Dear Goodboy

Dear Goodboy,

 

Well, here we are—that time of year again. Have to start doing things you won’t like, namely getting up extra early to take you on the first walk of the day, and I know you know what that means: shortly after we’ve traipsed through your choice grass patches and past your favorite smelling bushes, I’ll start cleaning sleep off my body and cooking breakfast and making tea and arranging the apartment so that the things I don’t want you reaching are unreachable. And you know what that means.

 

Yes, my boy, I’ll be leaving for a few hours. I know, I know. Why, you’re asking. You don’t get it. What’s the point of leaving, aside from walking through the neighborhood and sniffing things and peeing on them? What else is there? And look at everything in here? Food. Water. Comforts. Pillows. Blankets. Artificially controlled environment. Remember how hot it was last week? You really want to venture out into that?

 

I know, and you’re right. It sucks. If there’s anything I know for sure in this giant chaos of an existence, it’s that things are better with you. Life these last months has been perfect. Wake, walk, make breakfast and coffee for mater, see her off to work, then it’s back to bed for a few hours of sleeping (for you, sometimes me) and writing (sometimes me) and reading (often me) and watching reruns of TV from my youth that you’re fairly indifferent to, though you never judge, do you? And when the writing goes poorly, you’re don’t have any critical feedback, just kind words: Chill—it’s fine. Just try again tomorrow. Take a nap with me.

 

Yeah, working is better with you nearby. Everything is. So why do I plan to leave tomorrow—and the day after that and the day after that—for so many hours? Why? Well, boy, I have a job, and that job affords me a nice stretch of time over the summer to stay home and be with you, but eventually they expect me back at work. Knowing that many people leave their dogs at home every day year-round hardly offers consolation, I know, but try to remember that were it not for my job, we’d not have had all these weeks of relaxing together. I’m trying to keep that in mind as I gear up for another sixteen weeks of standing in front of young people and saying things and facilitating discussion and whatever else I do all day long. (I won’t bore you with the details, boy.) Unlike most people, I don’t make claims that my job is any more important than it is, though I do know that there are worse things a person could do for money, and that, at its best, my job is noble or at least well-meaning in intent and sometimes in execution. But yeah, hardly offers much solace.

 

And I also know that you’ll sleep through most of the hours I’m away, but that hardly helps because I also know that you sleep better on my lap. Right? Yeah. I knew it.

 

How to explain money to you. I mentioned it earlier, but I saw the way you looked at me. Confusion. No idea what it means, right? I could try, list all the things you need and enjoy. Food, especially. You like it, right? Not just an imperative—you enjoy eating. Sadly, that costs money. No one is giving us food without expecting something in return. What’s that? Oh, yeah. Right. You eat things off the ground. I know you think that if you walk long enough and sniff everything, edible material will present itself. And you’re not wrong, but a lot of that stuff is bad for your belly, boy. You don’t know that. I do. And I’ll tell you, it sucks to know that, to have to pull you away from that half-eaten chicken wing some asshole thoughtlessly discarded on the sidewalk. Anyway—back to your food, the kind you have to eat, the good kind, not the trash on the sidewalk: it costs money, so I have to go back to work tomorrow and earn that money. Otherwise, we’re out on the street, boy, where there’s only scraps of garbage to eat and no shelter from the elements, and no thick blankets to hide under when it thunders and no end of worries. So yeah, food and shelter are necessities. So it’s off to work I go.

 

But know this: I’m coming home. In a few hours. And when I do, we’ll immediately go for a walk. And I’ll feed you. And we’ll snuggle. And play. And we can get back to bed and reading and sleeping and you can scratch at the blanket when you get cold and I’ll let you under and we can sleep like that for hours before tomorrow when I’ll have to leave you. And again the day after. But I’ll come home tomorrow. And the day after as well. And no diversions between work and home—no stops at the bar or unnecessary delays. I prefer the food at home. And the company. Nothing is as good out there as it is in here with you. I’ll leave, sure, but I’ll spend the day trying to get back home. And when I do, I know how happy you’ll be to see me. Which always feels nice, but the nice is nothing compared to the lousy of leaving you.

Dave Grohl, the Last Rock Star. Thank God.

 Look, I’m no fan. I admit that up front. So take from that admission that this will not be an essay of praise, but I will try my damnedest not to let this devolve in pure trash talk.

 

To begin—I watched a clip of Dave Grohl and that other guy from the Foo Fighters, the one who died, on Conan O’Brien’s show talking about how stupid the name of their band is. Which it is, but hey— some of us like stupid names. Even the best rock band of the late 80s, The Pixies, had a stupid name. The real reason I watched the clip was because the video title hinted that Dave would shit talk Nirvana’s old drummers. I expected (hoped?) that Dave might say a word against the Melvins’ great Dale Crover, my favorite drummer in rock history. (Yeah, I factor Bonham into my estimation.) Dale Crover was in Nirvana more as a fill in when they were without a permanent drummer, and he did play on a few tracks from Bleach, but, as we know, Dave Grohl was sitting behind the kit for the rest of their short career.

 

Grohl said nothing about Crover. Smart man— Crover is a monster wielding both power and subtly on those skins. Not that Grohl is a bad drummer, but. . . he’s no Dale Crover. Which is what I believe Kurt Cobain never let him forget, the Melvins being Cobain’s favorite band and the guys he looked up to/modeled Nirvana after. But I would have understood some shit talk; how often can one hear “Play more like Dale” before resentment sets in. And if you’re now that famous, whereas the Melvins remain a cult favorite, why not use your position for ego boosting?

 

Credit Grohl that he left it alone, and before I turn this into more of a Dale > Dave essay, let’s get on to what really concerns me.

 

I was thinking about how many people I know who love The Foo Fighters. And how little I care for that band. I am aware that me simply not liking a band in no way makes them “bad.” Again, I’m clearly in the minority, as Grohl is a bona fide rock star who plays stadiums and has his music in movies and commercials and all over terrestrial radio and streaming playlists. He’s a rock star, but what does that mean?

 

I’m wondering if being a rock star is even a thing anymore. The biggest names in the music world (that I’ve heard of, at least) are named Taylor or Beyoncé or come from South Korea. None of them play with I would call rock music. If you asked the Boomers in my life, they’d lament that a certain museum in Cleveland features pop acts and rappers, not what they’d call rock and roll. And they’d be (mostly) right, but again, so what? Well, if we’re going to make genre distinctions, then what remains of rock and roll or the shortened, and to my thinking, more malleable genre “rock”?

 

A Google search of “rock bands 2023” yields this list: Greta Van Fleet (never heard of her), Blink-182 (not as punk as they or their fans think they are), Metallica (certainly no longer metal), Imagine Dragons (I can, but I have no idea who they are), The Lumineers (folk, right?), Red Hot Chili Peppers (not rock, or funk for that matter, or punk or. . . what the fuck is that band?) and, yup, Foo Fighters. Despite my limited knowledge, these are surely big names, one of them definitely a rock band. Maybe the biggest in the world. Helmed by little Davey Grohl with Pat Smear by his side. Pat Smear! Of the Germs. So there’s an actual punk rock veteran in the band. But Dave Grohl is no Darby Crash, and this is no punk band. This is a rock band. The kind that makes songs for the video game Rock Band.

