Xark!

The Dark Knight: In Praise of Non-Origin-ality

I believe that one of the hardest aspects of any superhero mythology to bring to appreciative audiences is the origin story, be that of the hero him- or herself or of any of their various sidekicks, hangers-on, or especially villains. The stakes are always very high -- given our culture's linear psychology, the origin story necessarily provides the keystone for understanding the tempestuous tableau of daring-do that so thrill us fans. The pressure for the storytellers is palpable. Get it right, and the character acquires a depth and complexity that opens up sympathy and story lines; get it wrong, and fanboys and -girls the world over will barrage the blogosphere with boos and cry out curses at Comic Cons. At the heart of it all is the promise of unveiling the mystery -- of learning more. The TV show Lost has been using origin stories brilliantly as a narrative device, and I dare say that there are many fans who find the answers to the question of how everyone got to the island even more compelling than how they are going to finally get off.

Any fan of the superhero genre has their favorite origin story for a character, and by favorite I am of course implying the plural. Part of the fun, I believe, is that there are multiple origin stories to choose from (just how many spiders have bitten poor Peter Parker over his prolonged adolescence?), each competing to provide a better psychology than the one that came before. But originality is hard to perpetuate, particularly when dealing with characters like those from the Batman universe, where so many glimpses under that famous cowl have been provided by so many. And yet, as I joined apparently every other human being on the planet this past week in watching The Dark Knight, I couldn't help but be stunned by the originality of the origin story surrounding the Joker -- or, rather, the lack of an origin story, and how completely satisfying the absence of narrative turned out to be. This is probably a good time to issue a spoiler alert, so if you haven't seen the film, know that I will be discussing plot details after the jump....

Q-Tip, Comments, and the Inactive Imagination

A few months back (and I can't recall where), Dan commented on a small portion of an interview he conducted with Laurie Anderson when she was performing in Charleston.  If I remember correctly, Dan was asked Anderson about the excitement of new media and how it opened up avenues of artistic expression to more people, providing greater tools for DIY art. 

Anderson's response, you could tell, was somewhat disappointing to XARK’s fearless leader.  She observed that while there were certainly positive aspects, most of the work seemed less interesting.  When we’re all pulling our crayons from the same box, she noted, the work is bound to become somewhat less interesting, somewhat more homogenous.

One of the reasons I found her claim so interesting is that, like Dan and a lot of other folks, my tendency has been to celebrate the increasing access people have to a variety of tools as well as to a wider range of information.  Here was an interesting oppositional angle, coming from an “artist,” no less:  if we give the same tools to everyone, what makes any particular “artwork” or any particular statement, interesting?

Name that pitch

FRIDAY 5: Fan's Guide to Spotting Baseball Pitches from Dan Conover on Vimeo.

You can get the whole thing over at my Friday5 blog, but here's the video I cut today on how to recognize five different baseball pitches.

Oh, and this week's cartoon contest features a geek action hero.

Have at it, nerds. ;-)

iPhone Rashomon

Sloop flatters me with his story of my tech geekiness. Like him, I have waited for over a year to get my hands on the marvelous (if not entirely unproblematic) device known throughout the universe as iPhone (now, 3G). And I'm very excited for Sloop to be able to get one, and hope that his wait goes smoothly. For my part, I'm restraining myself by not texting him daily about how I'm texting him daily on my iPhone 3G. He has no ideas how hard that is for me not to do.

Anyway, instead of responding to Sloop's eloquent post, I thought I should provide an alternative version of events; not to dispute Sloop, but to provide additional perspective. My iPhone saga goes a bit differently than his, and although I consider it to have a happier ending -- in as much as I left the store with an iPhone in my possession -- it certainly came through much more frustration than his blissfully patient meditation. I provide this account solely for the historical record.

iWait, Happily

I want to be clear at the outset of this post that a reader should not expect anything profound or political in what follows.  Rather, this should be read simply as something of an encomium to the line management skills at the Apple Store at the Green Hills Mall in Nashville.  While it may have taken them a few days to adjust to the rush on iPhones, they adjusted admirably once they had a day or two to catch their breath. 

Here’s the story:  I’ve spent the last year delaying my purchase of any of the array of phone/digital messaging systems available that would interface with my email at work.  The delay had as much to do with the fact that my Bonnie had visions of me writing emails at a family dinner as it did with the fact that everyone I knew complained about their interface (e.g., Blackberry, Treo) save owners of iPhones.  And despite the fact that I’m an AT&T subscriber, the iPhone didn’t interface with the email system used at work. My friends were telling me that the iPhone was the only way to go, and my work tech guy was telling me that was the one direction I couldn’t choose.

