Peak summer. As I sit to write these monthlies, not a post goes by that I don't wonder where the month went to. I'm glad to say that I have been outside a fair amount this summer -- mostly biking. I've also made a concerted effort to spend more time resistance training (weightlifting) in and effort to forestall the inevitable degradation of age. I got a brief trip down to Houston in to help with a minor relocation. I spent too much time in front of the TV (see below). That's pretty much where the month went to.
Still, it's been a decent summer so far. Low stress for the most part. But soon -- back to the damn manuscript.
[Rant] The Mighty River
[Movies] The Mythology of (My) Life
[TV] Return to Mars
[Sports] A Better Tour
Thursday, August 08, 2019
[Rant] The Mighty River
I continue to be fascinated, and occasionally amazed, by Amazon and the effect it's having on our lives. Amazon is more interesting than Google in that Google just deals in the ephemeral -- bits and pixels, information. If you want something in real life, something tactile -- an object -- then Amazon is your jam. Compared to that, Google has it easy.
The latest observation is how quickly Amazon became huge in a new space -- shipping -- once they decided they needed to do it themselves. In three years (a very short time) they went from zero to handling half their shipments themselves. I bet that in another three years, they are not only self-sufficient but offering shipping service to external customers, putting UPS, FedEX, and the Post Office at existential risk.
They have spawned a new nomad class -- folks who troll the country for deep discounted goods at brick-and-mortars, and then resell on Amazon for a small profit. This is a fascinating arbitrage; one wonders why these obscure or insolvent b-and-ms don't just list the goods on Amazon to begin with and capture the profit themselves. Which I suppose is just another angle on why they are going out of business in the first place.
Aside: Nomads are a breed apart -- whether it is for harvest work, or construction, or resort holiday work, or Amazon arbitrage -- there is a certain romanticism to travelling around to where the work is, taking whatever comes, leaving entanglements behind you. Anybody remember Then Came Bronson? Those who live the life lose any romantic notions fairly quickly, but often they stay at it, seduced by the sense detached freedom. Do a search on Van Life.
More interestingly, Zack Kanter deep dives into Amazon's remarkable success, why it's different from Walmart, and the core strategy that keeps it going. Hint: it's "customer focus", but not in the bland, droning way you hear the phrase used in standard corporate-speak. He also identifies a potential misstep. Very thought provoking.
Amazon continues to eat the world. One wonders how long it will last. If I had to predict, I would say at some point it gets large enough that it becomes a sort of post-modern East India Company, given tacit approval of the government to continue dominating as long as it continues to work for the greater benefit of the world. I'm good with that.
The latest observation is how quickly Amazon became huge in a new space -- shipping -- once they decided they needed to do it themselves. In three years (a very short time) they went from zero to handling half their shipments themselves. I bet that in another three years, they are not only self-sufficient but offering shipping service to external customers, putting UPS, FedEX, and the Post Office at existential risk.
They have spawned a new nomad class -- folks who troll the country for deep discounted goods at brick-and-mortars, and then resell on Amazon for a small profit. This is a fascinating arbitrage; one wonders why these obscure or insolvent b-and-ms don't just list the goods on Amazon to begin with and capture the profit themselves. Which I suppose is just another angle on why they are going out of business in the first place.
Aside: Nomads are a breed apart -- whether it is for harvest work, or construction, or resort holiday work, or Amazon arbitrage -- there is a certain romanticism to travelling around to where the work is, taking whatever comes, leaving entanglements behind you. Anybody remember Then Came Bronson? Those who live the life lose any romantic notions fairly quickly, but often they stay at it, seduced by the sense detached freedom. Do a search on Van Life.
More interestingly, Zack Kanter deep dives into Amazon's remarkable success, why it's different from Walmart, and the core strategy that keeps it going. Hint: it's "customer focus", but not in the bland, droning way you hear the phrase used in standard corporate-speak. He also identifies a potential misstep. Very thought provoking.
