I’ve read a lot of literary fiction lately, and I’ve also read the book-jacket synopses for a zillion new novels. Nowadays some of the big publishers send their catalogs to other, so I get to see the synopses of a lot of novels. Bear in mind, that doesn’t tell you what the novels are about, just what the publisher thinks the novels are about.

But anyway, I’ve been seeing a lot of novels with this basic description:

So-and-so is a successful professional who is mildly quirky in some way. All of a sudden, a member of the main character’s family dies or undergoes some major life change (marriage/bar mitzvah/whatever). The main character must leave his/her life behind and travel back to where he/she grew up. (Bonus points if the main character lives in New York and has to travel to somewhere rural.) Or else the main character must travel to some foreign land to Discover The Truth. Either way, the main character must come to terms with his/her family relationships — and uncover a Startling Truth about his/her family’s past. What the main character learns will change him/her forever.

Of course, there are always variations here and there, and some novels that have that basic storyline may be super inventive and fascinating. But to me, the above-mentioned storyline seems super hokey and boring. Bear in mind, we’re not talking about dumb beach novels. We’re talking about Literary Fiction.

This started me thinking: what is it about Americans and our obsession with Confronting the Past, or Reconciling With Family? It’s fashionable to moan about all literary fiction being about Suburban Angst, but the Confronting/Reconciling/Healing stuff seems to be more prevalent to me.

Is it that we all feel disconnected from our collective past, cut off from our roots? And we fantasize about what it would be like to reclaim our ancestry? (I should note that not all of the novels with this theme I’ve noticed lately are about white people, but many are.) Is it that we have a complex about being too modern and sophisticated and deracinated? Or is just that this is an easy structure to graft a narrative onto: X is happy until Y happens, and then X must learn a lesson from the past. The End. I sort of suspect it’s a mixture of all of those.

One thing often jumps out at me, though, when I see a novel that looks like it conforms to that pattern. I often find myself thinking, “So what? If I learned that my great-aunt used to be a trapeze artist before she married my great-uncle, I would shrug and maybe blog about it. I wouldn’t obsess about it for 300 pages and embark on a quest to learn the Whole Truth about my great aunt.” Does this mean that I’m just way, way too post-modern and disconnected from the past? Or am I just too sensible?

Yuck. I used to like David Broder, but in recent years he’s become not just a fuddy-duddy, but also a shoe-banger for the school of thought that Democrats must kiss up to Republicans in order to stay relevant. I remember him writing some extremely idiotic Op-Eds when Bush was trying to destroy Social Security and Democrats supposedly had to play along or else risk seeming irrelevant. So it’s no surprise that Broder thinks the shaky status of Joe Lieberman is the end of the world.

(A side note: Lieberman deserves to lose his seat not just because of the Iraq war, or because he literally kissed George Bush. He’s also said Catholic hospitals shouldn’t have to dispense emergency contraception to rape and assault victims, who instead should have to transport themselves to another hospital somewhere else. And of course he refused to come out against Bush’s Social Security plan.)

But that’s not the revolting part of Broder’s latest Op-Ed bemoaning what I hope will be the ignominous fate of Connecticut’s DINO. (Democrat In Name Only). The most disgusting part is the end, where Broder accuses supporters of Ned Lamont, Lieberman’s opponent, of being elitist, highly educated and wealthy, and then says that they’ll push the Democratic Party in a direction the rest of the country won’t support:

The people backing Lamont are nothing if not sincere. But their breed of Democrats — many of them wealthy, educated, extremely liberal — often pick candidates who are rejected by the broader public. Many of the older Lamont supporters went straight from Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern in the 1960s and ’70s to Howard Dean in 2004… Democrats everywhere are looking to Connecticut for clues about the party’s direction.

This is the dumbest old chestnut, the idea that the real elitists are brie-eating, chardonnay-drinking, over-educated liberals. Yes, there are many, many annoying people in Connecticut. It’s practically the state motto.

But the true elitists are the “Fortune 500 executives and well-connected Washington big-shots, all ponying up at least $1,000 to back the incumbent.” Lieberman’s donors are mostly the richest of the rich, while Lamont’s are “people who wouldn’t be recognized outside their own towns,” the Hartford Courant reports. They’re not dousing Lieberman with cash because of the war in Iraq, but because he’s been a shill for the wealthy for years. This article has a list of some of the more heinous acts, including a 1993 maneuver to allow corporations to cook their books using stock options — a move which eventually led to Enron and other disasters.
There was also a 1993 real-estate tax break, a 1995 vote to kill a ban on gifts from lobbyists, and a 1994 vote to cut off federal support for schools that offer counseling to suicidal queer youth. There’s way, way more at that last link.

So who are the real elitists, David?