And then came the new iPhone 3G.  Not only is it beautiful and relatively inexpensive, but it synchs perfectly with everything at the office.  Finally, I’m ready to make my purchase.  I knew better than to go anywhere near an Apple store on the first day of sales when all the Day One Tech Geeks are out in force.  I leave that up to my friends like Spibby for whom the iPhone, and some other select gear, serves a function beyond functionality. 

An energy plan we can believe in

There are times in the history of our nation when our very way of life depends upon dispelling illusions and awakening to the challenge of a present danger. In such moments, we are called upon to move quickly and boldly to shake off complacency, throw aside old habits and rise, clear-eyed and alert, to the necessity of big changes. Those who, for whatever reason, refuse to do their part must either be persuaded to join the effort or asked to step aside. This is such a moment.

“Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years. This goal is achievable, affordable and transformative. It represents a challenge to all Americans – in every walk of life: to our political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers, and to every citizen.”

Well. There's a simple, visionary plan from a guy whose life has earned him the credibility and stature to propose it: Reverse the trend in carbon emissions, end our dependency on foreign oil (thereby changing our relationship to the Middle East) and kick start our economy with new industries, new products, new services, new public works projects.

We rallied around Kennedy's call to put a man on the moon in 10 years and to do other grand things, "because they are hard." Well, we've got a better reason to do this: Because it's going to save our sorry asses.

Sure, we'll have the usual people telling us this is just more stupid libtard stuff. And to put it bluntly, screw 'em. They've had their time, and they blew it.

Anyway, I've just started a group at MyBarackObama.com to encourage the explicit adoption of this challenge. I'll post the URL as soon as it gets processed.

This week's caption contest

Opinion Polls & Market Research

With so many people on vacation, the weekly caption contest could use a boost. Vote for your favorite.

Which one is smarterer?

The view from South of Broad

(Click on image to see it full-size)

Of course, for the locals, the shorthand version for this entire map is just "Charleston" and "Off."

Graphic by Dan Conover for Xark!

The Favre Problem

So future first-ballot Hall of Famer Brett Favre is un-retiring, and the Green Bay Packers don't want him back.  That means one thing: Temporary pandemonium in the NFL.

First, and let's get this out of the way up front, Favre is 36 going on 12. Got it? You can call this personal character trait charming, charismatic, passionate, competitive, immature, selfish, stupid, whatever. It's all of those things. Favre's just a guy who will be in middle school his entire life. If you're into that, cool. If you're not, stay away.

Which brings us to our subject: Now that Green Bay has decided to pass on Favre's services, the Packers simply must trade him. All three of the Packers' NFC North opponents would start Favre if they had him, and the Minnesota Vikings would be extremely likely to make a determined run at signing him if he ever becomes available as a free agent. The Vikings with Favre would be an NFC Championship favorite, and they also happen to be the Packers' opening week opponent. Ouch.

Hence, this principle is so foundational that it goes beyond a mere rule and must be considered a given: You don't release Favre, because you can't ever allow him to wind up with an NFC North team. EVER. In fact, you might even put a "no-re-trade" clause in any deal you write, just to prevent your trading partner from flipping Farve to the Vikings for a blockbuster offer.

With that out of the way, here's...

RULE NO. 1:
BRETT FAVRE CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO STEP FOOT ON THE FROZEN TUNDRA OF LAMBEAU FIELD IN ANOTHER TEAM'S COLORS DURING THE 2008 SEASON

That's the Packer's nightmare scenario, and it's why they'll think short-term first. Screw 2009. Just don't allow Brett to stalk them on their home turf.

That removes non-division home opponents Dallas, Atlanta, Indianapolis, and Houston from the list of possible trade partners. Gone. No matter what they offer.

RULE NO. 2:
WRITE OFF THE PACKERS' 2008 ROAD OPPONENTS WHILE YOU'RE AT IT

Brett playing against your team is just a no-win situation for the Packers' front office.  So add Tampa, Seattle, Tennessee and Jacksonville to your "off-limits" list.

RULE NO. 3:
FLAG ALL POTENTIAL PLAYOFF OPPONENTS

Favre isn't likely to accept a trade to a non-contending team, which means you'll have to be very careful about trading him within the NFC. We've already removed seven NFC teams, and of the remaining eight only two are potential contenders that would have reason to consider trading:  The Arizona Cardinals and the Carolina Panthers.

Favre would start for both teams, and would likely make either the odds-on favorite in its respective division. 

Could the Packers trade him to Phoenix or Charlotte? Sure. But that added risk -- that Green Bay wins the North only to host Favre in a playoff game -- will have to add a punitive premium to the Packers'  trade requirements.  In other words, if the Cards  or the Panthers want him, they'll have to offer an absurd package of draft picks.

CONCLUSION: BRETT FAVRE IS HEADING TO THE AFC

There are five American Conference teams in the running, one of which makes perfect sense as his next employer and another that could turn a Favre signing into a cascade of good fortune. Read on...