new hallmark of success, which made a kind of sense because in the 70s and 80s and 90s, if you were skinny that meant that you had the kind of money you needed to belong to a health club and to shop at organic grocery stores, and had the leisure time to exercise, so skinny was the new sign of success.

Then, America got smarter as newer, more intelligent, lazier generations came along. Why, we asked, should we work so hard to be skinny? How great is skinny, after all, and is it a goal to which we should all aspire? After all, if everyone was skinny, who would be the good-looking people, i.e., the people we should look up to and admire? We'd all end up like the Sneetches, unable to tell who was really skinny/worthy of our love. (Most good life lessons can be demonstrated by re-interpreting it in a Sneetchly way.) But we'd get there, to our confusing all-encompassing skinniness, by working really hard.

Skinniness was yet another in the long list of things the Boomers got wrong. Earlier generations knew that success meant no longer working hard. Make a lot of money and then relax for a while and wear a top hat and monocle. That's how it used to work. Then the Boomers decided that if you hit a life of leisure, you had to work even harder to prove that you were living a life of leisure; the richer you were, the more you have to belong to a tennis league and volunteer on school boards. Presumably, if you were to win the lottery you'd have to spend the rest of your life running ultra-marathons.

Americans looked at that, smart ones did, and thought there's got to be a better way. They-- we-- thought I'd like to be considered successful and good-looking but not do all that work. Since we could not all afford liposuction, we hit on this other method, instead, and the new method was this:

Let's just all say we're healthy and skinny and on diets and go about living our lives the way we did before.

We, as a society, just all decided to be that one lady at the office who makes a big production of bringing in a salad every day, who talks endlessly about her tae bo class she takes four mornings a week, who cuts off 1/2 a doughnut when someone brings them in and says "Well, I shouldn't" when the birthday cake gets passed around... yet who never ever ever loses a single pound.

That's America for you nowadays: We are all on a diet, we are all working out, we are all wearing the pedometers we got with our value meal from McDonalds and counting our steps and our calories and getting "right portion" sized meals at TGI Fridays -- and we're all buying pants with that Secret Elastic band in them.

That's how the Atkins diet was born: Eat a pound of bacon with ice cream for breakfast -- and still be on your diet. That's how "walking" got defined as "exercise," that's why we have videogames that are called a workout, and that's how I can consider popcorn a healthy snack: because we say things are healthy and then don't care if they are or are not.

Popcorn was among the first of the "new" healthy snacks. In the buildup to the cultural revolution that lets me order a chicken sandwich with liverwurst as a condiment, people began laying the groundwork for our new society by taking away old "healthy foods" like carrots, and replacing them with foods that seemed healthy, like "popcorn." "Popcorn" sounds healthy, right? It's got corn right in the title, and corn grows in a field, so it's like a vegetable, right?

We needed, though, to get around the fact that glowing yellow mountains of popcorn were sold at movie theaters as treats, right next to the "Goobers" and malted milk balls. So we modified popcorn, slightly: Popcorn is healthy, we reasoned if you don't put all that butter and salt on it. And away we went.

That's what I did, anyway. My diet way back when consisted of snacks like "unbuttered popcorn." My diet also found room for entire pints of Ben & Jerry's "Wavy Gravy," but despite that, it worked. I lost a lot of weight. I lost over a hundred pounds and got in great shape, and I owed it all to eating "healthy" snacks.

I'm no better than anyone else, though. I began to slide, just like society did. I continued my popcorn-snacking ways, but I reasoned my way back to good old-fashioned bad-for-you popcorn. Well, it's not the salt that adds the calories, I'd figure. If I put margarine instead of butter, that's better for me, I'd tell people. If I just don't use so much butter, it's not bad for a snack, I would tell Sweetie.

Then a guy at work told me about "Kettle Corn" and it was all over. They found a way to turn popcorn into candy but keep it being popcorn. Now, I could buy microwaveable packets of "Kettle Corn" and eat them, telling myself it was a healthy snack while simultaneously ignoring and loving the sweet, buttery flavor that was so addictive I was tempted to turn the bag inside out and lick it after I was done.

"Kettle Corn" was the last straw in the beginning of my long, slow slide back to where I began. It's popcorn covered in sugar and honey and butter and salt-- so, far from being a "healthy" snack by eliminating some or all of the unhealthy parts, Kettle Corn takes all the bad parts, and adds more bad parts... but I can still tell myself it's healthy because it's popcorn, and popcorn is a healthy snack. Just look, it says so right on the package:


With "Kettle Corn," my horizons were de-limited once again, and I could eat other healthy snacks... like ice cream (which has milk in it!) or doughnuts (which are carbs... carbs are good because they're energy, right, and our body needs energy) or Mystery Flavor Doritos because... because... how's this: because the mystery flavor is probably lettuce or something that's good for me?

You may think I'm kidding, but do you really think we're that far away, as a society -- or that you or I are that far away, as individuals -- from saying If I don't know what's in it, it must be healthy, right? That's the natrual And once we hit that stage, we'll be classifying "Mr. Pibb" as a health drink.

Which is how I ended up owning a couple of my own pairs of pants with Secret Elastic in them. My life may be inelastic, but my pants aren't. And I owe it to Kettle Corn, The Best Kind of Popcorn.







Click here to see all the other topics I’ve ever discussed!




Squirrels:








Want a free t-shirt? Of course you do. Click there to find out how you can get one courtesy of The Best of Everything: Our Opinions Are Righter Than Yours.

Like horror stories? AfterDark has the best scary stories around.

My new life-- In Plain Sight



Are you as pumped up as I am about USA Network's new original series In Plain Sight? So pumped up that you spend your morning commute pretending to be a character in an upcoming episode, like I did there?

You don't have to take it that far to enjoy "In Plain Sight." I'm not usually a fan of crime shows, but this isn't a "crime show" the way you think of it. It's about an agent who works for the Witness Protection Program; she fights crime by helping people give up their old lives and blend into an entirely new identity in a new location -- and they'd better do it right, or they're dead.

It's a fascinating premise and the show does it justice; it's a great show-- exciting and interesting and it just drew me in. As you can tell by my Spielbergian work in the video that started this one off.

Just watch the show. It's on Sunday nights at 9 central on USA Network. You'll love it.


Sponsored by USA Network's new original series In Plain Sight

Friday, June 06, 2008

The Best Rock Band That Isn't The Beatles or U2 or The White Stripes or The New Pornographers

I've devoted 6,976 words to helping people understand what "rock and roll" really is this week.