 

A rock band is a platonic ideal. Or aims to be. These days, we use the term “rock star” to describe a good parking spot. But the genre is hardly ancient (despite what the sagging visage of Keith Richards might lead one to conclude). And we humans have a notoriously poor grasp of history (we Americans— even worse), so to most of the living, the term “rock star” is imbued with a sense of timeless importance, cultural relevance, and a charmingly roguish cache of influence. Or not. Come to think of it, do the kids— the part of our population that really matters— give a goddamn? I don’t think any of the students I work with care about the Foo Fighters or rock and roll or rock stars. They love pop icons, they like something akin to rock music, but they are not thinking of rock stars the way my uncles thought of Aerosmith or the way I worshipped Eddie Van Halen. They may wear Ramones and Led Zeppelin T-shirts, but Gen Z doesn’t seem to care about rock music. I dare say they’d disparage Keith Moon’s hotel destroying antics. Such an asshole! Why didn’t he lead young people to voting polls like Chance the Rapper or spend an hour signing autographs like Taylor Swift?

 

Of course, there are still plenty of asshole musicians acting like spoiled idiots. They tend to do things like make it rain in the club or flaunt their wealth on Instagram, a post-Reagan era manner of demonstrative excess. But the chaotic, shambling mess on stage whipping his dick out or shooting heroin is a rarity if not a memory. At least in stadiums. If rock is alive, it’s in smaller venues, where, I’d argue, it’s always belonged. There may be nothing worse than a big outdoor stadium rock show. The fucking worst. But the old, dirty, small, chaotic clubs are still around and still letting a lot of great (and not so great) bands set up their gear and tear through three-chord RAWK! God bless these clubs. As if the tone of this essay were not enough of a giveaway, let me confess that I am of that age where I no longer frequent these establishments, but I pass the Metro and the Riv and the Bottom Longue and I see the names of bands on the marquees and think, Ah yes. Rock is not dead. Just rehoused. Or rerehoused? For while the rock never left the clubs, the bigger names did. (A guy who worked at the Vic once told me, “We get ‘em on the way up and on the way down.”)

 

I’ve heard Grohl tell the story of visiting Chicago and seeing Naked Raygun and having his mind blown or ass kicked or something somethinged. Stands to reason— Naked Raygun were one of the best bands around, still a favorite in the Francone household, dare I suggest the best band to come out of Chicago. They were punk, or at least punks liked them. But they were a band that played clubs, not arenas. Thank god. They were local heroes, not rock stars. They sang “What poor gods we do make,” and it made sense. Punks were never meant to be worshipped. They were no different than the audience, which is why part of the club experience involved jumping on stage or singing into the microphone when the band stuck it into the crowd. Punk’s ethos was always DIY. Anyone could do it. Grab a guitar. Bash out some chords. Give voice to your passion. Do it small, cheap, fast. Break away from the bloat of mid-1970s prog and overly theatrical shows. Sure, you can love and worship Bowie— he was a rock star, my favorite. But punks were the children of rock stars. The angry, funny brats who didn’t see value in aping Led Zeppelin. And who the fuck wants to sit in nosebleed seats and endure 20-minutes of “Whole Lotta Love” when the Ramones could give you a tighter set at CBGBs?

 

Come to think of it, was punk a reaction against mid-70s rock star bullshit or was it a return to rock’s core values?

 

Dave Grohl has some punk DNA, maybe. He played in Nirvana, a kinda punk band or a band that represented the next stages in what was already a genre that moved on. By the time grunge came along we were way past post-punk much less punk, which had morphed into hardcore. (Ah, sub-genres.) Grunge had the same elements: fifth chords, loud drums, plucked root notes on the bass. It felt a little sloppy. (I still recall fondly a friend’s reaction to the end of “Serve the Servants”: “I hate when bands don’t know how to end a song.”) It may have even felt vital at the moment (oh, to be young again), but it wasn’t too different from 70s garage rock mixed with Black Sabbath doom. The remnants of that short-lived and glorious time when I was fashionable (easy enough when dressing like shit becomes a fad) are a handful of bands that skirted along the grunge borders and offered up mostly uninspiring listener-friendly fare (Hello, Pearl Jam). Of course, the Melvins, often credited as the ur-grunge band, are still around though they never accepted being classified as grunge alongside Tad and Mudhoney. But I digress.

 

So yeah, back to whatever point I was aiming at. Grohl may claim some indie rock cred because he played drums for a band that started off underground, though shortly after he joined they became the biggest fucking band in the world. Which is fine— I’m not critiquing Grohl for his lack of indie-punk credibility. But it’s hard to see him as ever being anything other than a rock star in the sense that his first band was huge and his follow up is even bigger. And it only takes listening to his music to know that he was made to play unexceptional but undeniably pleasing rock tunes. And good for him. I suppose the world needs a few of them, though hopefully better than “Monkey Wrench.”

 

(Okay, I will say that “Everlong” is a solid tune. Great riff, melody— just a good song. But that’s about the only one I like.)

 

Actually. . . do we need rock stars? Nah. They had their time, and the best of them were of a moment (the late 60s-mid 80s) when such antics (hotel trashing, losing your mind on coke, bloated excess) was lamentably tolerated, but we’re older now, hopefully smarter. Not to mention there’s little to rebel against when you’re pulling in that kind of cash. The Stones, the Who, I love their music, but Jesus, fellas, give it a rest. Let the pop icons dominate. They’re supposed to be big and shiny. But rock? It’s always been best when it was dirty, raw, sweaty, a little unpolished, slightly underproduced, very dangerous. Rock and roll, to quote the Secret Chiefs 3, “is a thing that needs to die.” Or at least shuffle back to the small clubs.

Failed or Abandoned?

It’s been a year or so since I wrote on this blog. Because:

  1. I’ve been writing other things that may or may never see the light of day but are better than this blog, or worse I guess, but that’s not for me to decide.

  2. I’ve been busy on my other project: JABBER.

  3. Blogging is passé, I suppose, at least in comparison to Substack, which all my writer friends seem to be on, though I can’t get it up to bug anyone with my own Substack newsletter. Chalk it up to the midwestern in me.

In an effort to justify the existence of this website and this page on it, I’m resurrecting old, failed, or possibly just abandoned writings that were supposed to be something. Seems right to start this series (?) off with an old poem draft from 2020 that stops abruptly and which I’ve made no effort to edit or expand. Let it live and die here. This may also be the last poem I’ve written or tried to write, having been busy committing the offense of prose for some time now.

Anyway, here it is in all it’s unfinishedness:

The dog has ceased twitching, shifted from dream to awake without, I imagine,

noticing the difference

but he’s giving me that look right as I’m midway through this YouTube celebration

of Ciaran Carson’s life and work

my favorite poet died just over one year ago, Derek Mahon following almost to the day

not unlike when

each of the Ramones died as if someone said “1-2-3-4!”

 

I find the video on my phone, plug in the earbuds I don’t enjoy

that have woven into my every day,

fish the bags and keys and dance

over the dog too stoked by the thought of good smells

to not be underfoot.

