Paul Levinson's Blog: Levinson at Large, page 342
July 26, 2013
The Interviews: Science Fiction
Hey, I've had a bunch of interviews this year, most about my science fiction, publishing on Kindle, the drawbacks of traditional publishing, and all kinds of much more irreverent stuff. Here's a list of them -
The Morton ReportThe Cult of Me Patrick Satters blog Hungry Writer Kathleen Valentine's blog
#sfwapro
Paul Levinson's books ... Paul Levinson's music
The Morton ReportThe Cult of Me Patrick Satters blog Hungry Writer Kathleen Valentine's blog
#sfwapro
Paul Levinson's books ... Paul Levinson's music
July 25, 2013
Father and Son and Paul McCartney
Today's a great day for the Vozick-Levinsons. Son Simon's pathbreaking interview with Sir Paul McCartney has just been published in Rolling Stone. It contains such gems as McCartney reminiscing about "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!" -
But I take a special pleasure and pride in this interview. Turns out that my very first published article was "A Vote for McCartney," which appeared in the Village Voice in 1971. The story of how I got it published is a story in itself. I had read a scathing and lame review of McCartney's latest album - a post-Beatles album - by the dyspeptic Village Voice music critic Robert Christgau, and fired off a letter to the editor with my counter-arguments. To Christgau's claim that McCartney's Ram was "a classic form/content mismatch," I systematically explained why that was manifestly not the case, and concluded that the mismatch is "apparently in the wires and components of Robert Christgau's stereo."
That was about the gentlest criticism I offered of Christgau, and I had doubts that the Voice would even publish my letter. I poured over the "Letters" section of every new issue, and had pretty much come to the conclusion of, oh well, at least I had gotten this out of my system ... until, one day, a Thursday, my phone started ringing. At least three of my friends had seen my "article" in the Village Voice. A check for $65 arrived in the mail the very next day - accounts payable departments rolled a lot better in those days - with a note from Diane Fischer, a Voice associate editor, saying she hoped it was "ok" that rather than publishing my letter as a letter, the Voice had published it as an article in its "My Turn" section!
That first published article not only set me on a career of writing, but teaching. When I applied for my first teaching job at St. John's University in 1975 for a "Creative Journalism" course, I brought with me "A Vote for McCartney" and two other articles I had subsequently published in the Village Voice. I was hired on the spot.
Reading the article from where we are now in 2013, I think I went too far in my criticisms of Lennon and Harrison. But I was right-on about Christgau's tin ears, and about the transcendingly enduring beauty and power of Paul McCartney's lyrics and music. And what a joy it is to see my son bring that point home today in the online pages of Rolling Stone.
#SFWApro
Paul Levinson's books ... Paul Levinson's music
I have great memories of writing it with John. I read, occasionally, people say, "Oh, John wrote that one." I say, "Wait a minute, what was that afternoon I spent with him, then, looking at this poster?"If you've ever loved the Beatles, this interview is bound to bring a smile to your soul.
But I take a special pleasure and pride in this interview. Turns out that my very first published article was "A Vote for McCartney," which appeared in the Village Voice in 1971. The story of how I got it published is a story in itself. I had read a scathing and lame review of McCartney's latest album - a post-Beatles album - by the dyspeptic Village Voice music critic Robert Christgau, and fired off a letter to the editor with my counter-arguments. To Christgau's claim that McCartney's Ram was "a classic form/content mismatch," I systematically explained why that was manifestly not the case, and concluded that the mismatch is "apparently in the wires and components of Robert Christgau's stereo."That was about the gentlest criticism I offered of Christgau, and I had doubts that the Voice would even publish my letter. I poured over the "Letters" section of every new issue, and had pretty much come to the conclusion of, oh well, at least I had gotten this out of my system ... until, one day, a Thursday, my phone started ringing. At least three of my friends had seen my "article" in the Village Voice. A check for $65 arrived in the mail the very next day - accounts payable departments rolled a lot better in those days - with a note from Diane Fischer, a Voice associate editor, saying she hoped it was "ok" that rather than publishing my letter as a letter, the Voice had published it as an article in its "My Turn" section!
That first published article not only set me on a career of writing, but teaching. When I applied for my first teaching job at St. John's University in 1975 for a "Creative Journalism" course, I brought with me "A Vote for McCartney" and two other articles I had subsequently published in the Village Voice. I was hired on the spot.
