Don't you mean Laura Palmer?

Coincidentally, two of the most maligned bands to have ever spawned in my lifetime came to prominence during this period: Creed and Limp Bizkit.

Now the late 90s early 00s weren’t exactly the best of times in world of music.  Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys, Korn, Smash Mouth, Sugar Ray; just a few of the big name groups of the day that I wouldn’t listen to for even 10 seconds if I passed them on the radio dial today. 

History has mostly forgotten these people.  Most disbanded and their hits are rarely played at stations or on TV.  The only time they are usually mentioned at all is as kitsch, a reminder of the quickly faded style and persona of the time (think baggy clothes, ridiculous headgear, and everything in neon and pastels).

What is worse... This?

One band that has not been remembered quite so fondly are the gentlemen that were Creed.  The band, along with their musical stylings, were the targets of frequent criticisms not only from music critics who dubbed them a poor man’s Pearl Jam with Christian rock undertones, but also from fans and fellow musicians.

Creed, particularly its lead singer Scott Stapp, were notorious for being aloof, arrogant, and obsessed with shoehorning a messianic message into everything the band did (often involving Stapp himself being made to look like the messiah).

Still, in spite of the band’s music becoming progressively more insufferable as they became more popular, Creed was one of the most successful band of the generation.

I personally think that fame and success were the worst possible things that could have happened to Creed.  Their first album, My Own Prison, is a dark, self loathing thing.  Written by Stapp when his life had reached rock bottom and he believed God was testing him or punishing him for past sins (or something, probably).  My Own Prison is a pretty good rock album, and I stand by that.  You won’t find many people willing to give it a chance because of the stigma around Creed, but it is.

But in Creed’s follow-up Human Clay things were… different (worse, way worse).  It was clear pretty quickly that Stapp not only didn’t think God was testing him anymore but that he had passed the test with flying colors and now it was time for him to reap his reward: just being better than everyone else in general.

The lyrics of the songs are down right schmaltzy at times and the music is much more uplifting, heroic, and self righteous, basically destroying everything that made My Own Prison interesting.

Worst of all, you can here Stapp’s holier than thou attitude oozing out of every line.  Take these lyrics from the song “Arms Wide Open”:

Well I just heard the news today
It seems my life is going to change
I close my eyes, begin to pray
Then tears of joy stream down my face

I am the greatest

Under the sunlight

I am freakin’ perfect man

God loves me more than you

I am the greatest

And you all know it

Jesus died on the cross

Because he was bummed I wasn’t born yet

I can see why he rubbed people the wrong way. 

And then there was Limp Bizkit.

Some things you look back on and you say, “How could we not see it.”  Limp Bizkit sucking is just one of those things.

Creed was a little obnoxious, but more than anything else they were just one of those benign lame modern rock bands that everyone just ignores.  I can’t even think the name Limp Bizkit without feeling disgusted for myself and society.  I mean, what the hell kind of name is that?  It sounds like the sort of thing a thirteen-year-old skater wannabe punk would name his band, but even he would then realize it was retarded a week later.

Or, this?

There were just so many things about Limp Bizkit that were awful.  Can anyone name a bigger tool in the history of the world than Fred Durst?  A fat, goatee’d, angry, white guy, whose lasting marks on society were a backward baseball cap and the song “Nookie.”  Remember when he performed at the VMA’s with Christina Aguilera and then, after everyone called him a sellout for it, claimed he only did it quote, “for the nookie?”  What a class act, this guy.

Seriously, watch the music video for “Nookie” if you don’t want to kill yourself by the time you get to the 2^nd chorus, then you should probably kill yourself.

The lyrics in "rollin" make Kid Rock's "Bawitdaba" seem like Shakespeare.

Beyond their sheer lack of talent and ample middle school level buffoonery, Limp Bizkit was also awful on a societal level. 

Watch the music video for “Break Stuff” on Youtube, or better yet, read the comments posted.  Limp Bizkit just degrades people’s intelligence to the most base, uncivilized, animalistic level.  You would probably get death threats from the other people on the thread just for using proper grammar.  Just look at what they did to Woodstock 99’… at least, what they did with the help of maybe the greediest promoters ever to not come out of a monster flick.  They just bring out the worst in people.

And so, I submit this to the jury as evidence that while I do not endorse the music of Creed, they are in fact nowhere near as awful or offensive as that of Limp Bizkit.

At least Creed had one decent album. 

Listening to Limp Bizkit just makes me want to put a gun in my mouth.  Luckily, listening to Limp Bizkit also instantly kills the number of brain cells required to successfully operate a firearm.  So at least, there’s that.

Just in case you still think Limp Bizkit has any talent whatsoever, observe this auto-tuned massacring of a classic.

Warren Buffett enjoys playing the Ukulele because he finds it ironic. Because he's rich as fuck.

