Saturday, March 7, 2009

Andy Watches the Watchmen

Warning: Spoilers Ahead

Who watched the Watchmen?

Last night, not many.

A few dozen folks in the audience, plenty of mobile-phone tapping, snickering teens, a handful of comic-book-guy lookalikes too, and lots of empty seats for a Friday night.

That's a shame, because Watchmen rocks.

I write this as a non-fanboy and as a virgin to the Alan Moore/Dave Gibbons graphic novel. I walked in having never heard of alien squids or Black Freighters. I didn't miss their absence any more than I missed all the wheels-within-wheels backstory necessarily trimmed for a hard-R 2 1/2 hour summer blockbuster.

Despite all the hue and cry I'd followed from a distance about an unfilmable film, I left the theater with a good buzz, thinking about quantum mechanics and free will and utopia and the cost of peace. I also left with indelible images of shifting Rorschach blots and Martian timepieces and snapping bones and exploding bodies.

Watchmen is a triumph of big ideas and hardcore action, a film worth watching again and again, if only for the myriad details inevitably missed at first glance. Like the graphic novel, it rewards careful attention to symbolism, imagery, metaphor, and nuance. This is an action-thriller-noir whose words and referents matter.

For me, the movie does a swell job of engaging a key theme of Moore's opus, the implications of the American Dream. As the nihilistic Comedian announces: "It came true." Sure, our version of 1985 got Ronald Reagen instead of Robert Redford. And our version faced 9/11 rather than the reelection of Richard Nixon. Yet both versions suffered a psychosis with roots in Vietnam, whether by defeat or victory.

A mirror image of opposing ideas, the American Dream revealed itself to be the culmination of all efforts to create a good place: dystopia. Watchmen tackles that thesis both delicately and with gross clarity, arguing that we lost something fundamental in the 1960s. We lost the sanity of limitations.

In that vein, I also dug the movie's ability to examine complex questions of time and causality. If all our actions are known, stitched together into a singularity of past and future, here and there, why should we choose one direction or another? From that perspective, why should a person don a mask and save the world? Why not simply destroy it? And if we can (or must) destroy either a village or the world in order to save it, what's the difference?

In Watchmen, the answer affirms what we've come to know in the past couple decades: superheroes hide behind their costumes and exploits, obscuring their fear, their alienation, their impotence, and their pathology. In my opinion, it's cheap to always fall back to some sexual "dysfunction" as justification for all that leather and those masks (Moore's winking "closet" language wisely excised from the film, though the Village People make an appearance). No, I view the superhero as a means to understanding the American dilemma. That is, we went a little crazy in the Cold War. Moreover, we went totally nuts as the world's "lone superpower."

Was it wise for director Zack Snyder to shoehorn 9/11 imagery into Watchmen? I'm still figuring that one out. Imagery of the Twin Towers always stings, and its abuse verges on the pornographic. Those ghost buildings are a matter of historical accuracy in any production seeking to evoke a sense of time and place before the attacks. But the new "ground zero" at the film's conclusion -- the gaping hole, hanging flag, the sick hint that some Americans profited from mass murder -- is too facile, too clever to be accepted without a wince.

That said, I admire Watchmen for its ambition and its balls (albeit literally in the case of Dr. Manhattan). It's not a perfect movie. And purists surely howl over a thousand slights. Let 'em. Jenny and I left our viewing and headed to a nearby Denny's. We asked questions. We compared notes. We reflected on themes. And we remembered favorite parts. Amid all the splatter and spandex, Watchmen inspired conversation and introspection. It's filled with big ideas and memorable moments.

Most of all, it's the first movie I've seen in years that made me say, "I've got to read the book."

Friday, March 6, 2009

Another One Bites the Dust

I'm trying to imagine a near-future world of newspapers, but I just can't quite do it.

When I was a kid walking to high school, I'd regularly pass a newspaper box (whatever they're called). If I had a spare quarter, I'd buy the daily. It was part of my routine to read the editorials, check out the local news, and follow my favorite comics. As I recall, I was a real fan of Wilbur Landry's international coverage (I hope I got his name right). In class I'd invariably be asked to share sections with other students. Plenty of kids read the newspaper back then. Not half, certainly not most, but plenty did.

These days I can't remember the last time I heard a college student refer to a newspaper article, other than one from our college paper, in class. Certainly a reasonable number of my students (not as many as I'd like, of course) educate themselves about the world around them. But, as is well known, they gravitate to differing media. Why read print when the online world is so much more convenient? Heck, I let my paper subscription lapse years ago.

That's why I'm a little saddened but hardly surprised to learn that a major daily, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, is preparing to fire large numbers of editorialists, style writers, designers, and other folks, leaving a skeleton crew of about 20 to run an online-only version.

According to the New York Times writer Richard Perez-Pena, "The Post-Intelligencer, with a weekday circulation of more than 100,000, would be the first large American newspaper to stop printing but continue publishing on the Internet."

Seattle will still have its Times paper. And plenty of big-city papers continue to claw their ways through the days. We'll always have the NYT, right? But even my half-hearted nostalgia for inky fingers and overfilled recycling bins can't change the fact: We are witnessing the end of the newspaper as we've known it.

