EP177: Usurpers

[ryos]

Sorry for the double post; I wanted to qualify the final paragraph of my previous post, but since it was already pushing the TLDR threshold I decided to make a new one.

I'm not opposed to exercise. I've lost over 90 lbs in my lifetime, though diet of course but mostly through exercise. It was a major mental triumph for me to voluntarily go to the gym for 45 minutes of painful drudgery 3-5 times a week, but I did it and see the value in it. Of course, in the years since I've gained much of that back. I declared "mission accomplished" and went back to my sedentary ways. I just hate gyms so much!

So, now I'm biking. I ride my bike four miles a day, to school and work. I deliberately take a route that has me ride up a mile-long hill and then back down, even though routes of roughly equal distance are available that avoid the climb. I know what it is to make myself hurt because I know it's good for me, but I get no sense of fulfillment from it, and that's why I can't empathize with the characters in this story.

(On the plus side, I almost never drive. I can actually say "meh" to rising gas prices because they don't impact me that much.)

[gelee]

John Henry: Black man with determination VS. White man with technology.

Brilliant.  I totally missed that.

[ieDaddy]

John Henry: Black man with determination VS. White man with technology.

Brilliant.  I totally missed that.

Wait, King was black?

Seriously though, in regards to the comments above about rich white kids and property values... I lived near a wealthy part of town (Coto de caza, where Kobe Bryant of the Lakers had a mansion at one point) but most of us were probably average to upper middle class - I don't think there's the millionaire's neighborhood per say and just down the street were the condos and apartments, very few places are just blocks and blocks of CEO's and millionaires.

Now, that being said I've been accused a time or two of being a "rich kid" or having a 'rich kid" mentality.  Mostly because growing up I always had food on the table, clothes on my back, and a few bucks in my wallet.  Not a fancy car and not designer clothes, just a few basics and then some.  As such I never let most things get to me, just did my own thing went to college and found a job I actually liked doing (yes, apparently liking your job is only something the rich do - if you're poor you must do a job you hate).

Probably just a pet peeve, but saying someone is rich is like saying someone is tall.  There's always people taller and shorter than the person you're referring to.  For that matter, most people who are "rich" don't look it, and most people who look rich really aren't.  There's a great book called "The millionaire next door", which I highly recommend.  It basically shows through various statistics that most people we call rich are actually "big hat, no cattle".

[Thaurismunths]

John Henry: Black man with determination VS. White man with technology.

Brilliant.  I totally missed that.

Wait, King was black?

At 5:40 in to the podcast King talks about the adjectives used and not used on him and Steve.
I have to admit that you had me REALLY worried. I didn't immediately recall where or how I knew that King was black and was bothered that I might have stereotyped the character's race just because he was a determined young man from a really poor part of town.

[WillMoo]

John Henry: Black man with determination VS. White man with technology.

John Henry was about man vs. machine. Not black man vs. white man. The racial issue as a focal point is revisionism.

[Thaurismunths]

John Henry: Black man with determination VS. White man with technology.

John Henry was about man vs. machine. Not black man vs. white man. The racial issue as a focal point is revisionism.

If you want to read a racial implication in to either story, that's up to you. I only meant it as a statement of fact to illustrate a coincidence.

[Windup]

John Henry: Black man with determination VS. White man with technology.

John Henry was about man vs. machine. Not black man vs. white man. The racial issue as a focal point is revisionism.

I'm not sure it's reasonable to talk about "revisionism" with regard to fiction.  By its very nature, a story must be re-interpreted by each person who hears it, and each member of the audience will bring their life-experience to bear on the interpretation.  Different people will notice different things, and assign differing degrees of importance to various details.

I think the most important word in your sentence may have been, "was."  Man vs. Machine may indeed have been the original intent of the author, but author's intent is a surprisingly weak force. I suspect it grows weaker as time moves on and the story is read well outside its original cultural context.  Witness the radically different interpretations offered by people trying to understand really old texts, such as the Bible.  People will -- maybe even must -- create their own "meanings."

As the storyteller's proverb puts it: "You can help pull the cork out of the bottle, but don't pretend for a moment you can control what happens next."

