Stephen King doesn't count.

'Paranormal Activity' by Oren Peli

2010-02-03T13:52:00.004+11:00

The horror genre is kind of a literary minefield. There are academics who refuse to acknowledge the merit of horror and there are others that find value in the genre. So a stand-off exists between horror-enthusiasts and those who use words like 'penny-dreadfuls' to describe some of the best horror. I think that horror is best when it reaches into the collective subconscious of people. This is horror that plays with anxieties that exist within all human-beings. The most successful horror films and books are not scary because of the things that go bump-in-the-night, but because the things that do go bump-in-the-night remind us, even only on a subconscious level, of the anxieties that we all feel. This is the horror that can be considered valuable.
'Paranormal Activity' is unsuccessful as a horror movie. I'm actually astounded at the amount of money that it has made considering how frustratingly bad it is. The problem doesn't lie in the acting, though both actors are appropriately annoying. It also doesn't lie in the fact that it's an idea that has been delivered before (and much, much better) in 'The Blair Witch Project.' The problem with 'Paranormal Activity' is its complete lack of mythology and its inability to tap into any subconscious anxiety.
First off, let's look at the style of 'Paranormal Activity'. The gimmick it uses has been attempted so much in contemporary popular culture that it has become cliche. The idea of experiencing the narrative from the point of view of the protagonist via video-camera, is so tired it makes insomniacs jealous. Its reliance on an old gimmick may have been forgiveable had there been some kind of substance to the story, but there just isn't any. Instead we are treated to the standard 'haunted house' narrative that can be found in thousands of other ghost stories.
The reason that 'The Blair Witch Project' was so successful was because it transcended the horror genre by relying on the burgeoning technology of the Internet as a narrative device. The truth behind the film was deliberately left hazy by the film-makers and the idea of whether or not the events were real was played with. At one point, the IMDB listed the actors of the film as 'deceased'. This coupled with a realistic web-site depicting a rich, fictional mythology and history of the Blair Witch gave the audience something to go into the movie with. The ninety minute fragment that was the feature film, probably only complimented the back-story that had already settled into the viewers subconscious.
'The Blair Witch Project' played with the idea of film as a method of distancing the individual from reality. The three characters in the film were Blair-witch skeptics from the outset and it was almost as if the act of filming a documentary was a barrier to any danger they might encounter. This was the idea that was left burning in the minds of the audience, like some indistinguishable cigarette. Despite skepticism and scientific rationalism, maybe the film was real. And if 'The Blair Witch Project' was real then the paranormal could exist and we would be left without the safety of modern logic and rationalism. In this sense, 'The Blair Witch Project' is a vastly superior horror film to 'Paranormal Activity'.
'Paranormal Activity' lacks the cleverness of 'The Blair Witch Project'. It doesn't manipulate any anxiety apart from the obvious fear of the paranormal. It is the worst kind of low culture. Everything about the movie is conventional and the narrative events quickly become predictable. You go into the film expecting a 'shock' ending and you receive an ending that tries to be shocking but isn't. Despite a few disturbing moments, 'Paranormal Activity' doesn't reach us on any truly frightening level. You may be scared by this film, but if you are, ask yourself whether or not you are truly disturbed by it. Nobody will answer 'yes'. This is a dud folks. If ever there was an example of low culture that is worthy of ridicule, it is 'Paranormal Activity'.

'Life of Pi' by Yann Martel

2010-01-14T21:12:00.004+11:00

'Life of Pi' is a popular book. The cover of the edition that I read proclaimed that it had sold seven million copies. It's going to be adapted into a film by Ang Lee, who directed 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon' and 'Brokeback Mountain.' It seems that if any movie is ripe for film adaptation it is this adventure about a boy stranded on a lifeboat with a Bengal tiger. The novel is popular, but it also won the Booker prize, which is a very high honor shared by the likes of Michael Ondaatje and Salman Rushdie. I figured it would be a great first edition to this little experiment I've got going.