So, I guess Warren Buffett woke up a little bored today.  He probably went about the day just as he normally would: sitting a top his thrown made entirely out of ink cartridges (the most valuable resource in the world), eating the nectar of the kabooli tree (a fruit so rare and valuable I had to make it up), half heartedly waiving for the next fire spitter or chainsaw juggler to enter his court to see if they could satisfy his boredom.

But they couldn't.  So, what did old Warren do?  Go out and buy a chemical company for $10 billion bucks.  No big.

When interviewed, Warren said that he had made his mind up to spend the money all at once but he was torn between the company and 3 tons of diamond encrusted pizza.  He ultimately decided on the chemical company though he noted that the pizza would have been "far more delicious as well as glamourous."

I say go for it you crazy old bastard.

Say goodbye to those days.

Now we have statistics to suck the fun and suspense out of everything that was once unsure in life.

Now, instead of arguing with your friends for hours on end over completely trivial things that none of us could possibly be sure of, all we need do is look up the stats on some website and we have absolutely nothing to do for the rest of the day.  BORING.

So, who is to blame for this?  Two groups of people no one likes:  nerds and degenerate gamblers.

Baseball fans once looked like this.

That's right, nerds and degenerate gamblers have conspired to try and remove all of the uncertainty (and fun) from the world with their "proven" methods and formulas.

The gambler's stake in this is obvious.  Bet on anything and everything, only try and devise a way to always know the outcome.  I can hardly blame them, after all, they are diseased.

The nerds are harder to defend.  I theorize that in the Star Trek-less world we currently live in, nerds have needed to find some new thing to obsess over and completely ruin for society.

First, the ruined baseball.

Now they look like this.

With the birth of sabermetrics PECOTA, VORP, ERA+, and WAR, actually watching baseball games has become little more than a formality to determine the quality of players.  Who cares if no one actually knows how these formulas actually work, what matters is that they suck fun out from where there once was so much.

You'd think destroying America's national pastime would be enough for these refugee trekkies, but they couldn't leave well enough alone.

Soon people like Nate Silver (the creator of PECOTA) were taking to the web removing all the suspense from anything even remotely political with www.fivethirtyeight.com.  Joe Lunardi was hanging around ESPN studios telling everyone who was gonna be in the NCAA tournament before the bids were announced.

At least they aren't dooming another human being to a horrible lonely existence.

Was there a single person on this planet other than David Fincher's mother who really thought that The King's Speech wasn't going to win Best Picture this year?

Now, these guys aren't completely perfect.  Lunardi missed on the placing of a few schools and Silver occasionally (though rather rarely) picks the wrong horse for a race, but long gone are the days of endless armchair conjecture and uneducated promises.

How is your average Providence College student supposed to get amped for selection sunday when he knows beyond on a shadow of a doubt that his school is a joke, thanks to the stats?  What are Sarah Palin fans going to do when she falls flat on her face after "running" for president?  Act like they didn't see it coming?

Palin for President? Someone hasn't been keeping up with their fivethirtyeight poll tracking.

Anyone with a working set of eyes and fingers can know the results before the show even starts just by pushing enter.  What are we supposed to do now?  Read!?

And the nerds have won.

The first installment...

Yo, ESPN!  I got a problem with some of the lies you been spreadin’!

In the wake of the trade deadline that saw two of the leagues most talented young stars go from small to big (or, at least, potentially big) markets, sportswriters have taken to their keyboards to denounce the “collusion of talent” in the National Basketball Association. 

From Rick Reilly to Jason Whitlock, writers and analysts warn of a coming future with an NBA of only 6-8 competitive teams.  The viewing public seems to feel the same way. 

In a recent poll on ESPN asking if the migration of talent from around the league onto a few select teams was good or bad for the NBA, a solid majority answered that it was “bad” with only Florida (Heat), New Jersey (Nets), and New York (Knicks) registering majority “good” votes in a state by state break down.  I guess LA and Boston fans only think it’s good when their teams hog all the talent.

Now, I don’t want to be a wet blanket and tell everyone that they’re freaking out over nothing, but everyone is freaking out over nothing.  This commotion reminds me of how when the Yankees win a World Series everyone complains that money is ruining the game of baseball by making it too easy for teams (by “teams” they mean “Yankees”) to buy championships.  I have to say to that, “The Yankees?  You mean the same Yankees team that spent more money than any other team in baseball from 2001-2010 and won exactly ONE World Series?” 

But I digress, the problem here isn’t about the Yankees, or money, or even the NBA at all.  The only problem is that people are complaining when nothing is wrong.

-Nothing New

One thing that I can’t get over when I hear commentators cry about this “recent” rash of players moving to big markets to try and win championships is that it isn’t recent at all.  Bill Simmons (who I’m just going to assume you all know of) pointed this out in a recent article and I’m going to point it out again.  Players have been forcing trades and moving from crappy situations to good ones ever since the NBA came into existence. Wilt, Kareem, Barkley, Shaq, Garnett, and several others all went from a small market to a big one, a team that they made very good to a team that they made great. 