But The Best Rock Band That Isn't The Beatles or U2 or The White Stripes or The New Pornographers could have saved me a lot of trouble and typing and carpal tunnel syndrome. (Used to be that "carpal tunnel syndrome" was taking over the world; we were all going to die as civilization crashed around us because people wouldn't be able to function as a result of their hands being twisted into unrecognizable shapes as a result of always having to hit ctrl+alt+del. Why they didn't get "carpal tunnel syndrome" in the 50s is beyond me. It's either that people were tougher then or life was tougher then and we didn't have 10,000 magazines and news channels that needed to turn every little SARS pseudoepidemic into the Next Big Death Thing.)

(Nowadays, carpal tunnel syndrome is gone. In its place, we're all going to die of peanut allergies. To fight peanut allergies, our doctor has forbidden us from giving our 21-month-old boys any peanuts or nuts until their 2nd birthday. So: At 12:01 a.m. on September 5, peanut butter is okay. 2 minutes prior to that, peanut butter = certain death/babypocalypse).

I could have saved all that typing and carpal tunnel and meandering prose if I'd just started with The Ramones first. The Ramones, who are The Best Rock Band That Isn't The Beatles or U2 or The White Stripes or The New Pornographers demonstrate that rock doesn't need 6,976 words to describe it.

It just needs three words-- rock and roll-- and three chords. That's all The Ramones did, and that's all that needs to be said.

So here's some songs from The Ramones. And some hot rocker chicks. Happy weekend!

Blitzkrieg Bop:



I Wanna Be Sedated:



I Don't Wanna Grow Up:




Pinhead:




Oh, and a little somethin' for the ladies---->








Click here to see all the other topics I’ve ever discussed!


Want a free t-shirt? Of course you do. Click there to find out how you can get one courtesy of The Best of Everything: Our Opinions Are Righter Than Yours.

Nonsportsmanlike Conduct! AlwaysMostlyRight!


Every day:




Thursday, June 05, 2008

The Best Rock Band That Isn't The Beatles or U2 or The White Stripes


'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;--
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title:--Romeo, doff thy name;
And for that name, which is no part of thee,
Take all myself.


O, be some other name, The New Pornographers. Doff thy name, and for that name, which is no part of thee, take all of the rock world by storm.

I hate to be all crass and commercial here, but I'm going to anyway because while I say I hate to be all crass and commercial I don't really hate it at all; I love it. It's about making money. I'm sorry to say that. Art is about making money. If you want to be an artist and support yourself doing that, you have to make money and to make money people have to buy your stuff. To have people buy your stuff, if you're a musician, they have to hear your stuff, most likely on the radio.

It's less likely that they'll hear your stuff if your name is The New Pornographers. It's a cool name and all and very edgy and in-your-face, but it also is not very radio friendly.

I will, for the sake of the "artists" out there who are against commercial success -- i.e., they are not successful and don't want others to be -- make a second argument in favor of making your art more accessible. You make "art" because you want people to experience it, right? I write this, and my short stories and my upcoming novel (that I'm shopping around and if you'd like to take a look at it, drop me a line, it's awesome) because I want people to read them. Painters paint pictures because they want people to look at them. Singers sing because they want people to listen to them. Christopher Walken does his thing because...

... well, I don't know why Christopher Walken does anything, but I'm sure glad he does...

You get the point. Your message will be more widespread if you package it in a manner that lets people see it. I could write a brilliant poem but if I then bury it in the backyard where Nixon's secret plan was hidden, how effective is it?

More people's minds have been changed by Mr. Whipple than by all the starving artists in the world combined.

That's my argument both for The New Pornographers to change their name and for people to quit accusing bands of selling out when they become popular and have their song featured in a commercial (as The New Pornographers did with "The Bleeding Heart Show," which I first heard in a University of Phoenix ad, which is evidence that my seemingly-sarcastic comment about Mr. Whipple is more right than you thought. How many people first heard of Feist because she was on an iPod commercial? I'm raising my hand.)

Also, "The Bleeding Heart Show" should have been in "The Office," as this person shows us:



It's not selling out to try to make a little money at what you do. If I could write a commercial jingle and get paid a million bucks and then spend the rest of my life doing whatever the heck I want, including learning the entire dance from "Weapon of Choice," I'd do it in a second because then not only would my music reach about a zillion people -- and sell some cheesburgers or breath mints, sure - -but I could then keep making music and having people listen to it, with complete artistic freedom, having my music say exactly what I want it to say, breaking the boundaries that hold me to this corporate earth and soaring ever higher and higher until my efforts fairly glowed with enthusiasm and enlightened the entire world ...

Sorry. I got carried away. While I typed that paragraph I was, in fact, listening to "The Bleeding Heart Show" and got to the part where they begin saying hey la hey la over and over and that song is just really really inspiring.

So enough of this high-minded stuff. The New Pornographers should change their name because their current name is keeping some people from listening to them (based on my scientific survey of getting their new CD and having both Sweetie and Middle tell me that although they like the music they don't like the name) and so they are not as well-known or famous as they deserve to be, because they are an excellent rock band.

Just listen to "Use It."







It's songs like that which make The New Pornographers The Best Rock Band That Isn't The Beatles, or U2, or The White Stripes. Their songs combine two elements that you don't see together very often but which should be combined more -- making The New Pornographers the Reese's of the rock world. But their peanut butter-and-chocolate combination is power and brains.

The New Pornographers make complicated, smart, challenging music. Their songs are layered with meaning and instrumentation and unusual beats and strange time signatures and new instruments. Every time I listen to one of their songs, it's like a new experience even though I might know the song by heart. Ever change around the furniture in a room you've lived in for a couple of years? Everytime you come home for a few days, it's like you've moved into a fresh new place. You can see the old leg-marks from the sofa, reminding you what used to be there, but the big plant is in a new corner and there's untouched carpeting just begging to be sat on, and the TV is now near the window...

That's what listening to a song from The New Pornographers is like. You might hear acoustic guitars this time, but the next time you focus on the beat. Then, one day, the lyrics pop out at you. Their songs are more than three dimensional, somehow.

But this isn't nerdy prog-rock a la Jethro Tull or Sting. There's no moody meditations on Russians here. The New Pornographers have some muscle. They may have lyrics that you don't understand but which you suspect relate, somehow, to that philosophy class you cut a lot in college, but they also have guitars and drums enough to pound you into submission. They're not so much philosopher-kings as they are philosopher-boxers.