Amazon continues to eat the world. One wonders how long it will last. If I had to predict, I would say at some point it gets large enough that it becomes a sort of post-modern East India Company, given tacit approval of the government to continue dominating as long as it continues to work for the greater benefit of the world. I'm good with that.
[Movies] Mythology of (My) Life
At some point in 2030 this headline will appear: "We are now as far from Avengers: Endgame as Endgame was from Ironman." In 2049: "We are now as far from Avengers: Endgame as Endgame was from the fall of the Berlin Wall." To which everyone in 2049 will respond, "The Berlin what?" None of this will make me feel old because I will have been old for a very long time by then. Here's another one. In 2075: "We are now as far from Avengers: Endgame as Endgame was from the first Avengers comic book." This too will not make me feel old because I will be dead, assuming I don't live to be the oldest man ever. (Although, why not?)
My point is that I think the Marvel movies are some sort of high water mark. That they are going to stick in our cultural consciousness for quite some time. Unlike many of their contemporaries, I think they are pretty close to timeless. When looking to imbue greater gravitas to their action films, others have moved to playing pulled-from-the-headlines games and generating various woke forms of controversy; Marvel has stuck to the mythological basics. Yes, there has been a spot of virtue signalling here or there, but always in good taste and always subsidiary to the essence -- Heroism, Sacrifice, Justice, Vengeance, Faith, Hubris, Failure, Redemption -- all the existential qualities that have driven drama, and all the humanities, since time immemorial. If, in a few millennia, people look back on this era and interpret these films as indicative of our core outlook on the world, as we do with the myths of the ancient Greeks, I will say we did OK by Civilization and expect most eras will have done worse.
So yes, I am likely the last person you know to have seen Endgame. It now has, deservedly, the highest box office gross in all of history, displacing the execrable Avatar. It is different from the other Marvel movies, primarily because of the atmosphere. The trademark humor and repartee is still there, but the undertone is one of universal desperation. That tone was first struck in Infinity War when Cap says, "We lost."
There are three distinct parts. First is the Avengers actually avenging -- finding Thanos and killing him in retaliation for the snap. The second is triggered by a rodent of convenience, opening the door to time travel and the recovery of everyone lost in the snap. The third, in the best Greek tradition, has unintended consequences bringing about a new and larger battle with Thanos. Victory only comes, and redemption achieved, through the ultimate personal sacrifices. You could argue that this should have been two movies, which would have allowed a bit less hand waving around some character transformations that seemed to have happened in the interim (Hulk, Hawkeye) and maybe more on the state of the post-snap world.
I first started reading Marvel comics in junior high school as an outcast nerd, staring my teens in the teeth, scared and uncertain about my future. I would rush to the drug store every day just in case a new issue of one of my favorites came out -- twelve cents off the spinning rack -- my allowance permitted the purchase of four per week at most. I would read them cover-to-cover and over-and-over. I would visit flea markets to hunt down back issues. Now here are those stories and those characters again, this time at the top of the cultural food chain, with me staring 60 in the teeth, scared and uncertain about my future.
I don't know where Marvel is going to go next. I love Tom Holland/Spiderman so I'm sure I'll catch Far From Home when it comes to streaming along with whatever new Dr. Strange stuff is made, but the rest of what I have heard about "Phase 4" sounds like they are moving into a Marvel era that I am unfamiliar with -- one that came after my early teens -- so I'll likely feel less a compulsion to keep up on the new releases. I have no doubt they will be good and may affect a later generation as strongly as the last ten years have affected me. More interesting to me are the TV show plans.
Whatever the case, it's been a wonderful, uplifting gift having this mythology bookend my life so far.