 

We’re outside—I’ve missed two beats, am suddenly at the start

of this poet—whose debut collection has been on my shelf

the better part of this year—reading “Gallipoli”

and I want to say I’m back in D.C. in 2007

listening to the man on stage bring the house down

reading the lines at an accelerating pace

until the devastating last words (though

when I listened, years later, to a recording of the event

Carson read slowly, letting every syllable

have its moment, patient, like his poems)

but that’s for the Frank O’Hara copycats

of which I am one, though not today—I am not transported

to a smoky jazz club—Lady Day is long gone.

 

I’m walking my dog in Chicago.

The streets are not as I would like.

I’d hoped for a quiet walk through the fall colors

and to enjoy the online celebration

while my dog searches for

the perfect place to shit.

But garbarge trucks and

FedEx vans and

Amazon Prime deliveries

are making too much noise.

I can’t hear

even with my earbuds in

and my dog hates the hiss

of the truck as it creeps along

our block, and the music from

the trucks is not to his taste.

 

He’s changed routes three times already

zig-zagging, sniffing, catching a start

from the clatter and the laughing

Loyola University students out

without wearing masks

even though we’re still deep

into this pandemic. I give

wide berth as they pass,

don’t want their COVID, their

marijuana stink, their

laughter to drown out

whatever poem we’re on—something

from “On the Night Watch” I think.

 

And we get to Devon

the street that separates
one neighborhood from another

the one I live in

not quite better

the one to the south

possessing better smells

or so says my dog

who’s outright insisting

we cross this busy road

unaware that more trucks

are ready to cut us in two—

where’s his fear now?

 

And here we are in Edgewater.

Flower pots and front porches

that’ve seen easier days,

VOTE signs in the postage stamp lawns,

suspicious women eyeing me—

or is it my dog?

It’s him—he’s setting up

to piss on some shrub

that she likely devoted days

to keeping alive, and here

is this beast of the Earth

ready to do as he pleases

right on the green

having already claimed 

a dozen fronds and patches of grass

so I know he’s dry, try to explain

to the woman now directly

leering at me that there’s nothing

he’ll let loose that’ll upset her shrub

but that’s no consolation.

 

We beat it back the way we came

after sufficient

 

 And so it stops. After sufficient what? Clearly, I had something in mind. No idea what, it being 2+ years since I wrote it. And yeah… nothing so great here, though the old Vince— the one who spent hours editing his poems— would have found some lines or phrases to to revise. Alas, we hardly knew him.

On Libraries

Two Doctors, Columbus Ohio Public Library

 

Maybe 1984? I don’t remember when, just that I’m a kid, a youngin’, rugrat, pudgy little weirdo who has maybe read a comic or two before, but Dad decides a trip to the library is a good idea, mostly because he wants to exchange whatever he’s read for another book. And yeah, I know there are these places called libraries—each elementary school I’ve attended has one, but they’re places where we play more than read books or do anything serious, except for the library in the Catholic school I went to from first to third grade. They didn’t have a library, or maybe they did? There was that room with a few books and a desk, but it was nothing like the library at my next school or my current school, Wilkins Elementary, where I’m currently enrolled yet on reprieve, this being summer.

 

I spend summers with Dad because he and Mom are divorced, the best thing to ever happen in my young life not because the divorce ripped our family apart and took me and Mom and the big brother to the Chicago suburbs and left Dad in Ohio, no, I love Dad and don’t want to be away, but, you know, what would they have been if they’d stayed together? A train wreck, right? Fuck if I want to wake up to fighting parents who don’t understand that sound travels the short distance from the kitchen to their child’s bedroom.

 

So there’s Dad taking us into this place with rows of books and desks, like the school library but bigger, and he’s telling me and the big brother that we can check out whatever we like, encouraging us, really, Go ahead, pick out something, and I find a book on Vincent Van Gogh who I’ve decided I’m interested in because we have the same name, though all I know, and all I want to read about, is that this madman cut his ear off. Tomorrow I’ll skip to the end of the book and look for that, because he must’ve cut it off late in life— can you even survive that? Won’t you bleed out? I’ll be let down when little of this book discusses the gory self-mutilation, focusing instead on brushstrokes and shadows and things I know nothing of, but I’m getting interested, maybe I should become a painter?

 

The big brother is getting a book on sports. Dad’s is about some president who’s dead by now. He assesses the three texts as we check out and says, “Well, this is a paradox,” and I don’t know the word but I’ll look it up later and wonder if this is the right context, if a synonym might’ve worked better, but no, I’ll not think that because I’m a kid and what do I know? Instead, I’ll ask another adult, “What’s a paradox?” and they’ll answer, “Two doctors.”

 

 

A is For Addict. Bridgeview Public Library

 

Though I’m too young for it, I’ve seen this movie A Clockwork Orange and found a book by the same name in the Waldenbooks at Chicago Ridge Mall. But I decide that living a few minutes from the Bridgeview Public Library has its advantages, one of them being I don’t have to sacrifice my allowance money, which I’ve not really earned, to the corporate mall bookshop, though I’m too young to care about class warfare and am not engaging in critiques of capitalism or anything so academic, no, I’m just looking for a free book that might be as good as The Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, the book my stepdad told me was a lot of fun, and he was right, read it, read the next few books in the series, the so-called trilogy that is now up to four books, another coming before the author kicks the intergalactic bucket. A Clockwork Orange should be as fun, right? If the movie is any indication, yes, indeed, absolutely.

 

The librarian is not thrilled to explain the Dewey Decimal System, really just how to find the card with the call number and how to use that breadcrumb to find the hiding Hansel and Gretel, mixing metaphors maybe? Sorry. Ahem.

 

There is it, at last, after missteps and distractions and near-giving up, I see the book by Anthony Burgess, nice and clean but smells musty, a scent I’d soon be used to, maybe even fond of, though it’ll someday cause conversation with cohabitors about the stink of old books clouding up the air in here, what the hell?

 

According to the intro to the book, the author was not fond of the movie version. And there’s a last chapter in this novel that the movie ignored. Suddenly I get what the teachers have been saying, that the book is always better, that there’s more to discover in pages than what celluloid has to offer, the director and producer and actor having stepped on the text. This shit is pure! What a rush. I’m hooked.

 

Cynical Bastard, St. Laurence High School Library

 

I’m mistaken for someone with a similar name, odd considering no one else has my name, but she’s old this woman in the library, and so when she asks me to assist her, I ought to be a “nice little lamb,” as my English teacher calls his students, but I’m not in the mood and am already concocting some bullshit about being late to class. Have I responded too roughly? Apparently so, but she thinks I work here, is, yep, mistaking me for some student employee whose last name is not really that close to mine, maybe we share the first five letters, an honest mistake— she’s new.

 

However sassy or otherwise my refusal, it makes no difference, because I’m in hot water, doesn’t matter that she made the mistake or that I may have been busy and late to class (not really). No, what matters is that I’m rude to an adult, a superior, not a Brother or Teacher, but someone nevertheless above me, which is pretty much everyone at this school. So later, when Brother M. catches me in the hall and chews me out, which I suspect he’d like to literally do (or is that figuratively? Not sure, but he wants to get part of me in his mouth, fucking perv, ass grabber), well, I’m a little taken aback and try to explain that she thought I was he, not me, not a kid using the library to study, no, she thought I worked there, but he’s not having it.  