They know how to snag you in with a right hook of a guitar solo, then keep on pummeling you with acoustic guitars and drums, and just when you can't take it anymore, they knock you to the ground with the singing, skills they highlighted on "Mass Romantic:"



Does anyone know, by the way, how long it takes to make a Sims video like that? I'm in awe of the skill and devotion demonstrated by that, because the single time that I played Sims I not only got bored but I burned down my house. I got bored because Sims is real life only with a keyboard. I had to find a place to live, furnish the house, cook breakfast, and find a job. And then I had to go do all those things in a video game, too? (Ba dum bum!) Really, though, what's the appeal? After a hard day at the office, I go home, cook dinner, help the kids with their homework, then fire up the computer so that I can make my Sim go to the office for a while and do it all over? If I hadn't accidentally burned my sim-house down, I'd have been tempted to do it on purpose.

The New Pornographers have enough instincts and creativity that they could be bigger and more influential than The Beatles; their music, like The Beatles' forty years ago, shows where rock can go from here, where it's headed. Their music is the next step forward in rock, outlining the course for other musicians to come, while still being familiar and pop-ish enough that it's likeable now.

They've got the power to outdo U2's efforts on Rattle And Hum. In fact, if there were a fight between U2 and The New Pornographers, I'd put my money on the latter because U2's gotten a little mellow since the 90's.

They, like The White Stripes, understand how to make their rock hypnotic and pull at the innermost parts of you -- their songs make you feel inspired or like dancing or just drag you into their undertow.

It's just too bad about the name. But that's why they're only The Best Rock Band That Isn't The Beatles or U2 or The White Stripes. Which still makes them very, very good.







Click here to see all the other topics I’ve ever discussed!













Want a free t-shirt? Of course you do. Click there to find out how you can get one courtesy of The Best of Everything: Our Opinions Are Righter Than Yours.


Ever wonder who will win in a fight? What fight? ANY fight! My Dad Can Beat Up Your Dad will tell you.

Wednesday, June 04, 2008

The Best Rock Band That Isn't The Beatles or U2



Listen to this song:




Yesterday, I was driving home from work and thought about that song, "Seven Nation Army," by The White Stripes, who are The Best Rock Band That Isn't The Beatles or U2, and even without hearing the song, I began humming that beat.

I was still humming it three hours later when I went to play basketball with The Boy.

(I lost, 48-15, but it wasn't as bad as all that. I was down 31-15 at the end of our 20 minutes, and I declared that the next shot would be worth 17 points -- 18 if it was from beyond the arc. I then missed six consecutive shots and The Boy made one to win 48-15.)

"Seven Nation Army" is the only song I know that can withstand The Star Spangled Banner Surefire Annoying Song Cure. I was told about this from a friend of mine. He said if you ever get a song stuck in your head, hum "The Star Spangled Banner" because it has no real melody or catchiness and is hard to hum, so it will drive the other song out of your head without replacing it.

Some people talk about what can be done to help humanitarian relief reach Burma. I talk about what can be done to get "Livin' La Vida Loca" out of my head.

But his cure works -- except on "Seven Nation Army." I don't know what kind of voodoo The White Stripes put into that song, but it withstands everything. Just writing about it now has me humming it. It's freaking me out.

That's not why The White Stripes are The Best Rock Band That Isn't The Beatles Or U2. As The Best of Everything continues to explore what "rock" is -- because everyone gets it wrong, and everyone gets it wrong and says their music is "rock" because they want to think they are a "rocker" but they're not and their music isn't -- we're using The Best Rock Bands to show what "rock" is because it can't be defined -- Wikistupedia's 4,422 only-partially-defined attempt at doing so notwithstanding.

Rock can only be experienced.

So we've seen that Rock, as created by The Beatles, is primal and creative and ever-expanding. And rock is raw and one-upping and in-your-face-- just ask U2.

Rock is also elemental. Rock is found deep down inside of us and struggles to get out and when out, cannot be contained. If rock is sometimes a primal scream and sometimes an Apollo rocket, it is also everything contained in Pandora's Box, straining at the walls of its confinement, and once out, it cannot be put back easily; it's all the trouble in the world that makes life so sweet but also threatens to cut our lives short.




That's why The White Stripes fit up on that top shelf of rock and roll. Their music cuts straight through to that deepest, darkest, fight-or-flightiest part of us and pulls it out into the open and it cannot be put back: we love it and hate it and fear it and want it.

What, you thought it was just that their songs were catchy? If catchiness made for a great rock song, Rick Dees would be at the top of the Rock Pantheon; just try getting Disco Duck out of your head. It's not just that their songs are catchy, it's why they're catchy. Catchy songs don't stay in your head for hours and hours so that you're subconsciously cooking a grilled cheese sandwich to the beat of "Seven Nation Army." Primal songs do.

The White Stripes are just Jack and Meg -- drums and whatever instrument Jack is playing currently. Jack's voice is not that great, when you listen to it. Everyone (but me) is critical of Meg's drumming. They look weird. There's no reason they should be popular.

But they are, and that's because they make rock, real rock and roll, rock and roll that you can't ignore anymore than you can stop the hair on the back of your neck from rising up when you hear a sound at night. It's instinctual: you have to go hunt down that sound, and you have to listen to The White Stripes.

Their music, like early Beatles and U2's Rattle And Hum, strips away most of the glitz and glamour and presents a raw feeling; it's that feeling, that emotion, that elevates The White Stripes above a lot of other, similar, bands; you can't fake that kind of gut reaction. The passion behind the music carries forward into the listener and shakes him by the lapels, picking him up and making him listen like a mobster shaking down a guy that didn't pay off his bet. Listening to the best of The White Stripes' music makes me feel that way -- like I'm dangling by my shoulder blades hoping to survive this one.

The White Stripes understand that, too -- they may not be doing it consciously, but all of their music exists only to remind you that you're on the edge, that your life could take a turn for the worse at any second, so you'd better enjoy it while you can but also make sure you look over your shoulder.

The beats in their songs are almost tribal; they would not be out of place in the darkest jungles containing the worst animals that are most desired by collectors and hunters.

The guitars and keyboards in their songs are slicing and grand -- they are broadswords and battleaxes, glittering with the promise of victory... or death.


The lyrics to their songs drive home the point. In "Fell In Love With A Girl," the singer says he must be fine because his heart is still beating. Meg sings about emotions making her feel older in the cold cold night. Jack complains that he's a bleeder on "White Moon" and begs for people's throwaway scraps on "Rag and Bone," and then finally, on "I'm Lonely (But I Ain't That Lonely Yet") leaves the river just before he could get wet -- having almost drowned himself. In sorrow? In real life? Who knows?