My point is that I think the Marvel movies are some sort of high water mark. That they are going to stick in our cultural consciousness for quite some time. Unlike many of their contemporaries, I think they are pretty close to timeless. When looking to imbue greater gravitas to their action films, others have moved to playing pulled-from-the-headlines games and generating various woke forms of controversy; Marvel has stuck to the mythological basics. Yes, there has been a spot of virtue signalling here or there, but always in good taste and always subsidiary to the essence -- Heroism, Sacrifice, Justice, Vengeance, Faith, Hubris, Failure, Redemption -- all the existential qualities that have driven drama, and all the humanities, since time immemorial. If, in a few millennia, people look back on this era and interpret these films as indicative of our core outlook on the world, as we do with the myths of the ancient Greeks, I will say we did OK by Civilization and expect most eras will have done worse.
So yes, I am likely the last person you know to have seen Endgame. It now has, deservedly, the highest box office gross in all of history, displacing the execrable Avatar. It is different from the other Marvel movies, primarily because of the atmosphere. The trademark humor and repartee is still there, but the undertone is one of universal desperation. That tone was first struck in Infinity War when Cap says, "We lost."
There are three distinct parts. First is the Avengers actually avenging -- finding Thanos and killing him in retaliation for the snap. The second is triggered by a rodent of convenience, opening the door to time travel and the recovery of everyone lost in the snap. The third, in the best Greek tradition, has unintended consequences bringing about a new and larger battle with Thanos. Victory only comes, and redemption achieved, through the ultimate personal sacrifices. You could argue that this should have been two movies, which would have allowed a bit less hand waving around some character transformations that seemed to have happened in the interim (Hulk, Hawkeye) and maybe more on the state of the post-snap world.
I first started reading Marvel comics in junior high school as an outcast nerd, staring my teens in the teeth, scared and uncertain about my future. I would rush to the drug store every day just in case a new issue of one of my favorites came out -- twelve cents off the spinning rack -- my allowance permitted the purchase of four per week at most. I would read them cover-to-cover and over-and-over. I would visit flea markets to hunt down back issues. Now here are those stories and those characters again, this time at the top of the cultural food chain, with me staring 60 in the teeth, scared and uncertain about my future.
I don't know where Marvel is going to go next. I love Tom Holland/Spiderman so I'm sure I'll catch Far From Home when it comes to streaming along with whatever new Dr. Strange stuff is made, but the rest of what I have heard about "Phase 4" sounds like they are moving into a Marvel era that I am unfamiliar with -- one that came after my early teens -- so I'll likely feel less a compulsion to keep up on the new releases. I have no doubt they will be good and may affect a later generation as strongly as the last ten years have affected me. More interesting to me are the TV show plans.
Whatever the case, it's been a wonderful, uplifting gift having this mythology bookend my life so far.
[TV] Return to Mars
After a long and eventful hiatus, the fourth season of Veronica Mars was terrific. I say that so you know this is a rave not a pan, because I am going to talk about the bad stuff first.
A running undercurrent of the entire Veronica Mars series has been juvenile snark about class warfare. Everything bad that happens has its origin in the rich and privileged doing awful, uncaring things at the expense of the poor and oppressed. The bad guys are easy to pick out that way for sure, especially because they behave like cartoon villains for the most part. The downtrodden do awful things too, but they are forgiven or understood or have even been forced to do them by the rich and powerful. And the wokeyness is so pervasive that if a non-white comes under suspicion you know it will be a red herring because the show wouldn't have non-whites as bad guys. The show is still wonderful, but it's like the one friend you have who's great in real life, but who keeps flooding your facebook feed with inane political memes.
The rest of the show is just flat out great. If you have read any reviews I have written before you know I am an aficionado of the dark art of pacing. I feel comfortable in saying no show has ever been better paced than Veronica Mars. With all my years of watching TV I am a fine tuned instrument for figuring out when I can allow my attention to wander, use the loo, grab my iPad, without missing anything of value. I don't believe there was a single moment in the eight episodes of this season where I felt comfortable doing that. That's a remarkable achievement. What little exposition occurs is short and couched in humour and/or wicked sharp dialogue. That is high craftsmanship. It also highlights the benefit of the short intense seasons that come along with Premium and streaming TV. Back in seasons 1-3, on broadcast, they had to go deep in the well to come up 20+ episodes a season. You can only have so many good ideas, better to condense them into a short, perfectly-honed season, rather than try to dribble them out evenly such that every episode ends up compromised.