(PS: MyDD has more about why Lieberman deserves to go down.)

That will teach me to post on the blog first thing in the morning. I left out the crucial bit of my argument. Which is that it makes no sense that the Amazons, after hundreds (thousands?) of years of isolation, suddenly decide to send one of their own off into the outside world as an ambassador. Why now? What makes them think the rest of the world is suddenly worth engaging with?

That’s where the Nazis come in. Because the Amazons see the rise of fascism, and the development of more and more horrendous means of mass slaughter, and it freaks them out a bit. So they have to send someone to help defeat the forces of evil, or even their secluded island won’t be safe any more. It makes much more sense as a motivation for Wonder Woman to do what she does, not to mention for her wearing the American flag and eagle and stuff.

That’s why whoever writes Wonder Woman now ought to give her a new mission, akin to the old Nazi-fighting one. Not just being a “white woman in a tiara talking Big Talk” as Priest puts it. She should have something driving her, just as Batman does.

“Wonder Woman is a stiff,” Priest wrote on his site a while back. “Wonder Woman is boring.” Priest makes some good points in this essay, and he’s one of my favorite comics writers of all time. But he also falls into the same trap as a lot of other people: viewing Wonder Woman’s mission as sharing her ancient and pure values “with us dumb Americanskis.”

The problem with Wonder Woman isn’t that she’s a woman, or that she’s too noble and pure to be an interesting character. I don’t even think her problem is that she comes from a Pagan, polytheistic culture as Ragnell argues. (Although Ragnell makes some excellent points about WW being written schizophrenically and her personality changing drastically depending on her writer.) The problem with Wonder Woman is this whole idea that she came to our world to teach us about peace and niceness and caring.

She didn’t. She came here to fight Nazis. That’s all.

Of course WW is going to be boring if you show her writing self-help books and giving speeches about peace and justice. Think about it: when the Amazons decided to send one of their number to our world, did they test candidates on their oratorical skills? Did they administer writing tests to make sure whoever they sent could write the best book on how to be a decent person? No, the tests were all about running and dodging bullets and racing Kangas.

(Side note: I didn’t read all of the Rucka issues, but it seemed a tad schizophrenic that he played up the “ambassador of peace” thing, but then after she went and beheaded Max Lord, she was all, “but I’m a warrior! It’s what I do!” Did that seem weird to anyone else? Maybe if I’d read every single issue it would have gelled for me.)

That’s why Wonder Woman is different from Superman or Batman. You can easily explain the origin of Superman or Batman without resorting to 1930s/1940s references. But Nazis are part of Wonder Woman’s origin, the same as Captain America. The Amazons sent her to America because the Nazis were plunging the whole world into war, and threatening the entire world with destruction.

I’m not suggesting that whoever writes Wonder Woman now needs to integrate her origin with World War II again. (Although didn’t they retcon it so that Diana’s mother was Wonder Woman in World War II? I never read those issues, so I’m not sure.) Just, you know, give her a mission that involves saving the world from some Nazi-like enemies. Not Islamic terrorists. But maybe Kobra? Or maybe the Amazons weren’t really sure who was going to cause the disaster they foresaw, so Wonder Woman has to stop a whole bunch of sinister plots just to be on the safe side. Maybe sometimes she has to take drastic action and the other heroes are concerned. It could be like the Shadow War of Hawkman, only without Dan Mishkin taking over writing halfway through.
What do you think?

At first blush a “Sunset Commission” sounds like a
decent idea. In a nutshell, you have a commission to examine U.S. government departments or programs
that have outlived their usefulness. You know, like all those legendary programs to bring electricity to rural areas, or develop the Platonic ideal of mohair. Congress could vote to eliminate those programs, or not, depending on whether the commission’s recommendations were persuasive. Right?
Unfortunately, as with a lot of Republican proposals, the devil is in the details here. Both versions of the “Sunset Commission” proposal that are being rushed through the House have serious problems, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. For one thing, the Commission wouldn’t be elected or bipartisan, but would instead by appointed by the President and would consist, almost entirely, of members of the President’s party. For another thing, both bills have mechanisms to slash programs even if Congress doesn’t want them slashed. In one version, legislation to cut “obsolete” programs would be “fast-tracked,” meaning House members would have ten hours to debate it before a vote in the full House. The other version would automatically abolish agencies targeted by the Commission unless the House specifically voted to reauthorize them.

These proposals, like “line-item veto” proposals, are predicated on the idea that the major budget challenge is “pork-barrel spending”. In fact, the major challenge is entitlement programs, especially Medicare, which are set to run out of control in the next few decades. True, Republicans have pushed through obscene amounts of earmarks and giveaways to big-money donors. But a Republican-appointed commission or a Republican president is hardly likely to target those items for cuts. (Congress gave the president a line-item veto in 1996 but it was declared unconstitutional in 1998. Bush is pushing for a new version of the line-item veto now.)