Reading the article from where we are now in 2013, I think I went too far in my criticisms of Lennon and Harrison. But I was right-on about Christgau's tin ears, and about the transcendingly enduring beauty and power of Paul McCartney's lyrics and music. And what a joy it is to see my son bring that point home today in the online pages of Rolling Stone.
#SFWApro
Paul Levinson's books ... Paul Levinson's music
July 22, 2013
Under the Dome 1.5: vs. Bomb
Well, we learn another crucial thing about the dome in episode 1.5: it's even stronger than we, or least Barbie, thought.
Barbie realizes that the visitors on the other side are saying goodbye not hello to their relatives and friends on the inside, because the good old US military is planning on bombing the dome with the strongest non-nuclear bomb they can find, and Barbie is sure the bomb will not only destroy the dome but everyone locked inside it. Why is the military doing this? Not completely clear, but presumably because it's safer to destroy any threat we don't understand, rather than keep it around and risk it destroying us.
But the dome survives the bomb, and with it the relationships of the various couples who for one reason or another didn't take shelter below - in fact, these relationships improve as a result of their tempting and beating death, at least for now. First and foremost are Junior and Angie, who actually moves closer to Junior as the end apparently approaches for Chester's Mill. Norrie and Joe draw closer too, and even kiss. And Julia takes Barbie's hand. On this last relationship, it's beginning to look as if Julia's husband was a bad guy, killed by Barbie as some sort of military action. The husband certainly was no bargain for Julia, sending her some kind of Dear Joan letter as one of his final acts.
About the only relationship which doesn't improve as a result of this threat of extinction is Big Jim and the Rev's. Convinced that the Almighty not the mighty dome saved the town, Rev. Coggins makes the mistake baiting Jim one more time. Jim responds by killing him. Good. The character got on my nerves and killing him was the only logical move for Jim, given what the late Reverend knew about Jim's misdeeds.
So the dome was able to withstand an attack that reduced everything immediately outside it to rubble. An impressive accomplishment, which raises anew the questions of who put it around Chester's Mill and for what purpose?
See also Under the Dome: Superior Summer Science Fiction ... Under the Dome 1.2: Adrenaline and Seepage ... Under the Dome 1.4: Way Under ... Under the Dome 1.5: Good Night for Junior, Until ...
#SFWApro
Paul Levinson's books ... Paul Levinson's music
Barbie realizes that the visitors on the other side are saying goodbye not hello to their relatives and friends on the inside, because the good old US military is planning on bombing the dome with the strongest non-nuclear bomb they can find, and Barbie is sure the bomb will not only destroy the dome but everyone locked inside it. Why is the military doing this? Not completely clear, but presumably because it's safer to destroy any threat we don't understand, rather than keep it around and risk it destroying us.
But the dome survives the bomb, and with it the relationships of the various couples who for one reason or another didn't take shelter below - in fact, these relationships improve as a result of their tempting and beating death, at least for now. First and foremost are Junior and Angie, who actually moves closer to Junior as the end apparently approaches for Chester's Mill. Norrie and Joe draw closer too, and even kiss. And Julia takes Barbie's hand. On this last relationship, it's beginning to look as if Julia's husband was a bad guy, killed by Barbie as some sort of military action. The husband certainly was no bargain for Julia, sending her some kind of Dear Joan letter as one of his final acts.
About the only relationship which doesn't improve as a result of this threat of extinction is Big Jim and the Rev's. Convinced that the Almighty not the mighty dome saved the town, Rev. Coggins makes the mistake baiting Jim one more time. Jim responds by killing him. Good. The character got on my nerves and killing him was the only logical move for Jim, given what the late Reverend knew about Jim's misdeeds.
So the dome was able to withstand an attack that reduced everything immediately outside it to rubble. An impressive accomplishment, which raises anew the questions of who put it around Chester's Mill and for what purpose?
See also Under the Dome: Superior Summer Science Fiction ... Under the Dome 1.2: Adrenaline and Seepage ... Under the Dome 1.4: Way Under ... Under the Dome 1.5: Good Night for Junior, Until ...
#SFWApro
Paul Levinson's books ... Paul Levinson's music
Falling Skies 3.8: Back Cracked Home
An usually sensitive gem of an episode 3.8 of Falling Skies last night, as we get to see Tom back home in Boston with his wife and three boys.
It's not a flashback, but a kind of dream brought on by Karen's bad-alien probing, which means that Tom is able to invest his voyage home with characters from his alien-invasion present. His boys are thus their current ages, even though they seem to be just a little younger. Pope's a philosophy professor whose academic babble about a "simulacrum" is of course right on target. And in an alternate take on that same theme, Weaver's a derelict who's holding up scrawled signs with the truth.