How much of the power behind rock and roll is being sad and fighting it off, of working to catch the good in this life before the bad overtakes us? It's hard to say. But the urge to keep going, the urge to fight and claw and kick our way to the top, the urge to avoid or destroy all of those things that came from the box, the burning need we have to hold onto someone, to rise above, to struggle on, is omnipresent in The White Stripes' music, and their ability to make us stop and listen, and then listen and move, is why they're The Best Rock Band That's Not The Beatles Or U2.
















Want a free t-shirt? Of course you do. Click there to find out how you can get one courtesy of The Best of Everything: Our Opinions Are Righter Than Yours.

Like horror stories? AfterDark has the best scary stories around.

Tuesday, June 03, 2008

The Best Rock Band That Isn't The Beatles.

Yesterday, I began the first leg of my quest to teach the world what "rock" music really is. By naming The Beatles The Best Rock Band, I laid the foundation for understanding what "rock" is and why bands like Coldplay and Queen are not rock bands.

I have to continue because I was discussing my post with The Boy, and when I mentioned that I'd put up The Best Rock Band, he interrupted and said "Queen." Which is how "Queen" gets into that sentence alongside Coldplay.

Queen is not a rock band.

That doesn't mean that I don't like Queen. It doesn't mean that Queen is no good. It just means that Queen doesn't fit into the category of rock band.

Ordinarily, saying someone or something doesn't fit into a category doesn't invoke a violent reaction. Tell someone "Cherry pie isn't a type of burger," and they'll happily agree with you. Say to someone "An automobile isn't a WNBA referee," and they'll nod along with you. Go up to a crowd of people at a bus stop and say "William Shatner isn't Christopher Walken" and they'll applaud you.

But say a band isn't a rock band and people act like they're going to roll up their sleeves and sock you in the nose. I touched on why yesterday, for at least one group of people. Baby boomers don't want to admit that they no longer are "rock and roll," so they just redefine "rock" to mean whatever music they're listening to. Instead of saying Yeah, I used to like rock but now I gravitate more towards adult contemporary, they say adult contemporary is rock, and, voila, Coldplay becomes "rock," in their minds at least. (Baby boomers redefine everything that way. "40 is the new 30." "Green is the new black." "Hillary is winning the popular vote." When Boomers don't like reality, they just describe the reality they want to exist and pretend that's what's actually outside their door.)

But how to explain The Boy getting so upset that a band that hasn't been around for years and years and years and which had all its hits before he was born, isn't a "rock" band? The Boy, for the record, also thinks that Pink Floyd is rock. Why? Why would a kid raised in the era of Balkanized music, of "grunge" and "emo" and "punk-pop" and "hip hop" and "Top 40" care so much if his bands were "rock?"

It's because "rock" stands for something. That's why. "Rock" has a specific kind of feel to it, a meaning. "Rock" is rebellious, it's cool, it's movement, it's everything your parents don't like (even if your parents think they like rock, too), it's drums guitars piano shouting crowds arenas leather jackets over bare chests tight pants dimly lit clubs giant speakers...

...rock can't really be defined. It has to be felt. And we all want to feel "rock," so we try to believe that the music we like is "rock" even when we know it's not. We try to tell people that Queen is "rock" because they made the song "We Will Rock You," ignoring all the evidence to the contrary that Queen, for all their merits, for all their talent, for all their skill, is not a "rock band."

"Bohemian Rhapsody" is a great song. It's a classic. It has guitars and drums and stuff... but it's not "rock." It's operatic and beautiful and touching and moving. But it's not rock.

The Beatles, for the most part, were rock. A "rock" band can make a non-rock song. A non-rock band can make a song that sounds like "rock," but that doesn't make them a "rock band." Queen made "We Will Rock You," which sounds like "rock," but it was made by Queen, and they're not a rock band because they're missing out on that essential quality that makes a rock band.

Queen doesn't have that essential quality, which cannot be defined clearly. The Beatles had it. The Best Rock Band That Isn't The Beatles has it, too.

U2 is a rock band, and they're The Best Rock Band That Isn't The Beatles. That may surprise you if you remember that I began, yesterday, by pointing out that "All That You Can't Leave Behind" was not a rock album. I stand by that. It's not. That doesn't matter because Rock Bands can make songs that aren't rock without losing their credibility, and U2 did that.

U2 is The Best Rock Band That Isn't The Beatles because of three words: Rattle And Hum.

The conventional wisdom -- which will never understand "rock" -- is that The Joshua Tree was U2's greatest album ever, and possibly one of the greatest rock albums ever. The conventional wisdom further goes on to hold that "Rattle And Hum" sucked.

The conventional wisdom is wrong on both counts. The Joshua Tree was okay, as far as albums go, but it paled in comparison to Rattle And Hum. To say otherwise is to prove yourself ignorant of both human nature and music.

Human nature is responsible for Rattle And Hum's perception as a bad album and The Joshua Tree as a good album. The Joshua Tree was a really, really, really well-liked album that had a few songs on it that even stand up to the test of time: "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For" and "Where The Streets Have No Name." Those two songs are still worth listening to today; the rest of the album is dated and/or mediocre.


The Joshua Tree owes its position in people's memories to the phenomenally overrated With Or Without You, which has been played so often since it was released that I understand it's actually imprinted on the DNA of babies that born in or after 1987. The Human Genome Project was surprised to find that out, but it's true.*

*Note: "True" in that sentence means "made up."

People loved With or Without You the way they love every sappy love song that comes along, because it reminds them of their love or the love that got away or that one movie they saw, and so they snap it up. The top 100 bestselling songs of all time is littered with throwaway love songs made up of banal lyrics, and With Or Without You is no different.

That song made The Joshua Tree so popular that not owning a copy of the album back then was like not wearing a flag pin in 2008; your very sanity was questioned. The popularity of The Joshua Tree then put U2 into a bind with their next album, in the sense that whatever they did was bound to be seen as a colossal pile of junk.

I feel sorry, a bit, for musicians who make it so big. It must be kind of tough to be Paul McCartney or Bono or David Bowie and have a career that spans decades and keep making songs that you think are great, and all you ever hear is "Play Young Americans!" But I only feel a bit sorry for them, because while they have to put up with that, they also have $200 kajillion dollars and that probably eases the blow.

If you were u2 in 1988 and you're setting about to make a new album because even with $200 kajillion dollars and an album which everyone in the world owns two copies of, but you want to make a new album because you like making music, what do you do? Everyone loved the last one so much, there's really no chance that they'll like the new one at all, right?