The core characters, in contrast to most of the peripherals, are very well drawn, and they are, well, characters -- entertaining personalities, flawlessly cast; people you can invest in. So much of this was a joy to watch.
It is not Pantheon material. (Pantheon = Sopranos, Deadwood, The Wire, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Halt and Catch Fire) It doesn't shine a light on a facet of human experience, like eternal art does. It is not ruthlessly character driven. It is more the sort of thing you would put on a "favorite" list rather than a "greatest" list. Which is perfectly fine with me, I am happy with it as is, and would gleefully watch many more seasons.
It could go in the Pantheon direction, and there were hints that it might, especially during the last episode. How could it happen? 1) Dial back the political juvenalia. 2) Veronica (and maybe others) need a deep and relatable arc that is serious and personal. Something beyond being a tough feminist icon who never gives up -- that's the stuff of bad pop music and self-help books.
One possibility: Veronica is a narcissist. She ducked out on many opportunities so she could be a big fish in the small pond of Neptune. She views everyone as a supporting-character to her main narrative. She gets morally indignant at others but excuses all her own trespasses. She bugs the office of a friend and then excuses it as a necessity of the job. She encourages a young girl to use an awkward boy's affection for her to get him to do some hacking. She regularly misrepresents her plans and intentions to manipulate people, even to her friends . She even belittles her boyfriend's attempts to resolve his personal issues because it is not in line with her expectations of him. All this is classic narcissism. A Pantheon worthy story arc would be tracking her development into a genuinely empathetic person along with background on how she got so self-absorbed to begin with. (Could Keith have played a role? -- that would be some good conflict for him.) A more negative version would be her ending up suffering for her inability to make that change. That is personal and eternal.
Part of me, even most of me, doesn't want that. Just keep it entertaining and high quality and I'll be fine. I'll be happy to track Veronica's snappy patter with her father and see them matching wits with Neptune's finest indefinitely.
It may be tough, but if you are new to this, you should probably start at the beginning and plow through the broadcast episodes from long ago. (Looks to be Hulu only.) Season 1 and 2 are top notch. Season 3 a slight step down. Even with a few duds it was one of the highest quality broadcast TV shows in history -- it'll be worth it. You'll need to watch the movie, too.
A running undercurrent of the entire Veronica Mars series has been juvenile snark about class warfare. Everything bad that happens has its origin in the rich and privileged doing awful, uncaring things at the expense of the poor and oppressed. The bad guys are easy to pick out that way for sure, especially because they behave like cartoon villains for the most part. The downtrodden do awful things too, but they are forgiven or understood or have even been forced to do them by the rich and powerful. And the wokeyness is so pervasive that if a non-white comes under suspicion you know it will be a red herring because the show wouldn't have non-whites as bad guys. The show is still wonderful, but it's like the one friend you have who's great in real life, but who keeps flooding your facebook feed with inane political memes.
The rest of the show is just flat out great. If you have read any reviews I have written before you know I am an aficionado of the dark art of pacing. I feel comfortable in saying no show has ever been better paced than Veronica Mars. With all my years of watching TV I am a fine tuned instrument for figuring out when I can allow my attention to wander, use the loo, grab my iPad, without missing anything of value. I don't believe there was a single moment in the eight episodes of this season where I felt comfortable doing that. That's a remarkable achievement. What little exposition occurs is short and couched in humour and/or wicked sharp dialogue. That is high craftsmanship. It also highlights the benefit of the short intense seasons that come along with Premium and streaming TV. Back in seasons 1-3, on broadcast, they had to go deep in the well to come up 20+ episodes a season. You can only have so many good ideas, better to condense them into a short, perfectly-honed season, rather than try to dribble them out evenly such that every episode ends up compromised.
The core characters, in contrast to most of the peripherals, are very well drawn, and they are, well, characters -- entertaining personalities, flawlessly cast; people you can invest in. So much of this was a joy to watch.