But the heart of the story of Tom's voyage home is the tender love between him and his wife, and their concern that he may be having some sort of affair with a mysterious woman named Anne Glass whom Tom professes not to know. Anne in this dream is determined to get Tom to take a weekend jaunt with her to one of four cities in the U.S., and in a nice bend in the plot this turns out to what Karen wants to know from Tom: upon which city are the humans and good aliens planning their massive counter-attack against the bad aliens?
It was risky for Tom to go off on his own last week - setting up his capture and probing by Karen -- but gratifying to see even this distorted bit of Tom's life before the alien invasion, so we should be grateful to Karen, whose attempt to get the crucial info out of Tom unsurprisingly fails. But meanwhile, back in Charleston, the bad beings from space are having a little more luck. Lourdes is still at large, and, to make matters worse, Weaver - the real Weaver not the derelict - is suspecting Peralta as the mole, and is enlisting Pope's aid to keep her in the dark about certain crucial matters. Not a good position from which to launch our crucial attack, but a fine way to keep the pot boiling as we build up to the final episodes of the season.
See also Falling Skies 3.1-2: It's the Acting ... Falling Skies 3.3: The Smile ... Falling Skies 3.4: Hal vs. Ben ... Falling Skies 3.6: The Masons ... Falling Skies 3.7: The Mole and a Likely Answer
And see also Falling Skies Returns ... Falling Skies 2.6: Ben's Motives ... Falling Skies Second Season Finale
And see also Falling Skies 1.1-2 ... Falling Skies 1.3 meets Puppet Masters ... Falling Skies 1.4: Drizzle ... Falling Skies 1.5: Ben ... Falling Skies 1.6: Fifth Column ... Falling Skies 1.7: The Fate of Traitors ... Falling Skies 1.8: Weaver's Story ... Falling Skies Concludes First Season
#SFWApro Paul Levinson's books ... Paul Levinson's music
It's not a flashback, but a kind of dream brought on by Karen's bad-alien probing, which means that Tom is able to invest his voyage home with characters from his alien-invasion present. His boys are thus their current ages, even though they seem to be just a little younger. Pope's a philosophy professor whose academic babble about a "simulacrum" is of course right on target. And in an alternate take on that same theme, Weaver's a derelict who's holding up scrawled signs with the truth.
But the heart of the story of Tom's voyage home is the tender love between him and his wife, and their concern that he may be having some sort of affair with a mysterious woman named Anne Glass whom Tom professes not to know. Anne in this dream is determined to get Tom to take a weekend jaunt with her to one of four cities in the U.S., and in a nice bend in the plot this turns out to what Karen wants to know from Tom: upon which city are the humans and good aliens planning their massive counter-attack against the bad aliens?
It was risky for Tom to go off on his own last week - setting up his capture and probing by Karen -- but gratifying to see even this distorted bit of Tom's life before the alien invasion, so we should be grateful to Karen, whose attempt to get the crucial info out of Tom unsurprisingly fails. But meanwhile, back in Charleston, the bad beings from space are having a little more luck. Lourdes is still at large, and, to make matters worse, Weaver - the real Weaver not the derelict - is suspecting Peralta as the mole, and is enlisting Pope's aid to keep her in the dark about certain crucial matters. Not a good position from which to launch our crucial attack, but a fine way to keep the pot boiling as we build up to the final episodes of the season.
See also Falling Skies 3.1-2: It's the Acting ... Falling Skies 3.3: The Smile ... Falling Skies 3.4: Hal vs. Ben ... Falling Skies 3.6: The Masons ... Falling Skies 3.7: The Mole and a Likely Answer
And see also Falling Skies Returns ... Falling Skies 2.6: Ben's Motives ... Falling Skies Second Season Finale
And see also Falling Skies 1.1-2 ... Falling Skies 1.3 meets Puppet Masters ... Falling Skies 1.4: Drizzle ... Falling Skies 1.5: Ben ... Falling Skies 1.6: Fifth Column ... Falling Skies 1.7: The Fate of Traitors ... Falling Skies 1.8: Weaver's Story ... Falling Skies Concludes First Season
#SFWApro Paul Levinson's books ... Paul Levinson's music
The Killing 3.9: Suspect Elimination and Inexplicable Components
The Killing 3.9 continues in its inimitable way of eliminating suspects - suspects, that is, other than Ray Seward, a day away from execution for the murder of his wife - without giving us anything close to a clear line of vision and reason as to who the real killer of Seward's wife is.