If you're most musicians, you make a crummy album of 1940s tune updates, or some techno junk or release a greatest hits album. But if you're U2, you blow the old album right out of the water. Even though people will hate what you make next, you go ahead and just make it about a million times better than your last album so that while they'll say they hate it, they'll secretly like it.

That's what U2 did with Rattle And Hum. They made an awesomely great rock and roll album. And they announced right up front what the plan was-- that they were going to do better than you expected, and that you were going to hate it but they didn't give a damn.

"This is a song that Charles Manson stole from the Beatles," are the opening words on Rattle And Hum. "We're stealing it back."









See, U2 couldn't begin their record by saying "You're gonna hate whatever we do but you're gonna have trouble hating this because we're awesome and so is this record." That would be to blatant. Instead, they make a reference to a horrific killing, a cult leader, and then say they're better than the beloved Brits.

That's so rock and roll -- being in your face but not obviously so. Rock and roll can rebel and challenge, but it doesn't say it's going to do so. James Dean, saying he was going to rebel, wasn't rock and roll. Holden Caulfield, just going and rebelling, was. Some bands -- Queen -- say they're going to rock you; others just do it. U2 just did it, and did it better.

Where The Beatles showed us that rock and roll is raw emotion and propulsive force and set out the boundaries by demonstrating the variety and range of forms rock could take, U2 showed us that rock is in-your-face and bold and not daunted and constantly improving itself.
U2 improved on everything that had gone before them. They didn't stop by making Helter Skelter better than The Beatles had done it, and weren't even satisfied with their upstart stealing/upgrade of John Lennon's ideas on God Part II; they improved on their own song, turning I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For into a gospel choir singalong that elevates the spirits of the listener -- oh, and tromps all over the memory of The Joshua Tree, too, since that was the point of Rattle And Hum, after all, to show listeners that rock doesn't rest on its laurels, that rock keeps on pushing forward, and the band just kept on going from there, taking the basic elements of rock and building them into something bigger and better than everything that went before it.



For an analogy, try this: carbon atoms are pretty common and basic elements that form the building blocks of everything in our universe. That makes them pretty cool.

Put enough carbon atoms together, though, and you get the Apollo rocket, using more power than humanity has ever put together in one place before at one time, and launching you to a location no human being has ever touched.
The Beatles were carbon atoms. U2 made them into the Apollo rocket.

In a more conventional context, Rattle And Hum looked at the past, including U2's own past, and climbed on top of it and did a gigantic stage dive off of everything that had gone before, jumping off of B.B. King and The Beatles and Angel of Harlem and Jimi Hendrix's Star-Spangled Banner and their own songs and diving into Rattle And Hum. Nothing on Rattle And Hum was especially new, or unusual, or challenging. It was just better -- better than anything U2 had done before, and better than anything anyone else had done before.

In that respect, U2 nearly topped The Beatles; Rattle And Hum was certainly more powerful, more visceral, more rock than everything The Beatles had done; but it wasn't better than The Beatles because The Beatles did it first and did it more creatively. The Apollo rocket couldn't be made without the carbon; you need a stage to dive off.

But still, U2 on Rattle And Hum showed us that rock and roll doesn't have to be new, it just has to be bold, it just has to be raw, and it just has to be good. In doing so, U2 became The Best Rock Band That Isn't The Beatles.








Click here to see all the other topics I’ve ever discussed!


Team Dad:






Want a free t-shirt? Of course you do. Click there to find out how you can get one courtesy of The Best of Everything: Our Opinions Are Righter Than Yours.

Lesbian Zombies Are Taking Over The World is a serialized novel. To keep up with the adventures of a lesbian zombie and her octopus in a timely manner, click that link.

Monday, June 02, 2008

The Best Rock Band

It's time I took America, and the rest of the world which looks up to us like little brothers look up to big brothers (i.e., with a mixture of grudging respect and secret loathing, always ready to tell Mom and Dad what we're up to but still hoping that they'll get invited along), under my wing and explained what rock music really is.

This is necessary, unfortunately, because people are throwing around the term "rock" rather loosely and diluting it. I first noticed this trend when U2's album "All That You Can't Leave Behind" was released. Here's what one reviewer on Amazon had to say about the first single from that album:

"Beautiful Day" signaled the return of U2 to their classic rock mold.

That was okay, as far as it went since "Beautiful Day" was sort of a rock- ish song, but the rest of the album was similarly lauded for U2 returning to "Rock and roll" when in fact, they had not. Critics were all agog over how U2 had given up on the techno of the Zooropa era and returned to "classic rock," but almost nothing on "All That You Can't Leave Behind" was "rock." It was mellow, adult-contemporary, easy-listening pop music that probably had guitars in it but they were unobtrusively hidden behind the plaintive lyrics about regretting your past.

That's not rock.

The trend of calling things "rock" that were not "rock" continued until it reached a head with the release of not one, but two Coldplay albums that were identified as "rock." First, X&Y came out and people called it a great "rock" record, mostly (I think) because Coldplay had a rare-for-them uptempo song with guitars and a video that was as far as I could see entirely ripped off from The Killers.

I know you baby boomers and music critics missed it, so I'll prove that last point:

Coldplay's Speed Of Sound:





The Killers' Somebody Told Me.



Do you think Coldplay had to wait until The Killers left to sneak onto the set and film their own video? Were they trying to save money.

The rest of X&Y was otherwise typical Coldplay: moody, slow, thoughtful... and not rock.

Then, Coldplay got set to release another album soon and people referred to the first single off that one as "rock," too.

No, it's not. Sorry. Just because somebody appears in Rolling Stone and/or uses a guitar in their music and/or you want to feel young and hip does not make something "rock" music. You can't simply take every song that has a guitar solo and call it "rock," but that's what's happening; people call everything "rock" or "rock and roll" and that's just wrong. There are categories of music just like there are categories of books and movies and tv shows and people. But only in music do people take the thing they like and try to cram it into the category they want to be in.

Would it be correct to say that every book is a "thriller" because that sounds exciting? No.

Would it be correct to say that every movie is an "action-adventure" because doing that promises that it will get the adrenaline flowing? No.

Would it be correct to say that every tv show is a "drama," every person is a "hunk" or "hottie," or every meal is "spaghetti" just because those are things you want? No, no, and no!

So why, then, does everyone refer to the music they like as "rock," no matter how non-rock-and-roll it is? And is there anything less rock-and-roll than Chris Martin promoting soccer? I don't think so.

