I find myself more and more thinking of something Phil wrote last year about his experience delivering his course online. The full post is here, I'll quote the key bits below:
As regards teaching, this is a Them That's Got Shall Have semester. Those students who have arrived in my life--I almost typed "in my classroom" and then noticed the absurdity--with a great existing capacity for self-monitoring, for locating in themselves the wellsprings of enthusiasm and then directing those waters to any given assignment, for interpreting and following directions, are doing great! The students who haven't, aren't....
There are always some people who can administer education to themselves, like a medication. If they are pointed in the direction of more or less adequate books and if they find decent conversation partners, they will learn the thing, assuming they want to know it....
...some students who come to me this semester having not learned how to administer education to themselves in the proper doses will leave me having learned little....
This has been my experience with online teaching as well.
I don't know Adam well. I met him one or two times during the summer of 2006 (when I was back in Grand Rapids). But during the one or two times we talked, I found him a kindred spirit with many similar interests, so we've stayed in vague touch on social media since then.
He was a mutual friend of Phil Christman, which is how I made his acquaintance. (And also, coincidentally, how I found out about this article).
As for my thoughts on Avatar: The Last Airbender....
I have numerous friends my own age who have recommended this series to me as being worthwhile despite being made for children. So I attempted to watch it.
I attempted to binge Avatar: The Last Airbender back during the time I was binging a lot of DVD sets in 2012. (Looking back at my massive write up on all the DVD sets I binged, it looks like I neglected to mention Avatar. But that was an oversight.)
I regret to say I couldn't get into it. Don't get me wrong, it did strike me as very sophisticated for children's entertainment. I was reminded of how fascinated I was as a child by the ongoing storyline in The Mysterious Cities of Gold. And Avatar: The Last Airbender was way more sophisticated in its storyline than that, so I can only imagine the impression it makes on people who encounter it as children.
But... I didn't find it remotely suitable for adults--the pacing, humor, plotlines, et ceter were all for children. Especially in this day and age of the so-called golden age of content, when there is so much other choices available, I couldn't understand why adults would choose to spend their time watching this.
But, if really smart guy like Adam can give it such a positive write-up, perhaps I should give it a re-evaluation?
There is a famous remark to the effect that generals are always fighting the last war. I don't know enough about generals to say if this is actually true of them, but I was reminded yet again this week, as some Dems geared up to support a racist billionaire plutocrat for President, that it sure is true of American center-leftists. They are so ruled by 1972's model of what's electable that they are willing to even consider running Mike Bloomberg against Donald Trump in 2020. They are fighting a war they lost a generation ago, using a strategy--"voters want us to be Republicans, but with a twist!"--that lost, depending on how you count 'em, in 1980,* 1984, 1988, 2000, 2004, and, most consequentially, 2016.
Yeah, my thoughts exactly.
Read Phil's whole post HERE.
This sounds like huge news, but it's actually not. The Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem was never really in any doubt to begin with. The Old Testament account of the fall of Jerusalem lines up pretty much exactly with our accounts from other historical sources. (For more information on this, see The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible by Robin Lane Fox.)
It is a point worth remembering, however. These days, I sometimes feel like half of my conversations about the Bible are defending it against hardcore atheists--people who don't want to credit the Bible with any historical accuracy. But these people are just as wrong as the hard core Christians who claim that there aren't any errors in the Bible. There is actually a lot of real history in the Old Testament, but it is mixed up with mythology and religions polemics. Separating the two can be tricky, but also fascinating.
My understanding is as follows: Story of the Patriarchs, the Exodus, and the Conquest of Canaan--Pure Mythology. No historical value Ruth--Historical fiction. It was a later addition to the King David legend, which was meant as a rebuttal to the racial purism that had developed in Ezra and Nehemiah's time. King David--Possibly historical (For more discussion see HERE). 1st and 2nd Kings-- History re-arranged to fit a religious polemic, but based on real historical events. The closer we get to the fall of Jerusalem, the more accurate it becomes Esther and Daniel--Historical fiction. The settings are historical, and most of the kings were real people, but the story is fiction Ezra and Nehemiah-- authentic historical documents, that have been mangled by and chopped up carelessly by later editors
...and actually while I'm on the subject...
I was meaning to link to this ages ago and never got around to it, but my old pal Phil Christman has published a review of the Old Testament. Or as he puts it, "I reviewed the FREAKIN’ BIBLE, no big deal".