Of course, if the GOP was serious about averting fiscal disaster, lawmakers would focus on eliminating huge tax breaks for a tiny minority of the wealthy. But in fact, the Sunset proposals are just another piece of evidence that those tax cuts were designed, all along, to force cuts in programs that help the most vulnerable citizens.

Writing is Fighting

Originally uploaded by misterjt.

People have been gearing up for the BlogHer conference for weeks, by talking with bloggers they don’t know, sort of an icebreaker project. I interviewed Chadie from Workers’ Dojo and also Laina Dawes, who had intended to come but it turns out she’s not going to make it after all. But I like her blog, “Writing is Fighting”. She’s a heavy metal fan; a music reviewer and freelance writer from Toronto. We met briefly at South by Southwest Interactive, where she was a panelist. Here’s my email interview of Laina:

BlogMe interview, pre-BlogHer 2006:

Laina Dawes of Writing is Fighting.

> 1. When did you start blogging and why? Or Talk about your blog. What
> can I learn about you in under 5 minutes?

I started blogging for three reasons. The first was to create a portfolio to expand my freelance writing work. I soon realized that my writings weren’t exactly ‘user friendly’ but because I got a lot of positive feedback, I continued to write. Also, I wanted to join a community of relatively young black thinkers who were discussing issues that affected us in this post 9/11 era.
>
> 2. What is your favorite thing that you wrote? What got a strong reaction
> from readers? Links please?

For some reason, a post I wrote called “Is Rock and Roll Racist?” http://lainad.typepad.com/writing_is_fighting/2005/08/is_rock_n_roll_.html
get a lot of hits. I think it’s because of the Lynrd Skynrd reference. The other one that got alot of hits was “Is Prussian Blue a Good Thing?” post, which I had to remove, but basically it was looking at the absurdity of the two sisters who were singing “white pride” music. I got alot of angry comments on that one – and it was linked to the Stormfront (a white supremacist) website, which was very scary. I was sure someone was going to come and beat my ass.

>
> 3. Public vs. private, blogs vs. closed mailing lists, publishing vs.
> gossip among friends. How do you feel about putting your thoughts out in
> public discourse? How has it been productive for you as a writer/thinker?
> How has it affected you negatively or what are your worries?

I think (and my mother, too) that it has hindered me in terms of structured employment. I don’t get too personal on my site(no sex stuff), simply because I have friends and relatives that occasionally read the site, and I don’t want to offend or hurt anyone’s feelings – unless they deserve it! It has made me more productive as a writer, because it forces me to be aware of what’s going on in the media, pop culture and the blogsphere, and breaks down my narrow-mindedness. I have slowly improved my grammatical skills, as I have read enough blogs to know what turns potential readers off. What I plan to expand on is providing more music reviews and articles because I am a alternative / metal fanatic and I love to write about newly released albums and artists I love, and I want break the stereotype that exists that black folks should only listen to popular genres of black-oriented music. After all, Rock music IS black music, but that has been misconstrued over the generations. I like to challenge musical racial segregation.

As a writer who has chosen to write about my ethnicity and issues that affect my people, it is a risk, as I have probably been lumped into being a ‘one note’ writer, or being stereotyped as an Angry Black Woman, but all I can do is write about my experiences and the situations I and people I know have witnessed. It seems to be popular nowadays for people to pretend that racism does not exist anymore, that people who talk about it are simply “whiners.” What I aim to do is to not only critique race and racism, but to start a dialogue that is condusive for people to talk about issues in an open and intelligent manner. With Blogher, in my experience, there are alot of people who have not had to think about some of the issues I raise, and they feel uncomfortable, not wanting (or perhaps) not caring to comment. I think that is my main concern. Oh and landing a job as a staff writer for a publication.

>
> 4. Professional life and blogging. Has blogging helped you as a freelance
> writer? How could it help more?

I have gotten some freelance work because of my blog and my online portfolio, http://www.lainad.com, but I could use some more! I think that the main hindrance is what I stated above – it is easy to dismiss someone who is talking about issues that you either have no interest in or have no experience dealing with on a personal basis. I want my blog to show people that yes, I can write and can write on a myriad of subjects, but on the other hand, I refuse to conform in order to appease others’ beliefs. So I guess I’m kinda screwed, eh?
>
>
> 6. Music. What are your favorite music blogs, or band sites/myspaces?
> What’s your favorite nostalgia/comfort music? What have you noticed lately
> as being great? As a music critic how do you feel about negative reviews?
> (I think about this as a book reviewer – and I try to be nice but there
> are times especially when someone’s overhyped, that I feel like I’ve got
> to speak up and point out why they suck.)