Frankly, I blame the baby boomers; they're pretty much responsible for everything that's wrong with the world right now, anyway, and they are definitely responsible for attempting to blatantly recategorize "easy listening" as "rock and roll," because baby boomers are getting older and don't want to hear real "rock" anymore; they want to hear easy listening rock that doesn't cause heartburn, doesn't have lyrics that embarrass them in front of their kids, can be played over their iHome in their office without unnerving the staff, and would blend in very well as background music on either Grey's Anatomy or CSI: New York, those being what pass for "edgy" shows on TV nowadays.

But, baby boomers do not want to admit that they're getting older and mellower. They want to still be the people who claimed to have been at Altamont the people who pretended to like Hendrix even though he was a little over the top, the people who sang along with Roger Daltrey about wanting to die before they got old (but they didn't do the stutter part because they thought that sounded lame.) They want, in short, to still be the kind of people they used to pretend they were.

I get it. It's not easy admitting you're getting older. It's not easy admitting that your tastes have changed and nowadays you have less sympathy for the devil and more sympathy for your tired feet. It's not easy admitting that you have become a real-life version of Chevy Chase in "National Lampoon's Vegas Vacation," tapping your hands out of rhythm and getting the words wrong.

I couldn't find that clip, but I did find this, which makes the point almost as well:



It's not easy, that is, unless you're me and you were always like that and always knew it. I'm not a baby boomer; I'm a member of the real Generation X, which is the one the media never discovered because they were too busy calling kids who turned 16 the year "Smells Like Teen Spirit"came out "generation X," no matter how wrong that was, too.

As a member of real Generation X, I had no "rock and roll" fantasy to cling to. We didn't think we invented rock and roll; we didn't invent anything, musically speaking, unless it was the use of those video game sounds in "Rock The Casbah" by The Clash. That was Gen X's great contribution to music history-- mixing in random bits of sound here or there.

So I had that going for me, and also I had the fact that I was never considered cool. Never in my life. Kids who look forward to their weekly trip to the library, who have a shirt with iron-on letters that spell out "The Great Brain", who play D&D and have glasses and an eye patch, who never know what's going on, do not grow up to be rock-and-rollers. They grow up to be bloggers and lawyers who leave work early on Friday so they can go pick up three new CDs: Kraftwerk's Autobahn, a collection of Barbershop Quartet songs, and classic bagpipe music.

It's that distance, that lack of anything to cling to, that makes me understand far better than anyone else what "rock" really is. And it's that distance that makes me so upset when people refer to everything they like as "rock."

So with that incredibly long intro, I'm going to teach the US and the world what "rock" is by defining it the only way it can be: through giving you the groups that are essential rock bands and highlighting some of their more rocking songs.

Note: Not every song by a great rock band is "rock." It's possible for rockers to make a non-rock song; after all, Elvis recorded some gospel songs and they sounded great. So the fact that a band is called a "rock band" doesn't mean that everything they ever did is "rock." I just put that out there so that I don't get a bunch of snide emails saying "Yesterday isn't a rock song, jerk-face." Save your typing fingers. I know it's not a rock song. It's a non-rock song recorded by The Best Rock Band, The Beatles.

Sometimes, The Best in a category is just obvious, isn't it? I don't think there can really be any argument that there was ever a better rock band than The Beatles. I've been listening to their music the whole time I've been writing this and each time I listen to anything they played, I get astonished all over again at the passion they played with, the breadth of their musical ability, the music they created and influenced, and the span of their reach over music.

The Beatles didn't just take over America with their peppy natures, crazy movies, and catchy tunes about being in love. They tore into America with songs that aren't as well known as the poppier "Eight Days a Week" and the like but which had an undeniable rock and roll snarl to them. Songs like the first Beatles' song I ever heard, I'm Down:



If that song doesn't get your feet moving and head bobbing and make you want to get up and dance and do the splits, then you're just a weirdo. From Paul's a capella intro to the jamming synthesizers to the bold, striking guitar chords to the screams, I'm Down is the Indy Car of early Beatles' rock songs: all exposed parts and raw speed and danger. Nowadays, we hear about the early Beatles and it's all "moptops this" and "fainting girls" that, but I'm Down presented a rock and roll that was dangerous and moody and rebellious and dark -- while driving forward full-speed.

Now, that's rock.

They didn't stop there. The Beatles stripped rock down early on and then began rebuilding it. Listen to "Baby You Can Drive My Car":



It's got the same instruments and feel to it as I'm Down -- raw guitar, tambourines, piano, but it's different. It's more layered, more developed. It's rock-and-roll with all the edges sanded down so that they're not as sharp -- but they take curves better.

Oh, and they threw in the "beep beep beep beep yeah," a bit of nonsense that as I sit here more or less set the tone for, nearly 20 years later, The Clash to throw in their little video-game sounds. That's one of the many things that makes The Beatles The Best Rock Band: they were an influence, acknowledged or not, on every single band that came after them. They invented most areas of music.

Don't doubt me. Don't ever doubt me. Heavy metal? Wouldn't exist without The Beatles' Why Don't We Do It In The Road -- which had the same bass, the rolling undertones, the heavy guitars, that would come to mark the more moody parts of Led Zeppelin's work.




Oh, Darling was the same way:



Psychedelic stoner rock? Sorry, Pink Floyd, you just ripped off The Beatles' third stage, the one that came after Rubber Soul. Long before there was a Mother to say Goodbye Blue Sky, The Beatles had "Mother Nature's Son" and "Glass Onion." And even then, they could rock:



And that little ending song on The Wall, the quiet little meditation on life that follows the overwhelming grandure of the album? Done before, on Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, when after the wall of rock and roll that was "Golden Slumbers/The End," The Beatles' gave us this runout groove:



Overall, for years and years and years, The Beatles proved that not only could they craft ear-pleasing pop songs, tender love songs, and humorous little throwaways, but they could rock, with a ferocity that could not be matched, and a new-ness and creativity that would serve to set the tone for all rockers that followed them. They didn't take old R&B and build on it, like Elvis and the other early rockers had; they took the essence of music, ripped it apart, and put it back together for us in a new way, a way that grabs each corpuscle of your blood, each nerve ending, and each hair on your body, and electrifies them, making them appreciate the power of the sound and making you want to get up and move.


That's rock and roll. Rock and roll is powerful and fast and new and creative... and it makes you move. Like The Best Rock Band, The Beatles did, making rock and roll so good and so new and so excellent that everyone thereafter just copied something the four guys from Liverpool had already done in the course of making great rock, great rock like this:








Click here to see all the other topics I've ever discussed!