Kallie's mother's lowlife boyfriend is not the killer of Seward's wife. He killed Bullet, confessed to the murder of the 17 young women, and their rings were in his possession. Seward's son picked out his photo, but Kallie's mother negated that with the bad news that the murderous creep was in Alaska at the time Seward's wife was killed. Linden realizes that the boy was just trying to save his father - he'd seen Kallie's boyfriend's face in the news.
So with the pastor and now the pornographer taken out of the running, we're left with what I was talking about last week: Becker the unbalanced prison guard as the killer of Seward's wife.
But at least two questions need to be cleared up before we can definitely say it's Becker.
First, how did he come to know Seward's wife, or be at her home on the night she was murdered? We've seen Becker come to know Seward, of course, as Seward spends his time on time on death row. But Seward's there for the murder of his wife, which means Becker had to know Seward before that, and be motivated enough to kill Seward's wife. Anything less would be too much of a coincidence. Maybe my recollection is fuzzy, but I don't recall any history between Becker and Seward before Seward got to death row.
Second, how did Seward's boy come to draw the pictures of the place where the 17 bodies were found? If Callie's boyfriend, who presumably killed the 17, was in Alaska when Seward's mother was killed, and therefore had no connection to her killing, why would the boy know anything about the 17?
With The Killing, the plot is so intricate and intense that it's always possible to miss a piece of evidence or logic. On the other hand, inexplicable components would well mean that a theory is wrong. I'm looking forward to more.
See also The Killing 3.1-2: Poe Poetic Po-po ... The Killing 3.3: Hitchcockian Scene and More ... The Killing 3.7: "Opiate of the Masses" ... Killing 3.8: The Kidnapping, and a Prediction
See also The Killing Season Two Premiere ... The Killing 2.2: Holder ... The Killing 2.11: Circling Back ... The Killing Season 2 Finale
And see also The Killing on AMC and The Killing 1.3: Early Suspects ... The Killing 1.5: Memorable Moments ... The Killing 1.6: The Teacher ... The Killing 1.8: The Teacher, Again ...The Killing 1.9: The Teacher as Victim, Again ... The Killing 1.10: Running Out of Suspects ... The Killing 1.11: Rosie's Missing - from the Story ... The Killing 1.12: Is Orpheus the Killer? ... The Killing 1.13: Stretching Television
#SFWApro
Paul Levinson's books ... Paul Levinson's music
Kallie's mother's lowlife boyfriend is not the killer of Seward's wife. He killed Bullet, confessed to the murder of the 17 young women, and their rings were in his possession. Seward's son picked out his photo, but Kallie's mother negated that with the bad news that the murderous creep was in Alaska at the time Seward's wife was killed. Linden realizes that the boy was just trying to save his father - he'd seen Kallie's boyfriend's face in the news.
So with the pastor and now the pornographer taken out of the running, we're left with what I was talking about last week: Becker the unbalanced prison guard as the killer of Seward's wife.
But at least two questions need to be cleared up before we can definitely say it's Becker.
First, how did he come to know Seward's wife, or be at her home on the night she was murdered? We've seen Becker come to know Seward, of course, as Seward spends his time on time on death row. But Seward's there for the murder of his wife, which means Becker had to know Seward before that, and be motivated enough to kill Seward's wife. Anything less would be too much of a coincidence. Maybe my recollection is fuzzy, but I don't recall any history between Becker and Seward before Seward got to death row.
Second, how did Seward's boy come to draw the pictures of the place where the 17 bodies were found? If Callie's boyfriend, who presumably killed the 17, was in Alaska when Seward's mother was killed, and therefore had no connection to her killing, why would the boy know anything about the 17?
With The Killing, the plot is so intricate and intense that it's always possible to miss a piece of evidence or logic. On the other hand, inexplicable components would well mean that a theory is wrong. I'm looking forward to more.