 

“You don’t speak to her that way,” he says, then calls me a “cynical bastard,” and I have to ask Mom what that word means. “Cynical,” not “bastard”— I know that word.

 

The Way of All Texts, Moraine Valley Community College Library

 

I don’t think there will ever be a library I’ll love more than this one, where I’ll spend more of my free time, this fountain in the basement floor is a perfect place to sit and read most of Prizzi’s Honor and a lot of The Godfather— I’m into mafia books at the moment— and none of them books I’m supposed to be reading for class, none of them being “classroom appropriate.” Except for Vonnegut, who I’ve just discovered and who my comp teacher likes, so much so that he asked me, “Which class is that for?” when he saw me reading Slaughterhouse-Five, and when I said, “None,” he was impressed, and yeah, it felt good because I’ve never impressed a teacher before. I’m doubly floored that this comp teacher, Mr. S., has gone and incorporated Slaughterhouse-Five into the lecture, because he loves the book enough to have ready-to-go thoughts, which makes me realize that teachers sometimes just riff, improvise, ad-lib. This is the most informative and perhaps destructive moment of my training, as I will often do exactly that: riff, improv, ad-lib when teaching my comp classes, not always a good idea.

 

Years later, when I’m an adjunct instructor at this very same junior college, the library will not seem so grand. I’ll not find the fountain, and the stacks will have diminished. The whole place will seem more sterile, the result, no doubt, of renovations but also, sure, because computer screens are eating up some of the space once dedicated to books. The way of all flesh, right? And texts.

 

Don’t Belong, John T. Richardson Library, DePaul University

 

My girlfriend has a job at the library. I like this building, but I’ve not been in it much, preferring to spend the trimester smoking cigarettes and drinking malt liquor like the young idiot that I am. She does neither of these things. She likes staying in, going to bed early, reading shitty books by the likes of Jude Deveraux and not taking an interest in the Kerouac and Orwell and Bukowski (so many dudes) books that I’m digging, edgy shit, man!

 

She works late (for her) and I escort my gal from library to dorm, a short walk but she’s worried, this being the big bad city. Sometimes I go up to her room. Most nights I leave her safe and sound at the door and then I find my friends and we drink malt liquor and smoke cigarettes and talk about Kerouac and Orwell and Bukowski (and Godard and Polanski and Fuller) and think we’re smart, that no one has ever had these brilliant thoughts before. But we’re idiots. And none of us has been in that library, most of all me.

 

If I spent any time in that library I’d notice that my girlfriend has made fast friends with a blond-haired, blue-eyed, possibly British grad student who also works there, who has more than charmed her, who she’ll not leave me for so much as think about when we’re together and I’m boring everything but the pants off her. And we’re soon to go kaput, which surprises neither of us, but, you know, never a great feeling. It’s okay, though— I don’t belong in this relationship, this school, certainly not that library.

 

Solace, Schaffner Library, Northwestern University

 

Word on the street is that it’s not long for this world, another casualty of the pandemic, though I’m sure the axe has been sharp for some time, this being not the biggest library on either campus, but that’s maybe what I like about it, that and the little room on the second floor where I worked as a tutor, a quiet space near the stacks with a window overlooking a courtyard and a computer to write my poems between tutoring sessions. As a grad student intern who’s been tasked with making a mock-book of international poetry for this big ol’ anthology, I roam the bigger stacks in Evanston and pull Milosz and Szymborska and a few other Polish poets (the editor has his preferences) along with the cursory Celan and my latest discovery, the superb Amichai. I’m awash in poems, my own stabs and the polished gems that’ll comprise this book I’ll have a small hand in birthing, the education in international writing is better than the one I’m paying for.

 

Years later— I can’t let go of the gig, so it’s back to Schaffner until I can get some semblance of a career going, though I suspect that I could stay in that room on the second floor, among the smaller but no less significant stacks with the view of the courtyard, indefinitely, typing wayward poems in the minutes before my next tutee arrives panic-faced with no idea what the professor wants from them.

 

Anything, Saltzer Regional, Chicago Public Library

 

I come here on my lunch break and read and then, because the time moves too quickly, eat a fast sandwich while driving back to work. I come here on my lunch break because it’s beautiful upstairs at the long table with the big clock and the feeling that I could be anything.

 

Get Off My Lawn, Murray-Green Library, Roosevelt University

 

I walked to the back of the library as an undergrad who’d taken more than a few years off. I was an “adult” and more receptive than ever to the idea of a quiet space full of books, though today, even more adult, employed as lecturer and Faculty Coordinator of Writing Tutoring at this very same school that took me in after desultory years of fucking up, I can’t help but lament the space sacrificed for activities and computers and offices and things other than the old stacks, though some remain, sure.

 

I’ve made it a point to take my class here, to show them that yes, we still have a library with books and that there are wonderful things and wonderful people here, that they should make the library part of their routine. One of the students expresses grief at the “dead trees”— “All I see is a destroyed forest,” he says, and I ask if he prefers to read on his computer screen, which no one can possibly prefer, but he says he does, though adds that he only reads when he has to, no shock and not anything for me to waste time on, seeing as that is hardly a new problem. But I’m tempted to lecture that books hold a certain value that he’ll not get elsewhere, that libraries are important places, that they represent more than dead trees and dead writers and dead ideas, that they don’t actually represent any of that, that they represent community and scholarship and thought and emotion and life and love and war and hate and discourse and rhetoric and exploration and engagement and humility and desire and tradition and radicalism and socialism and capitalism and egalitarianism and a lot of other isms and that he should see a library as the effort to preserve these things as well as a place to work, study, think, laugh, socialize, mobilize, organize, antagonize, and maybe even better himself and melt into the collective betterment of the fucking world. I succumb briefly to this temptation. An old man shaking his fist. Hoo hum.

 

On Cynicism

Once upon a time, I was a high school student. In that time, there was a misunderstanding between me and one of the Christian Brothers who “taught” us boys. It’s too stupid to get into now, but I bring it up as a means of introducing today’s theme: cynicism. Basically, I said something that caused a grown man charged with educating me to say: “You’re the most cynical bastard I’ve ever met in all my years.”

 

I had to ask my mother what “cynical” meant. I don’t remember her definition precisely, but it made me feel both bad and weirdly proud for having merited such a negative adjective. I’d never been the most anything in all of anyone’s years before.

 

 A quick search on Google offers the following synonyms: skepticism, doubt, mistrust, suspicion. Slightly deeper inspection of Google offers reassurance that the ancient Greek Cynics sought an existence in harmony with the nature of the individual, one free from material concern. Considerably more noble than the contemporary definition: “a general distrust in others.” While I think I see how the word evolved (devolved?) from the ancient Greek usage to the criticism Brother Whatshisname lobbed my way, I won’t detail that here. Doing so would only betray my lack of philosophical erudition.

 

I have embraced cynicism. There’s an old adage: scratch a cynic, find a romantic. I get that. A cynic is only distrustful of people and the world because they’ve been burned. They never lost sight of how things should be; they just understand the improbability of anything changing for the good. Small movements toward better things, sure, but overall? Nah. At best, “improved means to an unimproved end,” as old Henry David said. Which is why whenever anyone trots out a new gadget, the cynic will logically conclude that the world is about to get faster, and a lot of rich people will get richer, but the mantra that “We’re making the world a better place” will seem ridiculous when coming out of the mouth of a Silicon Valley zealot. Don’t trust those fuckers.