Want a free t-shirt? Of course you do. Click there to find out how you can get one courtesy of The Best of Everything: Our Opinions Are Righter Than Yours.

Nonsportsmanlike Conduct!: Alwaysmostlyright!

Friday, May 30, 2008

The Best Fantasy Trilogy

I really really really want to declare this a tie. I really do. I almost felt that I had to hold off posting this to let the bloom of newness wear off and consider my feelings from the perspective of time and distance.

But I can't, really. I can't wait and I can't declare a tie because how can two things be The Best of one thing? They can't. And that's why it's my sad and excited responsibility to say that The Lord of the Rings has been supplanted and The Best Fantasy Trilogy is the His Dark Materials set by Philip Pullman.

I just finished the set last night, and I was simply blown away. That's all I can say. This was a phenomenal piece of work, from start to finish.

I only picked up the first book, The Golden Compass, in the first place because of the controversy surrounding the movie made out of the book. The movie looked dumb, but the book sounded interesting, so I checked it out of the library. I didn't expect much, to be honest. My opinion has always been that "The Lord of the Rings" is the standard bearer for fantasy works, so much so that just about every fantasy book you read in some way rips off Tolkien's work.

In some ways, fantasy writers can't be blamed for that. Tolkien wasn't the first fantasy writer, but he might have been the broadest; his books were so grand in scope that they occupied the entire fantasy field. He had elves and dwarves and dragons and giant spiders and wizard battles and orcs and goblins and trolls and mysterious Balrogs and underground empires and malicious mountains... the list goes on and on and on.

So it's tough, then, if you're trying to write fantasy, not to seem like you're ripping off Tolkien. I know that when I first read a book about a young wizard who wears glasses (and who shall remain nameless because I don't want to get sued by any authors who maybe have gotten a little too big for their British britches or other parts of their wardrobe) and that wizard went into a "Forest" that was "Forbidden" and found a bunch of spiders, the first thing I thought was "Mirkwood."

It also was not lost on me that the rather smallish wizard-- let's call him "Larry Lotter" -- faced off against a giant spider at one point. Remember "Shelob?" Tolkien fans do.

It's not like that's the only book that certainly didn't rip off Lord of the Rings but seemed to. If you have an elf or a dwarf or a wizard or a major battle in your fantasy book, it's going to call to mind Lord of the Rings or it's going to suck, the same way that all space movies either seem like "Star Wars" or they're crappy. Throughout my life I've read fantasy books that in one way or the other seemed to be extensions of what Tolkien created. Even the goblins in Xanth and Phaze seeming a lot like the goblins that Gollum used to hunt using the Ring.

Even the concept of The Ring carries over into other works -- the object of power that must be destroyed or must be gained to win or lose the battle, depending.

Tolkien didn't invent all of these things, by any means. But he made them so real, so intricately crafted, so well-done that it became inconceivable to picture them in any other way, and they got so ingrained in our mind that way that it was hard to break away from them. It would be like having a skinny Santa Claus with a handlebar moustache; there's no reason that he couldn't look like that, but it'd just be wrong.

That was the first thing that impressed me about His Dark Materials. Expecting a crummy Tolkien rip-off that wouldn't have hit my radar at all if the religious people of the world hadn't brought it to my attention, I was amazed from the very beginning how different Pullman's world was from my world and from my expectations.

[FROM HERE ON OUT, THERE MAY BE SPOILERS]. I'm not going to categorize everything about the books that's different, but two big examples that stick in my mind are spectres and the daemons.

Take daemons first. Pullman's people all have "daemons," which are not a soul or spirit or companion but a mixture of all of them; they're an animal companion that is linked to and part of but not quite joined with their human. The daemons are extensions of or reflections of their people but act independently of them. They're like a conscience and a friend at the same time; they have their own opinions and can act independently, but they and their human are linked, and they reflect some essential aspect of their human. The concept is a fascinating one and one I've never run across in any book I've ever read before, and Pullman handles it brilliantly, fleshing out the concept carefully across three books.


Then there's spectres, the other new thing out of many that I'm singling out. as a completely new concept that I don't recall seeing before. Spectres are ghostly apparitions, visible only to adults and other ghosts, which prey only on adults and leave children unharmed. [SPOILER ALERT] As it turns out, they do that by eating people's daemons, although that's not explained for some time in the books, but when they attack someone, they don't kill them or eat their blood or drain their mind; they kill the daemon and leave people uninterested in anything. One victim, attacked while wading across a river, remains in the river, standing there, not caring about anything.

In those two concepts, Pullman brings across the essence of what it really new about his books and what captivated me and made these books more than just fantasy novels.

Good fiction, including good fantasy fiction, expands from its storyline into something universal without being pedantic about it. The first rule of writing is to tell a good story. The second rule of writing is to make that good story one that causes the reader to understand himself or his world or something a little better or differently or more clearly. Pullman does all of those, and daemons and spectres are at the heart of it.

I have to digress for a moment to explain: Pullman's books have been attacked as being anti-God or anti-Christian or anti-church, and I suppose you could read them that way if you're narrow-minded or if your beliefs are easily challenged. My beliefs are not so shaky and while I understood where people would get the idea that he's attacking a church or all churches -- he says at one point that the Catholic Church is based on a lie -- I also understood that these were characters in a work of fiction saying that. Specifically, these characters [REALLY REALLY BIG SPOILER ALERT] live in a fictional world where God is not the "Creator" of the universe, but just an angel who took charge early on and began running the universes and now is old and decrepit and largely the pawn of his associates.

That in and of itself is a unique, completely different type of storyline that I haven't heard before. Yes, the idea that "God is dead" or out of touch or otherwise not really running things is around before, but you have to read Pullman's work to understand why this one is so new and different.

It's important to know that, and I had to digress, because attacking Pullman's work by saying it's "anti-church" ignores what his books are saying; Pullman himself says he's an atheist and that may be true, too -- I never believe that people are really atheists, because it's a position that's very difficult to defend and they can't really defend it -- and he certainly writes the part, because one of his characters sets off on a quest to kill God, but Pullman's books are in fact quite spiritual and positive, and they are that way in part because of daemons.

Pullman posits that everyone -- including us; our world is part of his trilogy -- has a daemon, a part of themselves that is both linked to and separate from them, a part that exemplifies something unique about that person while also being a separate entity. He makes clear that it's not a "soul" but something else entirely; you can survive the loss of your daemon but not for long, and having your daemon severed from you or killed will first turn you into little more than a living lump of disinterest and later will probably kill you.

