On The Road

Here's something you might not know about your beloved author: I don't eat meat and I never have. Just one of those things. And I know what you're thinking: "wtf Luke? that's crazy lol, why don't you eat meat?" Well I can't be bothered to tell you right now, that'll probably come later but the point is that if you're an idiot you might be the sort of idiot who asks this idiotic back-up question: "what if you were in, like, a plane crash, and you were trapped in, like, the mountains or somewhere, and there was only, like, steak to eat. Would you eat meat then?" Well my answer would be the same as always. "Don't be such a fucking idiot, of course I would." Just keep that in mind as you read on.

This is actually something I meant to write a pretty long time ago but I've only just got around to it now, so it might not be as accurate or as relevant as I would hope. Sorry about that everyone; I know you come here for the clarity of thought and the well-structured opinions that are usually on display, but just this once you're gonna have to put up with me rambling for a while with no apparent purpose or direction. Just this once alright?

Ok, what we're talking about just now is The Road. The Road is supposed to be one of the most important things in the past how many years and it's been called "gripping beyond belief," "a work of terrible beauty" and "shocking and harrowing but ultimately redemptive." Frankly I thought the work itself was pretty middle of the road (heh) but we'll maybe talk more about that later. First let's have a think about why The Road is terrifying but fundamentally flawed.

In case you don't know, there's a guy (the Man) and his son (the Boy) and they're amongst the few survivors of some terrible apocalyptic event and they're seeking redemption from near-certain death by walking a very long way for a long time along an awfully long road (the Road.) That's the plot in a nutshell, but the story behind the story lies in the Man and the Boy's relationship and their interactions with each other and the world. The Boy is depicted as innocent and well-meaning while the Man is a harsh realist who feels duty-bound protecting his kid. There's also a lot of Christian-style morality involved, and the man talks about God quite a lot, and that's pretty disappointing in something that had a lot of potential to be very anti-bullshit. Anyway the accepted line of thinking, as far as I can see, is that the terrifying thing about The Road is the fact that the Man and the Boy are the only good left in the world and they're forced to face off against horrifying horrors like cannibalism, baby slaughter, humanity reverting to survival-of-the-fittest primitivism, all that kind of thing. And the terrible beauty of the thing is the way they support each other and the fact that the Man is prepared to go to extraordinary lengths to protect his son and, by extension, innocence and the unsullied goodness that the Boy represents. Now this is a nice idea but it's pretty stupid, here's why:

It's true that the Man would probably go to insane lengths to protect his kid (I don't want to generalise here, but most parents would) but the problem is the ridiculously moralistic way he goes about it. Have you heard the expression there's no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole? Well it actually depends just how small your foxhole is, and I would imagine that when you find yourself in a really fucked situation, the exact opposite is true. The Man would be desperate to protect the Boy and for that reason I'm pretty he (or anybody else) would happily sack off his morals to do so. Remember the people they were keeping prisoner so they could cut bits off them and eat them? He would do that. And remember the spit-roasted baby? He'd probably do that too. (Get your mind out of the gutter, that's in the traditional sense. Although to spare his own kid's life who knows what a guy might be capable of?) Here's something: There's a thing in psychology that explains human behaviour; it's an upside-down triangle with your basest needs and desires at the bottom and as it broadens out it encapsulates all the shit that isn't really necessary but makes your life easier or more comfortable. And the thing is you have to satisfy the stuff at the bottom before you move on up. It's like having to force your way through the Green Hill Zone even though it's boring and easy and stupid before you can even start thinking about collecting all the Chaos Emeralds. So food comes right at the bottom, then shelter above it and so on like that. The point I'm trying to make here, the point I think got missed in The Road, is that morality is way at the top of that scale, probably somewhere between love and butt plugs. And that's why it's flawed, and it's also why it's terrifying: because after the apocalypse (which won't involve zombies by the way, so grow the fuck up) there almost certainly won't be any such thing as the Man, just a lot of people going around trying to eat bits off of each other and kill babies. So there you have it: why Luke McGinty is right about The Road, and almost every pointdexter in the world (who all seem to like it for some reason) is fucking wrong. Oh, and if you're too lazy or stupid to look into this yourself, they also made a film out of it.

Just one more thing: that was Sonic the fucking Hedgehog, man. I can't believe you didn't know that...

You Can Put All My Possessions In Jesus' Name -or- He'd Been To School But Never Finished -or- Everyone's A Critic And Most People Are DJs

Hi assholes. I know it's been a moment since I've written anything; we've been closed for refurbishment, didn't you notice? I was worried the standard blogger.com default settings were making me look like an amateur and I don't have to tell you that there is nothing amateur about this operation. Christ no.

Ok so what's been happening? Well I'll tell you: I'm thinking about converting to Catholicism. I mean, not really but it's a funny idea isn't it? Do you even call it conversion if you weren't anything before? I don't know. Anyway the thing is I've been listening to the Hold Steady quite a lot recently and that's sort of made me give the big C some thought (not that one. OR that one...) Did you know that one dumbshit critic once called Separation Sunday "the most egregiously American Catholic album since X's Under the Big Black Sun, Springsteen's Tunnel of Love, or that Jewish new waver Billy Joel's The Stranger." Yeah I know; egregious? What a dumbshit. But more about dumbshit critics later. Right now it's Catholicism. Actually religion in general but here's a quick thing first - did you notice that I wrote the Hold Steady earlier? Is "the" supposed to have a capital letter or what? The Hold Steady or the Hold Steady? If anyone cares at all, help a brother out. There's a comments section for a reason you know...