The focus of Martel's 'Life of Pi' is the nature of humanity and the elements that separate it from animalism. The protagonist is the young Indian, self-nicknamed Pi, a zookeeper's son who is a faithful servant of Hinduism, Islam and Christianity. His family sells their zoo and ventures to Canada by boat and Pi ends up being shipwrecked on a lifeboat with a group of zoo animals that are also being transported, to be sold. The animals end up destroying each other until only a huge Bengal tiger and Pi himself are left. Thus begins Martel's deliberation on humanity. The primary dramatic hinge in the novel is the threat of the tiger, the mistakenly named 'Richard Parker'. Pi spends much of the novel establishing his dominance over the tiger in order to ensure that it will not eat him, which Martel continually assures us is a very real possibility.

The opening of the novel recounts examples in zoological literature of unlikely animals that end up in living arrangements together. Pi informs us of a mouse that lived in harmony with a snake until it was ultimately eaten by a baby snake who, Pi tells us. '...knew no better.' This story reflects the later predicament and serves as a platform to discuss the differences between animals and humans. Some animals are ruthless and violent by nature. When Pi is stranded with a zebra, an orangutan, a hyena and a tiger, the hyena proceeds to kill and eat the zebra and the orangutan. It is then eaten itself by the tiger. Pi distinguishes himself from these animals by his own morality; his vegetarianism and faith in a higher power.

'Life of Pi' initially appears to be about the triumph of humanity over instinct. It is through Pi's intellect that he manages to survive and it is through religious faith that he finds the strength to continue. At first glance, 'Life of Pi' seems to be about the human spirit and the ability to endure suffering at the hands of a cruel world. Pi's view of religious faith is at first a little cringe-worthy, but as it develops it becomes more endearing. However, whilst all this is happening, Martel is injecting primers that point to a larger, more explosive theme that is delivered in the shocking ending of 'Life of Pi'.

When Pi washes ashore a Mexican beach, he is taken to a hospital and questioned by Japanese insurance agents who are investigating the sinking of the cargo-ship. The agents do not believe Pi's fantastical story about a tiger and a flesh-eating island made of algae, and so he tells them another one. At this point, the whimsical prose shifts into something that might be more comfortable amongst the pages of a Stephen King novel. This second story is devoid of animals and whimsy, instead telling us that Pi was stranded on the lifeboat with other people, including his mother, a cook and a a sailor. The cook proceeds to kill everyone on the boat, except for Pi who ends up killing him first.

It is up to the reader to decide which story is true. The more light-hearted readers will opt to believe the tiger story and the cynical readers will leap on the latter. In both stories, Martel is suggesting that animals and humans both have the capacity for violence. Even though human-beings tend to cling to religious faith and morality as their crucial distinction from animals, it is clear from Pi's story that even the most gentle human can become cold hearted and ruthless. Pi, the vegetarian, ends up gutting turtles, throwing meerkats into carnivorous algae, and, according to one ending, killing people, with little regard for their wellbeing.

It is tempting, in light of the more brutal story presented by Pi, to believe that the overall message of Martel's novel is that humans are just as savage as animals. That there is no real biological or spiritual distinction between man and the animal kingdom, but this is not the focus of Martel's message. In Pi's ability to construct a fictional account of his survival, Martel is suggesting that it is fiction and story-telling that separates us from the animals. 'Fiction is the selective transformation of reality' Pi tells us at the start of the novel and this is a process that only humans can participate in. It is the beauty of art that is the distinction between human beings and animals. Whilst Richard Parker, the Bengal tiger can brutally slaughter anything in the name of survival, a human being cannot without questions of ethics forming in the mind.

'Life of Pi' is worthy of our time because it makes us question this distinction between humans and animals. The prose is excellent and carries the reader away from the very first page, however this is not pulp fiction. This is one of a kind, and will undoubtedly be considered a classic in the years to come.

Some blog philosophy and guidelines.

2010-01-03T17:43:00.003+11:00

I’m in the process of gathering my thoughts for the first post for this humble blog, which will be on ‘Life of Pi’ by Yann Martel. It occurs to me that I should probably go into a little more depth regarding what you can expect from the blog. I will also use some space to establish a few guidelines.