I agree with half of Phil's review, and disagree with the other half, but I will resist the urge to comment on every line of the review. I'll just say that I enjoy reading Phil as always. He is one of those writers who has the ability to make his thought process clear to his readers, and even when I don't agree with him, I love being able to see what his thought process is. There's nothing I like more than enjoying a morning cup of coffee and reading Phil's latest post.
But it's 9 months later, and people are STILL arguing about this movie online. (This might be a sign that I'm spending too much time online while normal people have moved on with their lives).
Plus The Last Jedi is now being run on cable TV, and I've re-watched it this week, so I'm going to try to clarify my thoughts.
(Hopefully I'll say what I want to say, get it out of my system, and then move on to doing more worthwhile things with my life.)
To begin with, I'm puzzled about this whole outrage in general:
If you didn't like this movie, that's cool. We're still friends. In fact, within my circle of friends, the whole range of opinions is represented. (People who loved it, people who hated it, people who were luke-warm, etc).
But... the amount of entitled fanboy whining about this movie is truly baffling. (Perhaps this is what the Internet has done to our culture?)
I personally liked this movie. But even if you didn't, the law of averages dictates that not every Star Wars film is going to be brilliant. If a franchise goes on long enough, eventually it's going to produce some bad films. It's just statistics. You can't have every Star Wars film be better than average. There's no magical super-power protecting this franchise from mediocrity. There will be bad Star Wars films from time-to-time. It doesn't mean the whole franchise is ruined. Just suck it up.
What makes all this outrage even more baffling is that this is a franchise which has already produced a lot of terrible entries. Repeatedly. Remember The Holiday Special, those 2 Ewoks movies, that Droids cartoon show, the Clone Wars theatrical movie, and the whole prequel trilogy? Many fans believe that even part of the original trilogy, Return of the Jedi, was a disappointment.
So why are people acting like the franchise is ruined now?
Thoughts on Re-watching The Last Jedi
My original opinion remains largely unchanged. This is a brilliant film. One of the best Star Wars ever.
...with a few missteps. That flying space Leia was an unfortunate wrong note. And I still don't like how Luke died at the end.
Okay, so it's not perfect. (Perhaps I was a bit overly generous in giving this film 10 out of 10. Maybe 9 out of 10 is more accurate).
Also, I think Phil Christman has convinced me that Luke's character is not consistent with his earlier portrayals. It works fine as a character arc within this film, but doesn't mesh well with the broader continuity. To quote Phil at some length:
We should talk about Luke. Rian Johnson has constructed an interesting storyline about an interesting Generic Grizzled Veteran character who happens not to be Luke Skywalker--impetuous, activist, goes-where-he's-needed practical farmboy Luke Skywalker--on any level whatsoever. Unfortunately, the script requires that this character be Luke Skywalker, and you never get over the fundamental incongruity, despite Mark Hamill's very best efforts. (Hamill has alluded to this, in his characteristically nice way, in several interviews.) Luke's role in these films has always been to present a kind of Christian active love in untheorized, almost unspoken dissent from the superficially attractive but morally appalling Stoicism of the Jedi. (If I had a nickel for every idiot who has told me that Christian ethics "cribbed from" the Stoics. Christianity subverted the Stoics! And thank God! Fuck the Stoics!) Recall that in Empire Strikes Back Yoda tells Luke in no uncertain terms that he's wrong to fly back to Cloud City and rescue Han and Leia, that he's sacrificing both the Jedi code and the Rebellion's ultimate victory. But yet Yoda is clearly shown to be wrong. Luke's choice sets in motion the chain of events that leads to the Empire's downfall and Darth Vader's repentance and is undoubtedly the correct one. In the next film, Yoda sternly orders him not to go and confront Vader, and he's wrong about this too. Luke is shamed, again and again, for being excitable, for being anxious, for caring. (This is presented in the films as a mere vainglory; Last Jedi is particularly hard on this trait, which it unsubtly codes as intrinsically male.) But he's right and Yoda is wrong in every case where they disagree. Indeed, Yoda is so useless over the course of the six Star Wars films that some fans theorize he was a Sith Lord the whole time. To have him appear in Last Jedi, of all characters--looking at least as stupid as the CGI Thanos in the Avengers trailer--and deliver the coup de grace to hidebound Jedi ideology, while Luke looks on, as dumb as he was back on Dagobah watching his ship lift from the swamp, mistakes completely what both these characters are about. Yoda is hidebound Jedi ideology. And while I appreciate that someone in these films has finally made an explicit critique of the Jedi--from movie one, they have always been magic lying dipshits who speak in platitudes and give bad advice--Luke's isn't particularly coherent, nor is he very consistent about it. If he's worried about a warrior elite lording it over the galaxy, he might start by being a little more considerate of the slapstick aliens who act as caretakers of his remote Jedi hermitage. (When he gives Rey her "first lesson," he should have made it be "fix this hole you laser-blasted in the wall and apologize to these nice people." Anti-elitism begins at home, Luke.)