It is not Pantheon material. (Pantheon = Sopranos, Deadwood, The Wire, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Halt and Catch Fire) It doesn't shine a light on a facet of human experience, like eternal art does. It is not ruthlessly character driven. It is more the sort of thing you would put on a "favorite" list rather than a "greatest" list. Which is perfectly fine with me, I am happy with it as is, and would gleefully watch many more seasons.
It could go in the Pantheon direction, and there were hints that it might, especially during the last episode. How could it happen? 1) Dial back the political juvenalia. 2) Veronica (and maybe others) need a deep and relatable arc that is serious and personal. Something beyond being a tough feminist icon who never gives up -- that's the stuff of bad pop music and self-help books.
One possibility: Veronica is a narcissist. She ducked out on many opportunities so she could be a big fish in the small pond of Neptune. She views everyone as a supporting-character to her main narrative. She gets morally indignant at others but excuses all her own trespasses. She bugs the office of a friend and then excuses it as a necessity of the job. She encourages a young girl to use an awkward boy's affection for her to get him to do some hacking. She regularly misrepresents her plans and intentions to manipulate people, even to her friends . She even belittles her boyfriend's attempts to resolve his personal issues because it is not in line with her expectations of him. All this is classic narcissism. A Pantheon worthy story arc would be tracking her development into a genuinely empathetic person along with background on how she got so self-absorbed to begin with. (Could Keith have played a role? -- that would be some good conflict for him.) A more negative version would be her ending up suffering for her inability to make that change. That is personal and eternal.
Part of me, even most of me, doesn't want that. Just keep it entertaining and high quality and I'll be fine. I'll be happy to track Veronica's snappy patter with her father and see them matching wits with Neptune's finest indefinitely.
It may be tough, but if you are new to this, you should probably start at the beginning and plow through the broadcast episodes from long ago. (Looks to be Hulu only.) Season 1 and 2 are top notch. Season 3 a slight step down. Even with a few duds it was one of the highest quality broadcast TV shows in history -- it'll be worth it. You'll need to watch the movie, too.
[Sports] A Better Tour
I remain one of eight Americans who follows the Tour de France. For nearly a decade, the Tour has been dominated by big teams right from the start, to the point where, barring incidents, the winner was nearly foreordained. The event was becoming sclerotic. Everyone knew everyone else's strengths and weaknesses. Everyone knew the optimal strategy at any point. This year, a number of things happened to shake it up.
First, the leader -- Chris Froome -- of the dominant team -- Ineos (formerly Sky) -- dropped out with an injury a few weeks before the race. Shouldn't have been a big deal, but his backup -- Geraint Thomas -- was only given co-leadership along with a new young rider -- Egan Bernal. That suggested that team did not have total faith in Thomas and/or was looking to the future as much as the current race. Though they still looked to have the strongest team, that opened the door to all sorts of other possibilities.
Second, intentionally or not, the course changed to further open the door to alternatives outcomes. They skewed some of the more difficult stages to earlier in the race and adjusted at least one of the stages in the Alps to have a descent on the finish. In other words, it did not as heavily reward great climbers as it normally does. It was not an upheaval, just a slight shift in emphasis.
As a result a lot of actual bike racing was going on and there was drama galore. An unexpected leader -- Julian Alaphilippe -- emerged and surprised everyone with both what he could do and how long he could hold on. It was the sort of surprise that the deck was stacked against in the recent past. With each stage he was gaining more and more adherents and more and more people were actually questioning whether his expected eventual collapse would happen.
Then came the real weirdness. One team -- Movistar -- actually got so twisted up over strategy that they probably lost an opportunity to win the Tour when a rider -- Nairo Quintana -- took off and carved a huge chunk out of the current leader and could've carved out even more if his team was set on supporting a different rider -- Mikel Landa -- and so let him proceed ahead on his own, without the help that would have turned him into a contender. A truly bizarre happening.