Firstly, as you can gather from the previous post, the title of the blog comes from a conversation I had with a friend about reading habits. Stephen King is considered one of the most successful writers of ‘popular fiction’. However there are numerous critics out there that would refuse to call his work literature. This blog is about how literature is defined by society. Literature can be categorised as either high-brow or low-brow. High-brow literature is praised by the cultural elite. It is described with words like ‘monumental achievement’ or ‘hauntingly provocative’. Low-brow literature is consumed by the rest of us and described in words like ‘fucking sick’ or ‘bloody unreal’. I believe, however, that a lot of writers are in the process of blurring these categories. Some of the contemporary texts are truly post-modern in this regard.

Whilst academics have continually snubbed genre fiction, (such as horror, romance and sci-fi/fantasy) it appears that post-modernism has brought such writing back into the fray. Michael Chabon , the Pulitzer prize winning novelist of ‘The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay’, caused a stir when he claimed that contemporary fiction had descended into ‘...the contemporary, quotidian, plotless, moment-of-truth revelatory story.’ His subsequent works have veered away from realistic, literary prose to genre fiction. Genre writing is back in vogue because it’s ironic. In the same way that one would view a bad movie for camp value (such as ‘Showgirls’) one will read genre fiction precisely because it’s such a guilty pleasure.

So, I hope this blog will help its readers in choosing literature. In considering a text, I will ultimately either defend it or condemn it. Of course many will disagree with my decisions and I encourage you to contact me if you do. I do enjoy a good argument, whether it’s in person or by email. I will close with a few guidelines:

1. Whilst the focus of this blog is the written word, I am a slow reader. If I’m reading a long book, (like ‘Wolf Hall’ by Hilary Mantel, which is next on my list) I will post about film and television. Usually only narrative film and television will be considered. However if something valuable was to crop up in the reality television department, I will gladly consider it.

2. There will be only brief space for a synopsis of plot. I’m not going to waste my time on something that you can obtain from Wikipedia or the IMDb. There will be spoilers in my posts. I’m not going to write spoiler warnings on everything because I really can’t be bothered. If you haven’t read or watched the text you can still read, but I’m not going to be sensitive regarding spoilers.

3. No referencing. My posts will likely contain quotes from critics and authors as well as the texts themselves. However, referencing is a finicky process and one that is reserved only for essays that contribute to my tertiary education.

4. Everything I say is contentious. I hold a B.A. in English literature, and the only thing that I have really learned from it is that opinions are indeed like arse-holes. If you have a problem with anything said in this blog, feel free to email me or post a comment. You can say whatever you want, but posts like ‘U R GUNNA FKN BERN IN HELLZZZ 4 SAYIN’ DAT!’ will only embarrass the poster.
That’s pretty much it.

If anything else arises, I will update the guidelines.

- Alec.

Introduction: Chicks don't dig Stephen King.

2010-01-02T15:46:00.005+11:00

As a first-year undergraduate, I asked a professor of English literature if she enjoyed ‘The Da Vinci Code’. She told me that she didn’t. I said that surely she could appreciate the novel for championing the role of women in theology. She told me she couldn’t. I asked her if she liked any of the puzzles that Robert Langdon had to solve. She told me she didn’t. That finished the discussion. I left feeling humiliated: A book that I was eager to discuss with the cultural elite was not good enough for consideration.

Another time I was talking with the most intelligent woman I know and she told me that the worst date she ever went on was with a man who claimed to be an avid reader. After they went back to his house for drinks, she discovered that his bookshelf was littered only with Stephen King novels. That was a deal-breaker. Apparently the guy didn’t get the ‘King doesn’t count’ memo. I wanted to tell her that the first novels I ever read were by Stephen King and that I still counted him as one of my favourite authors of all time. I didn’t though.

There is a line in the literary sand between low culture and high and for some reason I have always had trouble determining where this line lies. The point of this blog is personal. It’s an attempt to clarify what exactly separates literary from pulp fiction. Make no mistake, I’m no prude: I think that one of the funniest films of the past decade was Jackass and I still read Stephen King, having just finished his latest epic Under the Dome. But questions of artistic value still irritate me.

So follow this blog if you want a frank discussion on the literary canon and how texts are considered literary. I’m not sure we’ll get anywhere, but one thing’s for sure: I’m sure we’ll have a lot of fun.

- Alec.