 

But here’s the thing: there’s a limit to cynicism, hopefully discovered as the cynic matures. And cynicism is not an excuse for nihilism, or for sitting on your ass and doing nothing. And maybe it took me longer than it should have to reach this point, but I think I’m there. Here’s how I know.

 

Comedian Eddie Pepitone tweets: “Maybe SNL will have Kate McKinnon sing a song to the people of Ukraine tomorrow! That should fix it!” My first response is to smile. Kinda funny. Immediately after recognizing the humor, I feel rotten. What the actual fuck, dude? Yeah, she dressed like Hillary Clinton and sang “Hallelujah” after Trump was elected, and I guess it didn’t really do anything concrete. But fuck man, don’t we need some goddamn symbolic gestures? And what would we have SNL or Facebook posters or anyone else without any actual power do? Keep it light? Ignore the shit show? Get on with toothless, uninspired sketches? Post more snarky edgelord jokes that are surely not going to “fix it!”  

 

Okay, there are times when celebrities make well-meaning gestures that come off tone deaf or are just plain unnecessary, maybe even insultingly clueless (Hello, Gal Gadot), but Jesus H. Fuck, are we so goddamn cynical we can’t understand the drive to express human responses to tragedy?

 

Perhaps I’ve grown up. Perhaps, as a college instructor, I’ve spent too much time with Gen Z, the so-called “woke” youngsters who Boomers tell me need to lighten up. Or perhaps Pepitone’s joke was even more useless than the celeb preening he was satirizing. Did it accomplish anything more concrete than Kate McKinnon singing to the people of Ukraine? Did it actually make things worse instead of better? Arguably, yeah, it kinda fucking did.

 

I doubt 2022 will see me lessen my cynicism. I’m on my way to being an old fuck, meaning that my ways are set and I am set in them. Not to mention I’ve seen the ways of people long enough to not have much faith in them. But I see also the need for catharsis, and yeah, when Kate McKinnon sang that song after Trump won, well, it got to me. It felt necessary. It communicated the feeling a lot of us had that week, that things were fucked, that our country had somehow elevated the worst expression of our worst tendencies to the highest office, and that everything was off, upside down. And it was hard. Damn near devastating. And I’m sure others, those primarily affected by a Trump presidency and his horrific rhetoric, felt it more than I did. Maybe small, symbolic gestures don’t fix things, though they might offer comfort. But please, Eddie, shit on that. How edgy!

Is A Clockwork Orange Any Good?

1.

 

I’ve seen A Clockwork Orange too many times. Which is to say that I’ve seen it more than twice.

 

2.

 

It’s important to see A Clockwork Orange more than once. Especially if, like me, you first saw it when you were a teenage boy. God knows your appreciation of the film would be mired in infantilism.

 

3.

 

I saw A Clockwork Orange as a teen with a high school pal who’d rented it. We sat in his room and watched the movie, astonished from the start. I remember being impressed that he had a TV in his room with a VCR, which meant he could watch damn near anything without fearing his mother might catch him in the act of enjoying pornography or sensationalistic movies with heaps of violence and murky morals.

 

4.

 

We both loved the movie. Or what we understood about it. We’d taken Psych classes and had heard about Pavlov and his salivating dogs. My friend, once we finished A Clockwork Orange, insisted, “No one’s ever gonna make a classical conditioned dog outta me!”

 

Thus, we thought the movie was smart because it had a thing in it about what makes a person a person, and if you can control a person then are they really a person. Being teenage boys of the 1980s— a time just after, and still informed by, the 1960s’ and 70s’ fashionable pop revolutions— we adopted the movie as a sort of manifesto.

 

5.

 

Truth: we just liked the violence.

 

6.

 

I don’t doubt that if one is honest they’ll admit that the first third of A Clockwork Orange is more fun than the rest. The visuals are more stunning. But it’s hard not to notice how drab the scenery becomes once Malcolm McDowell’s character Alex is released from prison. Next to the oddball outfits of the Droogs and the décor of the Korova Milkbar, much of the film is ugly. Of course, the entirety of the film is ugly, at least as far as content. But to my teenage head, rape and “ultraviolence” were funny.

Look at these assholes

Look at these assholes

 

7.

 

The second viewing came not long after the first. Nothing to say about it.

 

The third viewing I don’t recall. Or the fourth. But somewhere around the fifth I started to feel that the movie was simple, stupid even.

 

Then I read the book.

Somewhat better

 

I read the book because, despite thinking the movie was simple, stupid even, I wanted to see if the book was better, operating at that time under the impression that books are always better. This is not true, but don’t tell that to a literature hungry young adult. You’ll crush their curiosity.

 

The book is better, sorta. The book displays a lot of stuff that I’d later come to love, like linguistic play and obscure yet engaging storytelling. Plus, it has a glossary, so the Nadsat language is easier to absorb. But I have to admit that the visuals, at least in parts of the film, stay with me more than anything in Anthony Burgess’s book. Save for one thing: Stanley Kubrick— either because he didn’t read the full version of the book or he didn’t care— cut the last chapter of Burgess’s novel. The last chapter subverts the whole story. Ending otherwise, the movie makes a point about conditioning, but it misses a sly idea from Burgess about the inevitably of change, how time will condition us without outside intervention. Or something. I dunno. . . I just remember being more excited by an extension of the story that the movie ignored. It got me to rethink the movie, which only made it seem sillier.

 

8.

 

Maybe it’s because, somewhere around my fifth viewing of A Clockwork Orange, I’d seen Paths of Glory, The Killing, Full Metal Jacket, and Dr. Strangelove, all of them directed by Kubrick, all of them 100xs better than A Clockwork Orange. Those movies made this other thing by Kubrick seem like a curiosity, a near miss, an exercise in style without much more behind it. Which is when I started to think that maybe A Clockwork Orange is not a bad movie, or even a stupid one, but a movie to be admired for reasons outside of the edgy bullshit or the easy moral. Maybe it should be viewed solely for its aesthetics. That way, it’s sure to please. Because even those dreary post-prison scenes are fun to look at. At least compared to the shit in theaters these days. I mean, A Clockwork Orange is thankfully short of CGI and spandex superheroes.

No Avengers here

 

9.

 

The movie introduced me to Beethoven. I don’t know whether I ought to thank it or not.

 

10.

 

I love(d) punk culture. As a dumb teenage boy, I defined punk culture by the music, most of it simple three chord stuff. And angry. Snotty. At times loutish. I didn’t understand that “punk” could extend to cinema, visual art, literature. I thought it was solely understood by listening to The Ramones or the Sex Pistols. Then I heard London Calling by the Clash and realized that punk was not just 3 chord music played by non-musicians. It was attitude, aesthetics, ideas, and, weirdly, inclusion. And politics. But I wasn’t ready for Crass and Suicide and the Mekons, bands that didn’t exactly fit my limited definition of punk. And I sure as hell wasn’t ready to lump the Dadaists in there either.

 

But A Clockwork Orange was punk. Or at least punks loved it. It’s easy to see why: the style is close to what punks wore. And punks sometimes emulated the violence in the film. Hoo hum.