Read the entire article (online, of course): Hearst’s Seattle Paper May Become Web-Only

Thursday, March 5, 2009

Omnitopia Update


City Ubiquitous is already starting to generate buzz.

I'm delighted to report that folks are visiting the book's website: http://www.cityubiquitous.com (where I recently added a page explaining just what the heck "omnitopia" means to me).

And public interest has followed the appearance of City Ubiquitous in the Santa Cruz Sentinel and the San Jose Mercury News.

One result? I've already lined up three public presentations about the book: One at Cal State East Bay, one in Mountain View, and one in Phoenix, Arizona.

Happily, I've been invited to give three on-campus lectures as well, allowing me chances to revise and practice my multimedia presentation based on City Ubiquitous.

Sales? Promising, so far. I'm fascinated to observe how the book flirts with popularity on Amazon's rankings, occasionally appearing for brief periods in the site's list of top 100 books dealing with urban sociology.

My next step is to secure reviews of the book, both in scholarly journals and broader sites.

John Coleman already posted one review that expressed a road warrior-consultant's take on omnitopia.

And I'm hoping you'll share your thoughts as well.

So, if you haven't had a chance to pick one up, I encourage you to visit Amazon and grab a copy of City Ubiquitous for yourself.

Coincidentally, I just happen to have a handy tiny-fied link:

http://www.tinyurl.com/getacopy

Like the book? Please consider posting a review on Amazon. Positive word of mouth is a big deal for an academic book like mine, so your help would mean a lot.

Sales, of course, are nice. But my real goal is for people to read the book, think about it, cite it, and respond to it. Even to argue with it.

That's why I've created a Facebook group and a Twitter feed for the book.

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=44865831148 (136 members so far!)

Twitter:
http://www.twitter.com/omnitopia

What if you hate City Ubiquitous? Let me know and I'll buy us some decent coffee (presuming you don't mind dropping by a diner somewhere near San José, California). You can even give me advice for doing better next time. Heck, I'll spring for scones.

Either way, things are moving along for the omnitopia project!

(Photograph by Andrew Wood)

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

What is this "facebook" thing, anyway?



Difficulty seeing this video? Point your browser to the following link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFKHaFJzUb4&eurl=http://woodlandshoppersparadise.blogspot.com/&feature=player_embedded

Worth watching the entire thing for the phrase, "a sadness - tinged with arousal."

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Half the world is using a mobile phone

A UN report states more than one half of the world's population uses mobile phones and that nearly a quarter of the population is online.

According to Chris Tryhorn, writing in The Guardian, the site of fastest growth is Africa: "penetration has soared from just one in 50 people at the turn of the century to 28%."

Indeed, the developing world is said to be leapfrogging older technologies that never took root in those countries, adopting wireless telephony at an extraordinary rate.

Read the entire article: Nice talking to you ... mobile phone use passes milestone

Monday, March 2, 2009

How do you pronounce Silicon Valley?

Living in the land of Apple and eBay and Google this past decade, I've long been intrigued by the diversity of pronunciations for Silicon Valley.

By my reckoning, there are a few obvious choices: SiliCON (as in, "that dude on eBay CONned me), SiliCUN (rhymes with, "I finally got my computer to RUN") and SILikin - with emphasis on the first syllable and an ending the sounds like "Me 'n Pa are kin."

We won't speak of SiliCONE, which is simply wrong.

So I conducted an unscientific poll among my Facebook pals.

SiliCON got 6 votes.

SILikin got 3 votes.

SiliCUN got 2 votes.

Oh, and "Silly Con" got one vote, but that really just an example of Alabama humor.

I understand that both CON and KIN are acceptable pronunciations (not so much for CUN, I'm afraid) but I go with KIN for three reasons:

1. There are parallel examples. To illustrate, here's an example provided by Facebook pal Lindy Lacson: even though dragon ends with ON, it's typically pronounced DRAG-in. IN not ON. Same thing with the pronunciation of Lindy's last name, by the way.

2. When I checked Merriam-Webster's online pronunciation, I got IN not ON. Listen for yourself.

3. Mike Cassidy, author of the well-regarded Silicon Valley Dispatches column (San Jose Mercury News) pronounces it IN, not ON. I checked this with him during a recent chat, and he confirmed it.

So I'm calling it. Silicon may be spelled with ON. But it's IN for the WIN.

Friday, February 27, 2009

Shameless Media Plug: San Jose Mercury News

Mike Cassidy, columnist for the San Jose Mercury News, has written a kind piece about my new book City Ubiquitous: Place, Communication, and the Rise of Omnitopia.

His essay focuses mainly on my 2004 "silent road trip," in which I flew to New York and drove back cross-country, getting gas, food, lodging, and other sundries while speaking a total of five words during the entire trip. He cites concepts from the book such as "anticipatory disengagement" and seemed to really catch the vision of what the omnitopia project is all about. He writes:
"It's our choice, of course, to build barricades of personal technology around ourselves. To wall ourselves off. To anticipatorily disengage. But it's a choice that we may well be unconsciously slipping into more often."
Read the entire piece: Finding our own little worlds has never been easier