[Thaurismunths]

As the storyteller's proverb puts it: "You can help pull the cork out of the bottle, but don't pretend for a moment you can control what happens next."

Great line. Where'd you hear it?

[Windup]

As the storyteller's proverb puts it: "You can help pull the cork out of the bottle, but don't pretend for a moment you can control what happens next."

Great line. Where'd you hear it?

In a group of storytellers, I'm sure, but it's been years ago, and my memory can't pinpoint a specific group or event, much less a person.  It's one of those expressions that "floats around" communities without attribution.  I settle on "proverb" for sheer lack of precision. 

[Anarkey]

I'm not sure it's reasonable to talk about "revisionism" with regard to fiction.  By its very nature, a story must be re-interpreted by each person who hears it, and each member of the audience will bring their life-experience to bear on the interpretation.  Different people will notice different things, and assign differing degrees of importance to various details.

Windup, thanks for saying this.  I was thinking the same thing, but couldn't get a coherent thought past WTF? so I could post.  Yay for you and your words saying what I meant so I don't have to!

[JoeFitz]

I'm not sure it's reasonable to talk about "revisionism" with regard to fiction.  By its very nature, a story must be re-interpreted by each person who hears it, and each member of the audience will bring their life-experience to bear on the interpretation.  Different people will notice different things, and assign differing degrees of importance to various details.

Yes and no. Perhaps the term is not the best one, since it implies a negative re-imaging of the text, when in fact, it may be merely a new perspective. Certainly the stream of literary criticism over time has varied. Schools of criticism have waxed and waned overtime. Certain texts have been considered in that metacritical context. And literary criticism itself (being literature) has been subject to the same forces. Some texts are very difficult to read today "fresh" that is, without the established critical reception of the work. Some are impossible to imagine in their original context. And then, of course, there is the whole "does the author matter?" idea.

While relativism is an important aspect of literary analysis - and there is definitely a person vs. establishment theme going these days, there is also something to be said for the establishment. It's true that modern analysis of Shakespeare's works (for example) can and do have new things to say about the text. It's also true that many things said about Shakespeare were said 100, 200 or 300 years ago and are just as valid today.

[ieDaddy]

It's true that modern analysis of Shakespeare's works (for example) can and do have new things to say about the text. It's also true that many things said about Shakespeare were said 100, 200 or 300 years ago and are just as valid today.

Just a side tangent - The remake of Romeo and Juliet with Leonardo was probably hands down the absolute worst movie ever.  New isn't always better.

[Windup]

I'm not sure it's reasonable to talk about "revisionism" with regard to fiction.  By its very nature, a story must be re-interpreted by each person who hears it, and each member of the audience will bring their life-experience to bear on the interpretation.  Different people will notice different things, and assign differing degrees of importance to various details.

Yes and no. Perhaps the term is not the best one, since it implies a negative re-imaging of the text, when in fact, it may be merely a new perspective. Certainly the stream of literary criticism over time has varied. Schools of criticism have waxed and waned overtime. Certain texts have been considered in that metacritical context. And literary criticism itself (being literature) has been subject to the same forces. Some texts are very difficult to read today "fresh" that is, without the established critical reception of the work. Some are impossible to imagine in their original context. And then, of course, there is the whole "does the author matter?" idea.

While relativism is an important aspect of literary analysis - and there is definitely a person vs. establishment theme going these days, there is also something to be said for the establishment. It's true that modern analysis of Shakespeare's works (for example) can and do have new things to say about the text. It's also true that many things said about Shakespeare were said 100, 200 or 300 years ago and are just as valid today.

What I was reacting to was the implication that a story can "mean" one and only one thing.  WillMoo asserted that since the racial dimension wasn't the original focus of John Henry, it was "revisionism" to bring it up.  While I think the struggle between human strength and technology is a perfectly legitimate way to read John Henry, I think other interpretations and insights are also perfectly legitimate.  I think storytelling is like fiddling with the environment: You can never do just one thing.

[ryos]

It's true that modern analysis of Shakespeare's works (for example) can and do have new things to say about the text. It's also true that many things said about Shakespeare were said 100, 200 or 300 years ago and are just as valid today.