 

A punk girl— with a shaved head and piercings and Doc Martens and everything— called the movie “punk rock.” Later, I’d hear her call Sesame Street “punk rock.” She really opened my eyes!

 

11.

 

Thinking of A Clockwork Orange as punk both ups my appreciation for the film and lowers my appreciation for punk.

 

Actually, no. A Clockwork Orange is not punk. Punk is loose. Punk presents the opportunity for mayhem. Kubrick is too controlled, too precise a director. His movie is rigidly ordered shock. If anything, it represents the regimented lives my punk pals eventually adopted as they aged. Or maybe the punk aesthetic was always performative, as coordinated as Kubrick’s film.

 

12.

 

They say (whoever they are) that a good work of art is one that you can’t stop thinking about, so I suppose that makes A Clockwork Orange good. But truth be told: I don’t often think about it. I’m thinking about it today because I saw the book on my shelf buried behind some other pocket paperbacks I haven’t looked at in years. Which got me thinking about the movie. Which got me writing about the movie.

 

That I can’t land cleanly on Good or Bad is a good sign. I’m sometimes suspicious of work that is universally praised. I love it when asshole contrarians shit on Star Wars, however little criticism I have for the franchise (I liked the first two movies when I was a kid and don’t begrudge the world loving the movies and shows and toys). I don’t mind seeing my sacred cows slaughtered. Someone’s negative feelings on James Joyce won’t rob me of the pleasure of reading Ulysses (happy 100th birthday coming up!). I once posited that good art should divide. Anything that plays it too safe can’t be all that interesting. I may not be able to support those statements completely, but I’m not backing too far from them either.

 

But here’s another thing: A Clockwork Orange seems constructed to divide. As if the filmmaker knew it would offend some audiences and leaned in. Hardly as intentionally shocking for shock’s sake as Cannibal Holocaust, but nevertheless a film that Kubrick must’ve known would cause a stir. And that foreknowledge almost kills it for me. Maybe I’m too punk, too contrarian, too big an asshole, but when I know someone’s trying to ruffle my feathers my instinct is to deny them the pleasure. I see your easy provocation and it bores me.

 

But A Clockwork Orange is not boring. And I loved it at one point. Maybe my wrestling with it is as much about me and my efforts at a world-weary persona as it is about an imperfect film that seems increasingly callow the older I grow?

 

Goddamn, the movie exposed something about me! Fuck. . . I’ve no choice but to admit it that victory.

 

13.

 

Thirteen films better than A Clockwork Orange:

 

The Third Man

Naked

Miller’s Crossing

Barton Fink

Au Hazard Balthazar

Time Bandits

Full Metal Jacket

After Hours

I Heart Huckabees

The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover

The Conversation

Children of Men

Mulholland Drive

 

Reverse-Liberation: Movies and TV

This one time in the early 2000s, I conned my way into an interview with Jeanette Winterson. If you were to have asked me then, I would have said she was my favorite living novelist (today she shares the title with Ali Smith and Helen DeWitt). One of the things that attracted me to her work was the feeling of freedom and play in her texts, specifically the emphasis on language over plot, the so-called “unconventional” nature of her best work.

When I interviewed Winterson (which you can read here), we got on the subject of the so-called unconventional novel. Something she said has stuck with me all these years (and I’m paraphrasing): The novel, in the 20th century and beyond, was liberated by movies. Movies could handle traditional narratives with rising action and believable characters and recognizable tropes. Thanks to cinema, the classic Victorian novel structure need not always be repeated. We could move on. The camera had liberated painters from always having to do portraiture; the movie camera did the same for the novel. Yay! Here comes Modernism!

 

Here’s a phrase Winterson used in that interview that struck me then as funny: “Printed television.” Buy this, she meant books that were doing what TV does, which is to say not challenging the audience, giving them what they want, being fun but disposable once finished, a thing you turn on and off for distraction rather than edification or, dare I say, spiritual fulfillment. Today, this phrase is off the mark, but who’d have guessed that TV would have gotten this damn good?

 

And it has. There are certainly shows that are not nearly as good as they are popular (The Queen’s Gambit, Lovecraft Country), shows that I find lousy (The Chair) and shows that miss the mark the longer they go on but are rather satisfying (Breaking Bad, Mad Men). And then there’s The Walking Dead, which should have been killed off years ago. There are, as we know, a lot of damn shows. Maybe too many? No, I’ll leave that rant for someone else.

 

The best of the so-called Golden Era we’re (I think) still living in, in my opinion, is The Wire. The best currently running is Succession. If I had to articulate why I hold those highest, I’d likely resort to a lot of the things people say about art when they struggle to communicate their appreciation: compelling characters and situations, well written, not dumbed down, engaging, high stakes, humor, tragedy, pathos. . . but I dunno. All that, sure, but I just like those particular shows. One thing I can point to is their length. At an hour a pop, 10 episodes a season, Succession is, in comparison to a movie, looooooong. But in that length, there’s more than enough room to do all the nasty, compelling things that show does. How do you cram all that into a 90-minute package?

 

This may be why I love Succession but never understood Wall Street. Two hours is too quick for me to buy Gordon Gekko.

 

What really concerns me is the way these shows, and so many more I’ve not gotten around to (Hi, Ozark) have adopted what the best movies used to do. They’ve stopped using the old TV templates. We have quirkier meta comedies like Community and absurd ensembles like Brooklyn 99 and those before-mentioned dramas that are leaps and bounds better than Dallas or Melrose Place. I know everyone loves The Office, but if it did anything of note it was to present a sitcom that avoided the easy feel-good gags of Friends. TV started taking more chances, streaming became a thing, Netflix green lit some oddities that wouldn’t have stood a chance in the 90s, and now we are where we are. If we are indeed living in a Golden Era of TV where it’s possible that the shows today are doing what indie movies in the 90s were doing, that may explain why so many of the movies seem to be action based CGI violence celebrations. The movies have been reverse-liberated (hobbled?) by good TV and can focus on giving people digestible content that goes down smoothly, maximizing profits in the process.

But I don’t have to like it.

 

I know great movies are still being made. But damn if it doesn’t feel like 90% of new releases feature grown-ups in superhero costumes. I loved my Underoos when I was a kid, but there’s a time to grow up.

 

Okay, there are plenty of lovely, intelligent people in my life who will balk at my suggestion that perhaps better stories are out there than the ones dreamed up by Marvel (and definitely DC), and they are as right as I am in the sense that this is all very subjective. But smarter people than me (by which I mean, actual film critics) have argued that the dominance of superheroes, dragons, and John Wick action films has an effect on what gets green lit in a landscape where fewer films outside those genres receive attention. The result may be the sort of monoculture that has long depressed me, that we see already in publishing (a topic for a different day). When we’re fed multiple 3-hour Avengers extravaganzas, we come to view anything outside as small. The summer blockbuster used to be a thing reserved for, well, summer. Now it feels de rigueur, the thing one should always expect from a theater-going experience. The quaint little movie with the smaller budget, lack of what were once called special effects (which are now too common to be special), and lesser known faces. . .  that’s for at-home streaming, maybe. I mean, am I really going to leave the couch and drive to the dirty little art house cinema for a movie that may be different than what I’m expecting? And what’s with these subtitles?