See also The Killing 3.1-2: Poe Poetic Po-po ... The Killing 3.3: Hitchcockian Scene and More ... The Killing 3.7: "Opiate of the Masses" ... Killing 3.8: The Kidnapping, and a Prediction
See also The Killing Season Two Premiere ... The Killing 2.2: Holder ... The Killing 2.11: Circling Back ... The Killing Season 2 Finale
And see also The Killing on AMC and The Killing 1.3: Early Suspects ... The Killing 1.5: Memorable Moments ... The Killing 1.6: The Teacher ... The Killing 1.8: The Teacher, Again ...The Killing 1.9: The Teacher as Victim, Again ... The Killing 1.10: Running Out of Suspects ... The Killing 1.11: Rosie's Missing - from the Story ... The Killing 1.12: Is Orpheus the Killer? ... The Killing 1.13: Stretching Television
#SFWApro
Paul Levinson's books ... Paul Levinson's music
July 21, 2013
The Newsroom 2.2: The Power of Video
The power of video was in evidence in The Newsroom 2.2 tonight - including what can happen in its absence.At an Occupy Wall Street protest, the NYPD - who in reality and on this show demonstrate a blissful and vexing disregard of the First Amendment - Neil is arrested for doing his job, i.e., reporting on the event. Fortunately, he live streamed his unconstitutional arrest, so even though the marauding NY cops took and likely broke his phone, the video of his outrageous arrest survived. Will is able to use it to get Neil released. Journalists arrested by constitutionally illiterate cops weren't quite so lucky in our reality. But Tim Pool's video did get the case against OWS reporter Alexander Arbuckle thrown out of court last year. (I was pleased to have Tim Pool guest lecture in my class at Fordham University a few months earlier.)
Video, of course, can also incriminate, and it lands Maggie in increasing hot water - that is, a video of her, recorded by a bystander and put on YouTube, when she was in effect proclaiming her love for Jim. Determined to get the video off of YouTube, Maggie (with Sloan insisting on accompanying her) track down the video poster via Foursquare. The poster is not prone to remove the video - it's getting lots of hits and is connected to her blog, after all - but Sloan tries to buy the poster's compliance by offering to tweet a pointer to the poster's blog to Sloan's nearly half a million followers on Twitter. The poster agrees, takes the tweet - only to write a blog post about the whole event, anyway, which of course garners even more to attention to the video, which she hasn't removed, and her blog. A savvy and amusing lesson about the labyrinthine power of social - or what I can "new new" - media, and the wheelers-and-dealers who try to use these media for their often conflicting purposes.But the final lesson about video in this episode, about the impact of no video, is not amusing at all. Troy Davis is executed for killing a police officer in Georgia. He proclaimed his innocence until the end. If only a video existed of what really happened to the cop. Just as justice would have been better served if a video existed of what George Zimmerman did to Trayvon Martin. We don't yet live in such a world, but we're slowly getting there.
See also The Newsroom Season 2 Debuts on Occupy Wall Street and More ... and (about Trayvon Martin) If Only There Was a Video Recording
And see also The Newsroom and McLuhan ... The Newsroom and The Hour ...The Newsroom Season 1 Finale: The Lost Voice Mail
#SFWApro Paul Levinson's books ... Paul Levinson's music
Dexter 8.4: "The Lab Rat" and Harry's Daughter
That was my favorite phrase in the once again superb Dexter 8.4 just on tonight - "lab rat" - which Dex realizes or at least thinks Vogel is treating him like, and which gets Dexter to vow he'll have nothing more to do with her after he takes of A.J. But is Dexter nothing more than a lab rat for Vogel? Not really, he's more like, well, a son to her, though I don't know the woman shrink well enough to be sure how she differentiates between sons and patients and lab rats in her practice and life.Meanwhile, Deb under Vogel's far less than perfect treatment has come to a realization herself: she's just like her father. Meaning, her love for Dexter got her to bend the rules to save him, just as Harry's love for Dexter got Harry to do the same. Of course, Deb bent the rules far more than Harry ever did, when she killed Laguerta to save her brother.
But Deb doesn't see that - or maybe she does. When she showed up to talk to Dexter, my wife thought that was prelude to taking her own life, just as Harry did his, out of despair of what they had done for Dexter. My thought was Deb was there to make things right by killing Dexter.
Turns out we were both right, and the episode concludes was Deb trying to kill her and her brother by getting their car to dive into the water. It was great ending - including that neither dies, even though that was predictable from the metaphysics of television drama. Had this been the last episode in the series, then their joint survival would have been stunning, since either or both could have died at that point. But in just episode 4 of the finale season, it's just too early for either to die.
Still, this may clear the air, at least for Deb, who again realizes she can't let her brother die, and goes back into the water to save him after a guy fishing on the shore saves her. For Dex, this episode may well turn him against his sister - which we see a little in the coming attractions - but that won't last either.
I sure wish it was Sunday again tomorrow. But speaking of dates, did you catch that the calendar in A.J.'s place said "July 2012"? I thought Dexter was taking place pretty much in our present ... but who knows ....