This didn't occur to me on the first viewing, but I've been thinking about it, and Phil is probably right.
Now that Phil has put the thought in my head, Luke's portrayal jarred with me on the second-viewing.
...Although, counterpoint, Movie Bob argues that this is portrayal is just staying faithful to the King Arthur legend. Arthur was young and idealistic in his youth, but became old and jaded near the end, and allowed his kingdom to disintegrate among his quarreling nephews.
Now I'm not sure what to believe. Both sides have good points.
Legacy
Both The Last Jedi lovers and The Last Jedi haters believe that time will vindicate their viewpoint.
The Last Jedi defenders point out that The Empire Strikes back was poorly received on its initial release, but when on to be regarded as the best of the franchise.
The Last Jedi haters point out that The Phantom Menace got an initial positive response from fans before the initial euphoria died away, and everyone realized it sucked.
Me? I'm in The Last Jedi defenders club. I believe that in the fullness of time, everyone will realize this was actually a great movie.
...kind of. Although actually, in another 30 or 40 years, we'll all be in the nursing home, and no one will care what our opinion is. (Boy, it's depressing when you do the math like that, isn't it? But it's true.)
To assume anyone will still be talking about Star Wars at all in the future is to assume that Star Wars is going to be as important to the next generation as it was to us. And that's not assured. (My elementary school students like Star Wars well enough, but it's only one of many franchises competing for their attention).
It's perfectly possible in the future no one will care about this movie one way or the other.
But assuming, for the sake of argument, that people are still debating Star Wars in 30 years, I think this movie will be treated with respect. And some admiration for its ambition.
...although the pacing is an issue. I noted this in my original review, but it was more evident on re-watching. When I first watched this movie, the suspense of not knowing what was going to happen largely held my attention through the more talky parts of this movie.
On re-watching this movie, I was in danger of getting bored during the talky parts.
It's also a little bit too long to sit through.
If you just watch the first half, or if you just watch the second half, it's great. But if you try to watch the whole thing in one sitting, it does get a bit too long.
Like most people of my generation, I've watched the original trilogy more times than I could count. (It was constantly brought out for slumber parties, youth group events, high school parties, et cetera.)
Could you do the same with The Last Jedi?
Maybe The Last Jedi is not meant to be watched over and over and over again like the other Star Wars films. Maybe it's meant to be watched just a few times, and then reflected on. Less of a popcorn action film, and more like The Godfather.
But, okay, enough fence sitting. What is my final prediction on this?
Prediction
It's going to go the trajectory of The Empire Strikes Back. In 30 years time, it will be remembered as one of the greatest Star Wars films.
Links
In addition to being a response to Internet chatter generally, this post is partially a response to Whisky Prajer's post: Does Star Wars need saving?
I was originally going to leave a comment, but the more I thought about it, the more my thoughts grew into an entire post.
As with before, I wasn't familiar with any of the books they were discussing, but I enjoyed the conversation nonetheless.
....a shame about the audio quality. Hopefully that will get sorted out on future episodes. (As someone who doesn't know a thing about audio recordings myself, I'm in no position to criticize).
Phil Christman and Adam Petty have finally started out their book review podcast. (I remember Phil talking about doing this on twitter ages ago, and have been eagerly waiting for this to start.)
These guys are way too smart for me. (I've never heard of any of the writers or books that they reference). But I really enjoyed this podcast nonetheless. Partly it was just nice to hear their voices. And partly they've got a good conversation going, that makes it fun to listen to even if you have no idea who any of these writers are.
Monday, January 02, 2017
So this has been making the rounds on twitter. Several people I follow have been tweeting it. For example Phil:
Apparently it's now confirmed that Nixon intentionally sabotaged '68 peace talks. https://t.co/K0hNOkhjgd
But now we've found notes from Nixon's aide. And the New York Times is reporting it. So now it has moved from officially confirmed to super-super officially confirmed now I guess.
As I wrote back during the Brexit issue, one of the cool things about living in the expatriate community is that I get to hear a lot about British politics from the perspective of my British co-workers.