 

I’m fond of a lot of stuff. Highbrow, lowbrow. . . You know where I’m going with this. We’re at the part of the essay where I list my various tastes and proudly proclaim how much I love Miles Davis and Schubert and Pig Destroyer and the Butthole Surfers. I’ll throw the names of canonized classic films like The Third Man and some oddball cult favs like Repo Man at you. (These are my two favorite “Man” movies.) I’ll try to sway you by representing my openness to what one former professor called “Intellectual prime rib and intellectual White Castles.” I’ll make the very true claim that there is a place for both, for all of it, for everything. And I’ll restate my “eclectic” taste in art as a means of establishing my credibility. I like some weird stuff, so I’m no snob.

 

But how convincing can I be? I’ve already lost a segment of theoretically existing readers by talking shit about Marvel movies (and by refusing to use the phrase “The Marvel Cinematic Universe”). The Marvel defenders I envision would read my words and sharpen their critical knives, for they have practiced their retorts often: The themes in the MCU are universal, the filmmakers are using heroic archetypes to tell real-world stories. I know these arguments, and I believe them. I agree. I’m more than convinced. Buuuuuut. . . that doesn’t mean we only ever have to use those heroic archetypes, right? We can tell those stories a number of ways. They need not always be wrapped in spandex and capes.

 

The arguments from the fanboy crowd tend to feel strained. I know comic book enthusiasts and writers. I know that they fight for acceptance in a literary culture that devalues them. I know that even calling their books “graphic novels” is not enough to convince the tweed and leather-elbow crowd that the X-Men may provide tragedies on par with the canonized tomes. So I don’t want to come off as the university-bred asshole who doesn’t have time for funnybooks. But in working so hard to make the culture accept what was once derided as “nerd shit,” I wonder if we’re not tipping the scale too much for the superheroes. Has nerd culture become just plain culture?

 

Maybe, and that’s fine and dandy. But again, there are implications to that normalization.

 

Another issue I have with the more labored arguments for Marvel, et al. being accepted as part of high culture: The most vocal arguers remind me of the people who try so hard to convince me that guns are necessary and that the 2nd Amendment is unquestionably good. All the massaged statistics and forced logic mask one clear truth: people like shooting things. That’s all. Whatever goofy justifications they weave can’t cover up the one argument I can’t defeat: Guns are cool, so don’t take mine. I don’t agree, but I’d respect the honesty if the 2nd Amendment crowd would summarize their position that way.

 

When the comic movie defenders tie themselves in knots trying to get me to validate their superhero stories and admit that Iron Man is as good as The Hurt Locker, well, let’s just say that I can see the real argument under all the bullshit: I like when Iron Man blows things up. Don’t take that away!

 

Okay, I suspect you’ve got this comeback at the ready: Hey, Vince—The Hurt Locker won Best Picture while Marvel movies barely get an Oscar nod, and never for the top categories. So your so-called “good movies” are still nudging out my beloved superheroes. And you’d be right, but. . . really? First, it’s only a matter of time before Oscar and the Motion Picture Academy—never the most progressive institution—catches up to where the viewers are. Second, don’t you love that your favorite movies are not Oscar winners? Don’t you get the same thrill complaining about this that I got when Dances with Wolves beat Goodfellas? Man, the Oscars suck. Fucking idiots. I’m more punk rock than you!

Not to mention that art is not always synonymous with mainstream recognition, right? If anything, the box office returns are the real marker of where the culture is, not the award ceremonies that have rarely if ever gotten things right (Driving Miss Daisey beat Do the Right Thing, after all). And the box offices swell whenever a beautiful person dons a superhero costume.

 

I’ve spent enough time shitting on the movies under the Disney umbrella (which includes Marvel and Star Wars and DC, to name just a few popular content producers). Suffice it to state that my (I grant you, only partially informed) perception is that the Winterson point about a new technology liberating an older one does not seem to be the case when we think of 21st century TV and film. Things seem to have flipped. I don’t pronounce this good or bad, just curious. My real question is: what can we predict about these forms of art? Will movies become heavier on action and lighter on nuanced storytelling? Will TV continue to do what indie films used to and get quirkier and better at representing traditionally marginalized voices? Let’s hope. Because I’m on board for more shows like Fleabag, Reservation Dogs, and Succession. But I can’t summon the energy to go to the multiplex and drop $20 on a few hours of ScarJo in spandex fighting aliens while somewhere in the background a guy in a tin suit flies to space and does something with a hole in the sky or whatever. My couch is a helluva lot comfier, and my kitchen is better than any I’ve found in a movie theater. Fuck it—let the nerds have the cinema. 12 months of action, explosions, tacked on love stories, B acting in front of a green screen, a talking raccoon because, why not? If people enjoy watching a video game they’re not playing, good for them. I think I’m cool with this cultural shift.

The Messy Chair

An uneasy feeling from the jump: the school looks too much like schools in movies and TV shows. Ivy League despite assurances from the writers that this school is fuuuucked up! Basement level ivy league or some such joke. Everything is so perfectly dignified and picturesque. And then the star of our program, the wonderful Sandra Oh, removes the first in a series of bad jokes that will surely bring a smile to anyone who thought Chandler Bing was funny: a nameplate that reads “Fucker in Charge of You Fucking Fucks.” Must’ve taken the writers weeks to nail that one.

 

Immediately after that lame joke, we see Oh sit at her desk. If you’ve ever seen a dumb sitcom, you’ll know what’s going to happen next. But no, this is supposed to be a smart show about smart people, right? They won’t. . .  Nope, they did it. They tossed in a broken chair gag. I’m not the biggest stickler when it comes to lazy metaphors, but c’mon.

 

The concerns of Sandra Oh and her floundering English department ring sadly true, even if their depiction leans heavy on boilerplate. The politics of running a department, the ridiculous demands of donors, the capitulations, complaints, egos, and attitudes—it’s all here, often convincingly so. I mean, David Duchovny as guest lecturer? Seems plausible. Old guard professors scrambling to maintain relevance? Yep. New professors kissing ass for tenure? Oh yeah. Reactionary students? Well, you knew some of the cancel culture debate would make its way in.

 

What bothers me most about The Chair is the facile way in which it deals with what often seems the most important battle in our contemporary culture war. There is much to say about cancel culture. The Chair seems to critique it as a bunch of rabid, scandal hungry students who misunderstand their professor’s dumb joke and make it a cause, a chance to yell and virtue signal and ask questions in true cable news fashion (not letting one answer, bulldozing ahead with their agenda). While The Atlantic, in a shockingly positive review of The Chair, praised the show for not taking a side, I found the treatment of the issue kind of pointless. Are we supposed to root for the professor (more on him in a minute) who is obviously not the Nazi the students make him into, or are we supposed to side with the students who are justifiably concerned about the white supremacy that is baked into so much of our society, certainly academia?

 

In other places we see the students riffing on the absence of women in Moby-Dick, not to mention the American literary canon. The students sing/rap about this, to the delight of their young, female, black professor and to the chagrin of the dinosaur Melville expert who laments to his wife that he used to walk those halls as a giant. So I guess I’m supposed to feel bad for Bob Balaban’s aging prof when his wife offers spousal comfort before asking him to don adult diapers. No, I’m supposed to root for the struggling up-n-comer played by Nana Mensah who will get screwed by Balaban, her older peer (who, of course, would never see a woman—much less a woman of color—as a peer). Both, apparently. And that’s okay—I never need clear cut good and bad guys, but the pathos the writers attempt to give Balaban are meager, certainly not enough to get any viewer to see him as sympathetic. So why even try?