Alright, Catholics. Sorry if this seems like teaching your granny to suck eggs or whatever (odd expression, by the way...) but Catholics are fucking weird. So are Muslims. The whole thing about these people is that their belief, and their faith, is fucking unshakable man. Do you know anyone (weirdo Catholics and Muslims aside) that's like that? Someone with even one conviction that they have an absolute certainty about. Cos I certainly don't, and it's pretty fascinating to think about it. I suppose there's something to be said for that kind of unwavering dedication to your ideology, and there was a time when I would have had lots of respectful things to say about insane religious wingnuts. This actually reminds me of a time when I got myself into a bit of hot water in a politics class back at university (I know man, you wouldn't think it to read this goatshit, but yes I've been there...) when the tutor was talking about the idea of a post-9/11 world, Islamic fundamentalism the influence of terrorism on international relations and all that kind of thing and he asked the class what we thought about the whole scenario. And what I was thinking at the time was that the very existence of suicide attacks speaks of a culture of people about a hundred times more morally fortitudinous than any that I've ever encountered. Not that I would have, or ever have, advocated that sort of violence on the basis of religion, but at that time I might have argued that, although mass murder is a terrible frontier to take it to, belief on that scale is evidence of a strong system of values and a certainty of faith which is marginal at best in our society and which casts a harsh light on the shallow, instant-gratification culture that most of us subscribe to, whether you agree with those values or not. And even though Allah and his heaven are a huge pile of total bullshit, surely an unequivocal belief in him shows more strength of mind than a passing interest in Justin Bieber or whatever? Anyway that's what I was thinking at the time. And what I said was "I'm right behind al Qaeda to be honest..." Yeah you're right; good one Luke.*

Anyway that's enough of all that, because everything I thought about fundamentalism at that time is actually bullshit, here's why: the fact of the human animal having the capacity for abstract, cognitive thought makes the idea of fundamental belief completely redundant. Even worse, it makes it a hallmark of a terribly unsophisticated mind. I'm trying my best to think of a way to explain what I'm talking about here; let's think about designer t-shirts for a second. Have you ever considered how ridiculous it is to wear your t-shirt with some designer's name on it? You see, the trouble is that even though they're called "designer" clothes, the dude with his name on it didn't fucking design anything, the company just printed his name on your shirt, and to buy into the idea that having some douchebag's name on it makes your shirt any better than a plain white or something is tantamount to surpassing the logical, rational notion that your shirt's anything more than a sweat shield/boob suppressor which is in turn tantamount to saying "I have not the capacity for logical, rational thought." I think this allegory is getting out of hand. What I mean is that t-shirts are like religion because what's happening is you're putting unconditional faith in something that has no logical basis and simply can't be proven. And that, assholes, is the stupidest thing you can possibly do, here's why: because whatever you're beliefs are (unless we're talking about the gravitational constant being 9.81g or something) you are fucking wrong. This is simply because what you believe will make sense to you and you alone, and as hard as it may be to admit, if 5,999,999,999 people think you're opinion is bullshit, that pretty much means your opinion is bullshit. That (I think) is why you get so many dullards who are over-confidant and cocky and infuriating, because if you're that certain that you're right, you are certainly a dullard. It's also why Jeremy Clarkson is such an asshole, probably. "In the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt." Some asshole said that once, I can't remember who it was and he was probably a jackass of some variety but he just might have been onto something. There's also an argument against democracy in it's modern form in here somewhere but fuck man, even I'm bored and I'm not the one trying to force myself to read this dog dirt so I'll spare that for another time. Though I am cruel I am kind, or something like that...

But seriously, critics. I told you we were coming back to this didn't I? No such thing as an empty threat when Luke McGinty's involved. This was actually meant to be a complete digression but I've just realised it's pretty similar to what I've already written about. My quarrel with critics is that you're supposed to appreciate their opinions about music or books or whatever even though it's only one guy's opinion. Is it just me that thinks that's bullshit? Now I realise that some people are experts in certain fields and I'm not trying to say all critics are dumbshits and you shouldn't listen to them ever. I would, for example, trust the opinion of Roger Ebert over that of my friend Delaney who's really into Adam Sandler, but the point is that art is fundamentally a subjective thing man. How can even an expert write about art as if he's dealing in facts? Remember the "almost six billion" thing from earlier? Well yeah. Sorry Ebert, you're fucking wrong. And if you're the sort of person who bases your choices or your opinions on critical acclaim the lack thereof, then I think maybe it's time you go and buy yourself a new D&G t shirt or convert to Catholicism or something.







*I remember another story along the same lines, but funnier. There's this nightclub back in my old hometown, it's called Delaney's Dogshit Doghole or something like that and it's the sort of place that a scholar might refer to as "a fucking bearpit." Anyway a friend of mine, whose name happened to be Delaney, was in there one night and he'd got chatting to this girl. And Delaney, he's a pretty decent guy, not much of a hump-'em-and-dump-'em sort you know? And he's trying to explain to this girl that he's he's the kind of man that wants to connect with someone on an emotional level instead of just pulling some slut in the nightclub, and how he's pretty disillusioned with the fact that the whole clientele of Delaney's seem just to be out to fuck each other. Pretty noble sentiments, I'm sure you'll agree. Well what his booze-addled mind managed to say to the girl was this: "I just think every girl in Delaney's wants to have sex with me." Again, good one. Now I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure he went home solo that night...