It got weirder when came the landslide. The leader was caught behind on a big climb early in one of the final stages and the question was whether he could recover on the descent, at which he is the best in the world when suddenly the stage was called to a halt. Torrential rains triggered a landslide over a huge swath of the course. As such the day ended with a new leader and a never to be answered question about what could have been.
Perhaps ironically, the winner did end up being a climber from the most powerful team, and his co-captain took second place. But at least it wasn't foreordained. That made this one of the best Tours in many years. Let's hope this Tour clued the race organizers in to the need to mix things up a bit more often. Admiring the French countryside and the fitness of cyclists in general isn't enough to hold interest.
Addendum: One of the more frustrating aspects of watch the Tour is the abysmal TV coverage; they lose track of riders and a couple of the announcers (I won't name them) make truly inane comments. They get no coverage of attacks or crashes until they are over and being sorted out. Honestly, can they not just put a chip on every bike. Better yet, a camera. Or why not use drone cameras. Hell, we don't even get a split screen. It's straight out of the '70s. It's really remarkable for such a huge event to have so little thought and resources put into TV coverage. I suppose given there are only 8 of us in the U.S. paying attention we should be happy with what we get. On the other hand, with some better and more dramatic footage, maybe there'd be more than 8 of us.
First, the leader -- Chris Froome -- of the dominant team -- Ineos (formerly Sky) -- dropped out with an injury a few weeks before the race. Shouldn't have been a big deal, but his backup -- Geraint Thomas -- was only given co-leadership along with a new young rider -- Egan Bernal. That suggested that team did not have total faith in Thomas and/or was looking to the future as much as the current race. Though they still looked to have the strongest team, that opened the door to all sorts of other possibilities.
Second, intentionally or not, the course changed to further open the door to alternatives outcomes. They skewed some of the more difficult stages to earlier in the race and adjusted at least one of the stages in the Alps to have a descent on the finish. In other words, it did not as heavily reward great climbers as it normally does. It was not an upheaval, just a slight shift in emphasis.
As a result a lot of actual bike racing was going on and there was drama galore. An unexpected leader -- Julian Alaphilippe -- emerged and surprised everyone with both what he could do and how long he could hold on. It was the sort of surprise that the deck was stacked against in the recent past. With each stage he was gaining more and more adherents and more and more people were actually questioning whether his expected eventual collapse would happen.
Then came the real weirdness. One team -- Movistar -- actually got so twisted up over strategy that they probably lost an opportunity to win the Tour when a rider -- Nairo Quintana -- took off and carved a huge chunk out of the current leader and could've carved out even more if his team was set on supporting a different rider -- Mikel Landa -- and so let him proceed ahead on his own, without the help that would have turned him into a contender. A truly bizarre happening.
It got weirder when came the landslide. The leader was caught behind on a big climb early in one of the final stages and the question was whether he could recover on the descent, at which he is the best in the world when suddenly the stage was called to a halt. Torrential rains triggered a landslide over a huge swath of the course. As such the day ended with a new leader and a never to be answered question about what could have been.
Perhaps ironically, the winner did end up being a climber from the most powerful team, and his co-captain took second place. But at least it wasn't foreordained. That made this one of the best Tours in many years. Let's hope this Tour clued the race organizers in to the need to mix things up a bit more often. Admiring the French countryside and the fitness of cyclists in general isn't enough to hold interest.
Addendum: One of the more frustrating aspects of watch the Tour is the abysmal TV coverage; they lose track of riders and a couple of the announcers (I won't name them) make truly inane comments. They get no coverage of attacks or crashes until they are over and being sorted out. Honestly, can they not just put a chip on every bike. Better yet, a camera. Or why not use drone cameras. Hell, we don't even get a split screen. It's straight out of the '70s. It's really remarkable for such a huge event to have so little thought and resources put into TV coverage. I suppose given there are only 8 of us in the U.S. paying attention we should be happy with what we get. On the other hand, with some better and more dramatic footage, maybe there'd be more than 8 of us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)