See also Dexter Season 8 Premiere: Mercury in Retrograde, Dexter Incandescent ... Dexter 8.2: The Gift ... Dexter 8.3: The Question and the Confession
And see also Dexter Season 7.1-3: Sneak Preview Review ... Dexter 7.4: The Lesson in Speltzer's Smoke ... Dexter 7.5: Terminator Isaac ... Dexter 7.6: "Breaking and Entering" ... Dexter 7.7: Shakespearean Serial Killer Story ... Dexter 7.8: Love and Its Demands ... Dexter 7.9: Two Memorable Scenes and the Ascension of Isaac ... Dexter 7.11: The "Accident" ... Dexter Season 7 Finale: The Surviving Triangle
And see also Dexter Season 6 Sneak Preview Review ... Dexter 6.4: Two Numbers and Two Killers Equals? ... Dexter 6.5 and 6.6: Decisive Sam ... Dexter 6.7: The State of Nebraska ... Dexter 6.8: Is Gellar Really Real? .... Dexter 6.9: And Gellar Is ... ... Dexter's Take on Videogames in 6.10 ...Dexter and Debra: Dexter 6.11 ... Dexter Season 6 Finale: Through the Eyes of a Different Love
And see also Dexter Season Five Sneak Preview Review ... Dexter 5.4: Dexter's Conscience ...Dexter 5.8 and Lumen ... Dexter 5.9: He's Getting Healthier ... Dexter 5.10: Monsters -Worse and Better ... Dexter 5.11: Sneak Preview with Spoilers ... Dexter Season 5 Finale: Behind the Curtain
And see also Dexter Season 4: Sneak Preview Review ... The Family Man on Dexter 4.5 ...Dexter on the Couch in 4.6 ... Dexter 4.7: 'He Can't Kill Bambi' ... Dexter 4.8: Great Mistakes ...4.9: Trinity's Surprising Daughter ... 4.10: More than Trinity ... 4.11: The "Soulless, Anti-Family Schmuck" ... 4.12: Revenges and Recapitulations
And see also reviews of Season 3: Season's Happy Endings? ... Double Surprise ... Psychotic Law vs. Sociopath Science ... The Bright, Elusive Butterfly of Dexter ... The True Nature of Miguel ...Si Se Puede on Dexter ... and Dexter 3: Sneak Preview Review
Reviews of Season 2: Dexter's Back: A Preview and Dexter Meets Heroes and 6. Dexter and De-Lila-h and 7. Best Line About Dexter - from Lila and 8. How Will Dexter Get Out of This? and The Plot Gets Tighter and Sharper and Dex, Doakes, and Harry and Deb's Belief Saves Dex and All's ... Well
See also about Season 1: First Place to Dexter
#SFWApro
Paul Levinson's books ... Paul Levinson's music
July 18, 2013
Bridge 1.2: A Tale of Two Beds
An excellent second episode of The Bridge last night, in which we get a vivid rendition of just how different Sonya and Marco are, which is a large part of what makes this such a compelling drama.
Sonya's in the mood for love. So she goes to a bar and picks up a guy - in her own inimitable, awkward and socially clueless way. More of this continues back in her bed, where she sleeps with the confused guy, promptly falls asleep herself, then awakens and gets promptly back to work - which in her case entails looking at the gruesome images from the case. The guy leaves, understandably uneasy and not quite getting that she has Asperger's or whatever equivalent syndrome. But we get it, and can see that the syndrome has the dual quality of making her a uniquely focused detective as well as someone who sails through her personal life largely oblivious to the subtleties that go on all around her - in other words, a refreshingly unusual and interesting character, the likes of which we haven't encountered before on television, except perhaps in Monk (which I should have realized in last week's review, when I said how good it was to see Ted Levine back on television).
And Sonya is well complemented by Marco, who is her opposite in crucial respects. He's as hard working as Sonya, but is enmeshed in the social matrix of his police work, which therefore makes him an astute worker of political angles to get the job done. And his bed is very different. He's thoroughly tuned into his wife, and celebrates the news that they're having another baby, surprising but apparently not impossible in view of his recent vasectomy.
This unlikely detective team will need all the complementary qualities they can muster to solve the murders before them, which in effect are increasing daily as Mexicans are murdered by some group as they make it over the border. The Bridge thus combines high political relevance with unconventional characters, and is much welcome.