Alongside that daemon, Pullman gives people a body and a spirit, the body that lives in this world and is envied by the angels, and a spirit that travels to the world of the dead -- accompanied by our own Death, which is yet another entity that accompanies us, closely or distantly, throughout our life; our Death, like our Daemon, is a constant companion that is unique to us and has a bodily form.

These are spiritual concepts; the characters in the books travel through a variety of worlds, accompanied by a variety of entities who have different relationships with their daemons and souls and spirits and Deaths, but all of those other entities are not human. Pullman says that if you lack flesh and spirit and Death and your daemon, you are not human, and only humans with all of those things can experience the full range of life -- from our human lives with the senses and treats of the flesh to our deaths to our journey through the Afterlife to, eventually, dissipation.

Those are spiritual concepts; those are religious ideas. Those are the basic teachings that any organized religion tries to get across: that humans have something of the divine and something that is human and that we are unique among creation for that, and that makes our journey through creation unique, and imbues us with a responsibility towards that creation -- something that Pullman explicitly recognizes when he has a character [THIS IS THE BIGGEST SPOILER YOU WILL EVER READ] opt to leave behind happiness because short-term happiness for her would mean that she would not live a full life and her full life is necessary to turn her world into The Republic Of Heaven.

You see why I say that maybe people who say they are atheists aren't really? Pullman's whole trilogy was, in the eyes of some, aimed at tearing down religion, and yet the ultimate message of the book is that human beings becuase of their special nature have an obligation to build the Republic of Heaven. Pullman may not like organized religion, but he has written a trilogy that says that a specific person had a specific quality in her that meant she had to go through a lot of troubles and tests, which, when she survives them and returns to her world alive and intact, will help her lead her people into the Republic of Heaven. That does not sound atheistic to me.

But it does sound new, which is where I began on this huge digression. And everything about His Dark Materials is not just new, but also fantastically well done. I said that the first rule of writing is to tell a good story, and Pullman does that. He creates characters that are real and well-rounded and who grow on you over time and who are complex. He leaves you guessing about motives and keeps the pace of the story moving...

-- which is another place where, unfortunately, he outshines Tolkien, who had a tendency to drone on and on for pages about things that just weren't interesting. Did you ever try to read The Silmarillion? God, it's awful. And there are whole sections of The Fellowship of the Ring that might as well be an instruction manual--

...and follows a bunch of disparate threads of storylines that, in the great tradition of fantasy, realign at the end in ways that you might have imagined or might not have but they feel fresh, anyway.

Characters, in fact, are Pullman's strong suit. His characters, even the bit players, are fascinating, and he doesn't spend a lot of time talking about them; you get to know them through their actions and the story. He introduces them out of nowhere; suddenly, "Lee Scoresby" appears and you're thinking who's this? and a few chapters later you're holding your breath...

-- yes, I was holding my breath as I read --

while you read about Lee holding off a set of Russian soldiers on a rocky path, because you don't want any harm to come to him.

Standing above all of the other characters, too, is Mrs. Coulter, the woman who is so duplicitous, so untrustworthy, that the reader simply never believes anything that he or she reads about her. When Mrs. Coulter stops to make tea at one point, Pullman has built up the distrust to such a level that you think the tea must be part of a trap. How Pullman handles her character, the reason why he builds her up to such a level, is one of the masterstrokes of literature ever. I won't say anything about it to spoil it but I will say that Mrs. Coulter is one of the great characters in the history of writing, and one of the most complex because there is nothing about her that is worth liking or admiring and yet Pullman will make you like and admire her while hating her still.
All of these great characters go on this questing, battling journey through a ton of different worlds, all of which are more or less related to each other in different ways, and the story just gets bigger and bigger in scope. It starts with one little girl in a small college and moves on to a group of people going to rescue another group of people and turns into a couple of groups of people fighting each other over that rescue and eventually graduates into all the beings on all the levels of existence joining up into two giant armies to fight a battle that literally is for everything...

...and at the exact moment when it swells to that crescendo, Pullman takes it back down to the personal level again, and wraps things up somehow on both levels at the same time.

And all of it, like I keep saying, is new and different and fresh. It was something that was completely unlike any story I've ever read before. I just kept turning page after page and being astonished at how new and great the books kept getting. There have been a lot of great fantasy books written, but most of those were interesting stories that were well-written; they didn't break new ground, and it seemed as though they couldn't because Lord of the Rings had broken all the ground.

That's what made Lord of the Rings loom so large. But it lacked one thing; as great as Tolkien's story was, as compelling as his characters were, as broad in scope and well defined as his writing was, his story did not move off the page and into your thoughts. His story was... just a story. There's nothing wrong with that; it's the first rule of writing, after all.

But for true greatness, a story must begin to occupy a spot in your mind; it has to take root in your thoughts and get you not just caring about the characters, but absorbed in the philosophy of the story and ruminating on it, however consciously or unconsciouly you do so. It has to rise up past your eyes and into your mind, making you care about the characters because you understand them and their concerns and their concerns are somehow your concerns, too.

Lord of the Rings, as a trilogy, had a lot going for it, but because it defined so well the boundaries of a fantasy world, its heroes and villains and denizens have stopped being wondrous, the way that New York City stops being wondrous if you live there. And Tolkien's books never had grander scope that made it transcend being "just a story." You remember Tolkien's stories, but you don't think about them.

His Dark Materials presented something new and brilliant and entertaining. In time, Pullman may be seen to have redefined fantasy; in time, his witches and bears and angels may be so familiar to us that they are like the backs of our hands and they will join Tolkien's elves and dwarves in the lineup of the traditional; but for now, they are as unheard of as any characters we've ever seen. Those characters carry with them not just a great story, but a great deal of things to think about and mull over, as well.

Every other time I've read a great book, or set of books, like this, I finish, and I close the book, and I set it on my chest and I just relish it for a moment. Then, I think I wish all books could be like this.

I didn't wish that this time. I don't want any books to be like this. I want these books to stand, alone, at the top of the pantheon for all time as The Best Fantasy Trilogy.





Click here to see all the other topics I’ve ever discussed!


Snack Food:







Want a free t-shirt? Of course you do. Click there to find out how you can get one courtesy of The Best of Everything: Our Opinions Are Righter Than Yours.

Ever wonder who will win in a fight? What fight? ANY fight! My Dad Can Beat Up Your Dad will tell you.