 

I’m happy to see a show aim at tough targets and even opt for ambiguity. Balaban is not such a bad guy? Oh wait, there he goes torpedoing poor Sandra Oh. He’s a shit after all. And what about the character played by the always fantastic Holland Taylor? Looked over too often, never went up for full professor, sidelined by patriarchy and sexist Rate My Professor reviews, struggling to get out of the basement (writers Amanda Peet and Annie Julia Wyman have certainly seen Office Space), struggling to make kids understand that Chaucer is “a badass,” and possibly cultivating a romantic relationship with an IT guy, though that subplot (like others) goes nowhere. Much like her character, this talented actress is given brief moments to shine, then put aside or used as a prop to move the main action along. Is this a meta move? No, that’d be giving The Chair too much credit, for even though it may invite praise for being “smart” the story is anything but. Smart people lobbing the easiest T. S. Eliot quotes about, sure, even a few casual references to Lacan, but much like Frasier was a standard comedy about smart people, The Chair is not as smart as one may think. It’s shockingly banal.

 

Perhaps I’m not the one to comment on what constitutes a strong female character. I liked Buffy the Vampire Slayer as much as the next person, but the slew of post-Buffy ass kicking fighting fuck toys (to borrow a phrase from Dr. Caroline Heldman) seemed anything but feminist. Sure, they fight men and are strong, though their strength is measured in ways crafted by patriarchy (violence). Maybe some can dismiss the scores of basement trolls jacking off to the heroines’ perfect legs and asses in those tight leather outfits (dress sexy for you, not him), but those badass female characters always felt like half-measures. Similarly, we have what should be a badass star here in Sandra Oh, who has proven to be pretty badass in Killing Eve. And, to be sure, she has badass moments in The Chair, but they feel too little, too performative. She’s tough talking, but bends way too much to Jay Duplass’s character. We’re supposed to feel frustrated that she has to yield to the demands of the machine she’s both leading and fighting, but then we have some half-assed romantic story? Might as well be a plot from Syd Fields. And that “fucking fuckers” name plate? Actually, it’s perfect for this show: easily obtained, purely symbolic, and, again, a watered-down joke only fast food culture finds hilarious. It is also a gag, much like The Chair, unworthy of Oh.

 

Sandra Oh’s character Ji-Yoon has her moments, and if the show succeeds anywhere it’s in demonstrating that myriad challenges a woman of color faces in an absurd job like department chair, especially of English. The show rightfully points out that the field is hemorrhaging students and fighting for its existence now that college has been equated with job training. And the show nicely details the wheeling and dealing one must do to make the machine creak along, as well as the ways in which idealism can take a few hits along the way. I felt sincerely bad for Oh when she had to consider optics, cultivate allegiances, and sacrifice desires. I believe the job is far worse than The Chair makes it seem, and that’s saying something. That Oh (spoiler) is ousted by the old men under her simply because they feel their time on campus is at a close, well, that sucks, but when Oh names Taylor as her successor, thwarting Balaban’s ambition for the gig, we’re supposed to see that as a victory, I guess. The stalwart Chaucerian got out of the basement and got the recognition she deserves. So it’s a happy ending? Maybe, but there are loose threads aplenty. Oh was nearly out of a job entirely after sorta kinda gagging a student from speaking about a scandal. Then she’s forgiven by what we are made to understand are unforgiving young people, all simply because she is no longer on top, no longer chair, just a lowly professor. Now there’s a message! Oh’s Ji-Yoon keeps her job and lectures passionately on Emily Dickinson, which is all she ever really wanted to do, apparently. Never mind the chair position. Who needs institutional power when you can stay in your lane?

 

If the badassery of the leading woman is complicated, the mopey cliché that is our leading man is crystal clear. Maybe it’s because I am a frequently scruffy, mildly disorganized, occasionally intoxicated lover of Modernism and Samuel Beckett that Jay Duplass’s character made me wince. Because I hope to god I’ve never been the cookie-cutter asshole he is. Recently widowed, the “rock star professor” gets away with being a prick and is only pulled from his funk by a woman and her adorable daughter (another prop that is half-heartedly given a story of her own, but who cares?). If you’ve seen Barton Fink you might remember the old screenwriter’s dilemma: dame or kid? Which do we saddle the leading man with? Remember what Barton Fink says: “Both, maybe?” Remember the movie producer’s worried look?

 

Come to think of it, why is Jay Duplass even in this thing? Why bother with a (barely) sympathetic man? Just ditch his character. He’s not developed, perhaps because there’s nothing to develop. Of course, I’m willing to accept the argument that, after years of being used as satellites and sex objects in male-driven stories, women creators are having their revenge by writing shitty one-dimensional male characters. I guess that’s equality? No, it’s not—I expect more of the women wresting control from us men. We’ve done crap jobs. If you’re up to bat, and you should be, it’s not enough to phone in a character like Prof. Dobson. Again, don’t bother—just focus on the women. They’re far more interesting.

 

But no, Duplass bumbles along, sport-coated and unshaven, occasionally spouting some professorial lines about Camus and Pavese and, for some reason, he innocently gives a Nazi salute in class, which get filmed and goes viral and costs him his job. But the kids got it wrong—he’s no Nazi, just a tired caricature of a young English professor/lit bro. His interest in Beckett and Modernism is supposed to do all the heavy lifting, and it, sigh, does. We see his existential depression as a given. Those gloomy Modernists! And then there’s a dumb red herring in the form of an adoring student who we’re sure wants to fuck him but really only wants him to read her novel. Yet another prop picked up and too quickly put down.

 

The show is a mess, but a fun mess. For all the shit I’m complaining about, I wasn’t bored. It’s a sloppy bit of distraction I enjoyed between drafts of my syllabi for the coming semester. And while it offered no real ideas that couldn’t have come from a USA Today article on cancel culture, it didn’t exactly preach either. These days, I’ll take half-baked comedies over sanctimony. But my concern is that the show is being seen as more than it is. It’s being rewarded for not taking a side, which seems stupid. Too often in socio-political discussions, I’m told to consider both sides, as if all perspectives are equally valid. Sure, that’s the ideal, but when one side is objectively loony, both-siding is just plain wrong. And I have no answer to the cancel culture debate, just feelings that are as complicated as The Chair kind of recognizes them to be. But the debate is given less attention than it deserves. We’re meant to sympathize with the misunderstood dude who gave a Nazi salute and shake our heads at the overreactions of the students. And while I would hardly classify Duplass’s salute as sincere, there is a point here: the tenured asshole should’ve known better. His misguided attempt at addressing the issue with what quickly becomes a mob of angry students is born of belief in the power of truth and open discourse, honorable ideas that the show wants us to think are under threat by our snowflake culture. I think. I dunno. . . I’m not sure how to read this subplot. Maybe that’s the point. That ambiguity would be fine were the rest of the show not beholden to old tropes and stereotypes. But hey, it kept me from seeing horrifying images of Afghanistan or thinking about environmental catastrophe for a few hours.