Just a side tangent - The remake of Romeo and Juliet with Leonardo was probably hands down the absolute worst movie ever.  New isn't always better.

Yeah, but then again, Romeo and Juliet is hands down the worst thing Shakespeare ever wrote.   

[Windup]

It's true that modern analysis of Shakespeare's works (for example) can and do have new things to say about the text. It's also true that many things said about Shakespeare were said 100, 200 or 300 years ago and are just as valid today.

Just a side tangent - The remake of Romeo and Juliet with Leonardo was probably hands down the absolute worst movie ever.  New isn't always better.

Yeah, but then again, Romeo and Juliet is hands down the worst thing Shakespeare ever wrote.   

I dunno, there's The Taming of the Shrew to consider.

[wintermute]

It's true that modern analysis of Shakespeare's works (for example) can and do have new things to say about the text. It's also true that many things said about Shakespeare were said 100, 200 or 300 years ago and are just as valid today.

Just a side tangent - The remake of Romeo and Juliet with Leonardo was probably hands down the absolute worst movie ever.  New isn't always better.

Yeah, but then again, Romeo and Juliet is hands down the worst thing Shakespeare ever wrote.  

Troilus and Cressida. Timon of Athens. Love's Labour Lost. The Two Gentlemen of Verona.

When you come down to it, only a small handful of Shakespeare's plays were actually any good...

[Zathras]

Francis Bacon

[DKT]

It's true that modern analysis of Shakespeare's works (for example) can and do have new things to say about the text. It's also true that many things said about Shakespeare were said 100, 200 or 300 years ago and are just as valid today.

Just a side tangent - The remake of Romeo and Juliet with Leonardo was probably hands down the absolute worst movie ever.  New isn't always better.

Don't remember that one so much, but the remake of Romeo and Juliet with Claire Danes was Awesome 

[Talia]

I rather liked that Romeo & Juliet remake. It was rather stylized so I can see how it would not to be everyone's tastes, but it worked for me.  (not to threadjack.. sorry)

[Zathras]

Listened to this one again.  I think I may start listening to the previous episode every Thursday.  After reading the discussion, I have a different perspective.  Getting ready to listen to Unlikely.

As to King's ethnicity:  "Adjectives not used to describe King:  Black.  African American."

Regarding the wealth of Steve and the other Kentwood students:  "Steve's family frequently mentioned in stories.  Of the Boston Presscotts.  Implies good breeding, societal preapproval."

I don't think there was anything unethical about King's training.  He followed the rules.  He just trained smarter and harder.

I was also informed by my 15 year old god daughter that the wassup is moe like: whus ssuuh.  As she is a teenager and thus 100000000000000 times cooler than I, I take her word on it.

[Zathras]

::avoids mad editing::

I don't know what a good cross country 3.2 mile time would be, but 9:59 would definately fall into the impossible range

[ieDaddy]

::avoids mad editing::

I don't know what a good cross country 3.2 mile time would be, but 9:59 would definately fall into the impossible range

Considering that Kenenisa Bekele has the current world record 5000m outdoor (Which is the standard championship length for 15-18 year olds in cross country running) at 12:37.35 I would tend to agree.

[Zathras]

::avoids mad editing::

I don't know what a good cross country 3.2 mile time would be, but 9:59 would definately fall into the impossible range

Considering that Kenenisa Bekele has the current world record 5000m outdoor (Which is the standard championship length for 15-18 year olds in cross country running) at 12:37.35 I would tend to agree.

I was basing my number on two things, the 3 minute mile and symbolism.

[Thaurismunths]

Considering that Kenenisa Bekele has the current world record 5000m outdoor (Which is the standard championship length for 15-18 year olds in cross country running) at 12:37.35 I would tend to agree.

My god!
That's 4 minute miles!

[Loz]

Hmmmm, I seem to remember liking this at the time I listened to it but now, about four or five hours later, not much of it has stuck in my mind. I did think the writing style worked in the story's favour, though it's one of those things that, like A Clockwork Orange, you have to get in synch with.

Unfortunately it had the opposite effect on me than it did on Our Dark Lord Eley in that it gave me a powerful craving for a big steak and a tub of ice-cream.