Favourite Music Blogs: Oliver Wang’s http://www.Soul-Sides.com, and definitely http://www.ejflavors.com/

Favourite nostalgia / comfort music: Judas Priest, Led Zepplin, Black Sabbath, Steve Miller Band. The Beatles, Stevie Wonder, Robera Flack – reminds me of my childhood, listening to my parents albums.

Music Criticism – I don’t like to give bad reviews. Perhaps it is because I know that a bad review in a national music publication can kill the career of an artist, but if I receive something I don’t like, I simply won’t review it – I don’t do alot of paid reviewing, but I wish I did…maybe then I would change my mind on this. Plus, it is kind of arrogant for a blogger – someone who is voicing their own opinion, free of charge – to tell people NOT to buy a particular CD. If you really don’t like something and are forced to write about it, spend the time on what is it about the CD you feel is faulty, instead of just panning it because it isn’t in the genre of the music you usually listen to. That’s why I don’t base my musical choices on the blogs I read and am very selective about who I read – like Robert Christagau from the Village Voice, who writes with an agenda that I don’t particuarly like.
>
> 7. How do you think that blogging works as activism?

It is the “voice of the voiceless.” People who are silenced – don’t have the access to write for mainstream publications or do not want to, whose writing will never be appropriate for the mainstream media, have a platform. I think that blogs can create communities of like-minded indivdudals and through expression and knowledge can come activism. Knowledge is then shared and is spread outside of the blogsphere. A great example is Hurricane Katrina and all of the people who were affected who blogged about what was going on in the affected areas. I am sure that this spawned alot of people to either donate or at least be aware of the racial politics that are deterring the proper attention that needs to be given to the people of the Lower 9th Ward and other affected areas. I think that blogging puts everyone on the same playing field – or at least it is constructed that way. Now the problem is that the mainstream is now seeping into the blogsphere!

For some reason this wacky Brazilian gender-switching comedy flick was premiered at the MOMA in NYC yesterday. In a nutshell, a macho advertising exec named Claudio switches bodies with his “sensitive” choir-directing wife Helena. It’s basically a mash-up of The Hot Chick (starring Rob Schneider) with Freaky Friday. The basic structure is borrowed almost wholesale from Freaky Friday, but a lot of the material comes from the Hot Chick. It lifts the scene where Rob Schneider, his body now inhabited by some Lindsay Lohan lookalike, tries to figure out how to pee like a guy and winds up peeing all over his pants. Good times! It also lifts a subplot from What Women Want, where Mel Gibson’s advertising exec learns how to sell crap to women by reading their thoughts. Here it’s advertising exec Claudio who becomes a better garbage sales person because his body is now inhabited by his wife. The movie seems to want to say something about gender roles, since there’s some hand-waving before the mystical gender-switch about how Claudio needs to “get in touch with his feminine side” and vice versa, but it’s never clear how that happens. The film goes out of its way to show that they’re still the same people, even in different bodies. The most interesting scene in the film is the one where Claudio shows that, even in Helena’s body, he can still kick her ass using Judo. He’s in the middle of telling her that he’s stronger than her because he’s a guy, even though he’s now in a woman’s body. She tries to overpower him using her superior male muscles, and he flips her over and pins her, leading to fade-to-black sex. So guy “strength” is something innate, that Claudio continues to possess after his brain has been transferred into Helena’s body? Or women can kick ass as hard as men if they know how? The filmmakers go to some trouble to set that scene up, showing us Claudio learning Judo at the start of the film. But it’s not clear what the film’s trying to tell us. At the end, there’s a tacked-on-seeming scene over the credits where Claudio and Helena lecture us that the differences between men and women are good and don’t need to be fixed. Oh, and there’s wacky CGI effects of Mars and Venus going into alignment with Earth, which somehow causes the gender-switch and then its reversal. Weird stuff, but it’s too bad the filmmakers didn’t create something more original instead of poaching a bunch of Hollywood films.

Just a quick link to a round-up of posts so far in International Blog Against Racism Week.

Link .

Hey, I just noticed that She’s Such A Geek, the book that Annalee and I co-edited, is available for pre-order on Amazon.com. And they’re offering a huge discount right now, so it would be an awesome time to pre-order your copy!

In my experience, people don’t “cry racism at the drop of a hat” because it spawns LJ discussions of 200+ comments, the tail end of which become increasingly vicious. People don’t “cry racism at the drop of a hat” because it means other people will automatically write them off as Angry People of Color or People with Lots of White Liberal Guilt. People don’t “cry racism at the drop of a hat” because the thought of confronting the thorny issues of race and racism in America in a public forum, in a casual conversation, in class, at work, anywhere is too touchy, makes people too uncomfortable.