See also The Bridge Opens Brooding and Valent
#SFWApro
Paul Levinson's books ... Paul Levinson's music
Sonya's in the mood for love. So she goes to a bar and picks up a guy - in her own inimitable, awkward and socially clueless way. More of this continues back in her bed, where she sleeps with the confused guy, promptly falls asleep herself, then awakens and gets promptly back to work - which in her case entails looking at the gruesome images from the case. The guy leaves, understandably uneasy and not quite getting that she has Asperger's or whatever equivalent syndrome. But we get it, and can see that the syndrome has the dual quality of making her a uniquely focused detective as well as someone who sails through her personal life largely oblivious to the subtleties that go on all around her - in other words, a refreshingly unusual and interesting character, the likes of which we haven't encountered before on television, except perhaps in Monk (which I should have realized in last week's review, when I said how good it was to see Ted Levine back on television).
And Sonya is well complemented by Marco, who is her opposite in crucial respects. He's as hard working as Sonya, but is enmeshed in the social matrix of his police work, which therefore makes him an astute worker of political angles to get the job done. And his bed is very different. He's thoroughly tuned into his wife, and celebrates the news that they're having another baby, surprising but apparently not impossible in view of his recent vasectomy.
This unlikely detective team will need all the complementary qualities they can muster to solve the murders before them, which in effect are increasing daily as Mexicans are murdered by some group as they make it over the border. The Bridge thus combines high political relevance with unconventional characters, and is much welcome.
See also The Bridge Opens Brooding and Valent
#SFWApro
Paul Levinson's books ... Paul Levinson's music
Lawrence O'Donnell's Disappointing Performance regarding the Rolling Stone Tsarnaev cover
With the media still in full discussion mode about Rolling Stone's Dzhokar Tsarnaev cover story and photo - a discussion which I think is a good thing - I have to note the surprisingly poor performance of Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC last night in a segment he did about this issue.
Angered by the apparent last-minute cancelation by Rolling Stone or Janet Reitman (who wrote the cover story) of Reitman's scheduled appearance on his show, O'Donnell proceeded to lambast not only the cover photo but the content of Reitman's article, declaring "If you miss this issue of Rolling Stone, you will miss nothing." He ostentatiously refused to show the controversial cover on his air.
I don't blame O'Donnell for being annoyed and even angry about the cancellation, which I think was not a good move by Rolling Stone or whoever said no to Reitman's being on the show. It's always better to confront and engage your critics, rather than giving them the last word.
But this is now especially and manifestly the case for "The Last Word," the name of O'Donnell's MSNBC show. Rather than presenting a reasoned critique, O'Donnell allowed his anger to cloud his judgement and demeaned himself and his show by making statements that are palpably false. A pro like O'Donnell should have known and done better.
I happen to think that Reitman's article is an outstanding report - a story that encompasses the best in journalism in research and evocative writing. But even if I didn't have that opinion, I would be hard pressed to the point of being utterly unable to say I would "miss nothing" if I hadn't read the lengthy story - even a quick reading provides a wealth of significant details in Tsarnaev's life which I and I'd wager most people hadn't seen before.
Further, O'Donnell's diatribe against the article and Rolling Stone empowers the most reactive and regressive elements of our society. Rolling Stone has received death threats - will O'Donnell denounce those? CVS, Stop & Shop, and other stores have pulled this issue of Rolling Stone from their shelves. Is that the kind of America we want, where media are pulled from shelves, where words are withheld, so people cannot decide on their own whether their contents are of value?
What I would have expected from O'Donnell, as combatant in many wars against censorship himself, is, yes, a critique of Rolling Stone and this article if that is what he believes, but a defense of its right to publish this article as it saw fit, and a call for people to read the article, look at the photo, and decide for themselves.
See also Why the Rolling Stone cover with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is Helpful
PS - And this excellent analysis - especially the final paragraph - by Ian Crouch in The New Yorker Paul Levinson's books ... Paul Levinson's music
Angered by the apparent last-minute cancelation by Rolling Stone or Janet Reitman (who wrote the cover story) of Reitman's scheduled appearance on his show, O'Donnell proceeded to lambast not only the cover photo but the content of Reitman's article, declaring "If you miss this issue of Rolling Stone, you will miss nothing." He ostentatiously refused to show the controversial cover on his air.
I don't blame O'Donnell for being annoyed and even angry about the cancellation, which I think was not a good move by Rolling Stone or whoever said no to Reitman's being on the show. It's always better to confront and engage your critics, rather than giving them the last word.