One of the disturbing things about the post-Brexit election was that the racists started coming out of the woodwork immediately. I would hear personal stories from my British friends and co-workers. For example, one of my British co-wokers had a friend with a Polish last name. The day after Brexit, she got several messages asking her when she was going to leave Britain.
Stories of racial minorities and Muslims suddenly getting harassed all over Britain were immediately on the news.
Now, it's not the fact that everyone who voted for Brexit was a racist. Far from it. There were good sound democratic reasons to be concerned about how the European Union.
But what DID happen is that the racists interpreted Brexit as a legitimization of their views. They used to think they were in the minority. Now suddenly they thought they were in the majority, and they suddenly started acting as if they didn't have to be ashamed any more of their hate.
When Trump got elected, I, and many people, wondered if the same thing could happen in the US.
On Wednesday morning, I thought about writing this post as a pre-cautionary tale. But since then, unfortunately, events have over-taken me.
Now, there have been numerous reports of racist incidents happening. Some anecdotal on Facebook and Twitter. Some have been widely reported on the media. You've all seen the news as much as I have, so I'm not going to waste time recounting everything here.
Again, this is not for a minute to say that everyone who voted for Trump is a racist. But this is to say that there are some racists in this country, and that they are interpreting this as a victory. And they are now coming out into the open.
This is happening. The age of subtle racism is over. The age of overt racism is coming back. The question is now what to do about it.
Thoughts
* It's funny how we sometimes think everything that happened before we were born is ancient history. I always thought Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights movement was a long ago part of our past. But Martin Luther King was assassinated only 10 years before I was born. And ten years is nothing. Ten years go by in the blink of an eye.
But because it was before we were born, it sometimes feels like 10 years might have been 100 years. Me and my whole generation grew up thinking that racism was a problem of America's past. We thought America used to be racist, then we had the civil rights movement, and now America has moved on.
The fact is, however, that we are still within living memory of the Civil Rights movement. Those white supremacists who beat Civil Rights protesters in the 60s, and those Klansman who murdered freedom riders--many of them are still alive today.
Racism was never eradicated. What happened instead was that racism only lost the culture war. It became unacceptable to be identified as a racist, and so people resisted doing anything that would cause them to be identified as a racist.
But the moment these people perceive that the culture is shifting back again in their direction, then we are going to start seeing racists come out of the woodwork.
We saw a preview of this with the Tea Party. Now, it is getting worse.
And it will continue unless these people realize, once again, that they have lost the culture war, and that this kind of behavior is not accepted by the rest of America.
And the only way for them to lose the culture war is for us to win it.
It's not enough just to get into Twitter wars with these people. They need to be shut down entirely through organized action.
In other words, we need a new Civil Rights movement.
Of course it's very easy for me to sit on my fat ass and blithely make proclamations like this. To actually organize a new Civil Rights movement requires a lot of hard work, boring meetings, waking up early and organizing, marching in hot weather, etc. And I'm all the way over in Vietnam, so I'm not going to be doing any of that. So it's very presumptuous of me to tell other people to do this.
So, fine, call me a lazy hypocrite if you want to. I won't deny that I'm not pulling my fair share.
But what I will say is this: Unless some people start organizing something, the racists will not just go away by themselves. They think they're winning now, and they're going to continue to push forward.
My Burkean friend likes to say that there is no teleological progress within history. This was something I thought I knew. I didn’t really know it. There is no progress within history. There are better deeds and worse deeds and better words and worse words (words being a subset of deeds). And that’s it. This train isn’t going anywhere. It was never a train. There are no tracks.
There's been a lot in the news about race since Obama's election. As someone who's been involved - in - protest - politics - myself, I'm somewhat sympathetic to the fact that the Tea Party can't always control what nut-cases show up to their events. So it would probably be unfair of me to paint them all as racists just because some of them are. However there's another equally dangerous fallacy. A number of media commentators have been implying (or straight out said) that since white America has elected a black president we now live in a post-racial society, and any discussion of racism in America is now taboo. However the pendulum of history can always swing back unless we stay vigilant. For example, when Benjamin Disraeli became the first Jewish prime minister of Great Britain in 1868, it did not mean the end of antisemitism in Europe. Or even the end of antisemitism in Great Britain itself. For a time in 1919, Rosa Luxembourg, Karl Liebknecht and other Jewish intellectuals were among the most powerful people in Germany. But this did not mark the inevitable decline of antisemitism in Germany.