But this is now especially and manifestly the case for "The Last Word," the name of O'Donnell's MSNBC show. Rather than presenting a reasoned critique, O'Donnell allowed his anger to cloud his judgement and demeaned himself and his show by making statements that are palpably false. A pro like O'Donnell should have known and done better.
I happen to think that Reitman's article is an outstanding report - a story that encompasses the best in journalism in research and evocative writing. But even if I didn't have that opinion, I would be hard pressed to the point of being utterly unable to say I would "miss nothing" if I hadn't read the lengthy story - even a quick reading provides a wealth of significant details in Tsarnaev's life which I and I'd wager most people hadn't seen before.
Further, O'Donnell's diatribe against the article and Rolling Stone empowers the most reactive and regressive elements of our society. Rolling Stone has received death threats - will O'Donnell denounce those? CVS, Stop & Shop, and other stores have pulled this issue of Rolling Stone from their shelves. Is that the kind of America we want, where media are pulled from shelves, where words are withheld, so people cannot decide on their own whether their contents are of value?
What I would have expected from O'Donnell, as combatant in many wars against censorship himself, is, yes, a critique of Rolling Stone and this article if that is what he believes, but a defense of its right to publish this article as it saw fit, and a call for people to read the article, look at the photo, and decide for themselves.
See also Why the Rolling Stone cover with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is Helpful
PS - And this excellent analysis - especially the final paragraph - by Ian Crouch in The New Yorker Paul Levinson's books ... Paul Levinson's music
July 17, 2013
Why the Rolling Stone cover with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is Helpful
I was briefly on WCBS-TV Channel 2 news this evening, talking about why I thought the Rolling Stone cover with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was helpful. Actually, I was interviewed for about 10 minutes, but as often happens with television, only a few words made it into the newscast, which you can see below. Here's the gist of the rest of what I had to say -
We live in a world, unfortunately, in which human monsters come in many forms. I say unfortunately, because sometimes the person next door, who looks like us, may be a monster. This means that we may be especially unlikely to see the monster coming - and to avoid the awful harm that ensues.
The Rolling Stone cover - in addition to its well-researched, thoughtful article - makes this point very well. The MySpace photo of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev shows what looks for all the world like what a kid his age wants to look like - try to look cool, trying to impress girls. Blowing up innocent people at the Boston Marathon looks like it would be the last thing on his mind. But that's what he apparently did, and that's why it's so important to call attention to this seeming disconnect between attractive image and deadly deed.
It's not as if magazines never put photos of terrible people on their covers. Adolf Hitler was Time magazine's "Man of the Year" in 1938, followed in 1939 by Joseph Stalin. Time put them there not because they were good or remotely admirable. Time put them there because of the bad impact they were already having on their countries and the world.
The notion that Rolling Stone was trying to glorify Tsarnaev is about as logical as Time magazine was trying to glorify Hitler. Rather, in both cases, the magazines were doing their job: bringing details of monsters to us, so we could better understand them, so we could perhaps recognize what they are in the future, before they commit their atrocities.
Paul Levinson's books ... Paul Levinson's music
We live in a world, unfortunately, in which human monsters come in many forms. I say unfortunately, because sometimes the person next door, who looks like us, may be a monster. This means that we may be especially unlikely to see the monster coming - and to avoid the awful harm that ensues.
The Rolling Stone cover - in addition to its well-researched, thoughtful article - makes this point very well. The MySpace photo of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev shows what looks for all the world like what a kid his age wants to look like - try to look cool, trying to impress girls. Blowing up innocent people at the Boston Marathon looks like it would be the last thing on his mind. But that's what he apparently did, and that's why it's so important to call attention to this seeming disconnect between attractive image and deadly deed.
It's not as if magazines never put photos of terrible people on their covers. Adolf Hitler was Time magazine's "Man of the Year" in 1938, followed in 1939 by Joseph Stalin. Time put them there not because they were good or remotely admirable. Time put them there because of the bad impact they were already having on their countries and the world.
The notion that Rolling Stone was trying to glorify Tsarnaev is about as logical as Time magazine was trying to glorify Hitler. Rather, in both cases, the magazines were doing their job: bringing details of monsters to us, so we could better understand them, so we could perhaps recognize what they are in the future, before they commit their atrocities.
Paul Levinson's books ... Paul Levinson's music
Levinson at Large
At present, I'll be automatically porting over blog posts from my main blog, Paul Levinson's Infinite Regress. These consist of literate (I hope) reviews of mostly television, with some reviews of mov
...more
- Paul Levinson's profile
- 341 followers