 There he is, The savior of the Bucks, played out his entire career with a small market... oh wait...

The league not only survived these coups, but thrived off of the them and some of the greatest teams and rivalries were born out of these shifts in power.

-Spread the Wealth?

The heart of everyone’s concern over players having the power and desire to put themselves onto a few “super teams” at the expense of the Cleveland’s of the world is that it will result in the same five or so cities taking home the Larry O’brien trophy every year.  I’ve got some bad news for those worried souls, this has already been happening for years.  Since 1980 only nine different teams have won the NBA championship and frequently the runner-up was also one of those nine teams.  Compare that to 14 different Stanley Cup winners and 15 different Super Bowl champs in the same period.  Ironically, the league that gets the most flack for being noncompetitive, the MLB, has the highest turnover over with 19 different champions since 1980. 

Has this been viewed over the years as a negative in the league?  Hardly.  Many of the multi-championship teams are celebrated if not lionized by both the media and fans.  Good luck trying to watch a documentary on the NBA without at least a half hour devoted to the greatness of the Celtics-Lakers rivalry in the 1980s or the Bulls of the 90s. 

Fans like dynasties.  Whether they root for or against them, they bring people to the event.  This brings me to the bigger point that we all need to recognize.

-Good for the League

I feel that I have made a pretty compelling argument up this point but I really didn’t need to.  Because, there is one simple reason I know this continued player migration is a good thing.  Are you ready for it?  It’s subtle, yet obvious: I suddenly care about the Miami Heat. 

You getting this Rick Reilly?  I, a casual fan of the NBA with no strong team affiliation, care about the Miami Heat.

I would have whole heartedly agreed last season that both Wade and Lebron were two of the best players of the last 20 years but I probably wouldn’t have been too interested in watching a random regular season game of either the Cavs or Heat.  Now I’m fist pumping like The Situation in my living room when I see Stoudemire reject a last minute lay up from Lebron in late February.

I have been a hater of all things Boston all my life.  But I still went out to a bar to watch the season opener and cheer on the Celts against the Heat.  I very much doubt I would have bothered to make the trip if Lebron and Bosh hadn’t defected to the dark side (and I most certainly never would have supported the Celtics). 

The NBA, more than any other league in North American sports, is a league of superstars.  It always has been and always will be.  Every city will have its fans loyal to their team no matter how great or how terrible that team is.  But for a great many fans of basketball across the country the name on the back of the jersey is just as, if not more important, than the name on the front. 

People loved the Celtics-Lakers rivalry because of Bird and Magic, they loved the Bulls because of Jordan, they root for or against the Lakers today because of Kobe.  Fans want to see juggernaut teams just as much as players want to be a part of them.  Even if they are rooting against them or beating them in the conference finals.  The biggest stage is the best place for them to be viewed by and sold to the general public. 

You might hate 'em, but you know your gonna watch 'em.

It is good for the league that New York is significant again.  It is good for the league that Lebron teamed up with Bosh and Wade and they became the villains of the league.  Yeah, it sucks that Cleveland got shafted so bad by ‘Bron’bron, but the NBA lost a city and gained a nation.

So keep crying about the end of a great era in the NBA if you want, but that era you loved so much only existed in your head.  For the rest of us, the best is yet to come, and we’ll be watching.

Does anything else even need to be written? Seriously, if you got the balls to make THAT your band's name you are clearly a champion.  But I shall do my due diligence and delve into the vast and unheralded catalogue that is Toad the Wet Sprocket.  

I don't know how Toad became so easily forgotten in the music world.  In my opinion, they're right up there with Counting Crows, (early) Third Eye Blind, and The Gin Blossoms for alt. rock leaders of the '90s.  Couple together a slew of very strong, radio friendly tracks with a name impossible to ever forget and you have a recipe for super stardom.

The Gin Blossoms are actually a great band to compare them to.  Both formed in the '80s, found success in the first half of the 90s and broke up in the late '90s before they could get really HUGE.  They both had a similar sound and didn't really have any stand out personalities.  Yet the Gin Blossoms still get regular radio play and are frequently talked about when '90s rock is discussed.  Most people today have never even heard of Toad.

Not the most visually appealing guys, even by '90s standards.

The only explanation I can come up with is that they hit it big just a smidge too soon.

Toad's breakout album Fear came out in 1991, just before Nirvana's Nevermind.  They got two top 20 Billboard singles out of it but it took almost three years for Fear to go platinum.

Meanwhile, the Gin Blossoms' New Miserable Experience came out in the college radio friendly afterglow of the grunge explosion.  Initially, the album also failed to garner much attention but would eventually go 4x platinum.

Now if that was the end of it, it would make things simple.  But the tricky thing is that Toad had success after Fear.  Their next album, Dulcinea, also went platinum (and spawned a #1 hit).  But Toad broke up in early 1998 without ever really managing to fully catch fire.

There were also other factors that may have played a part.  Toad had a little bit of a softer feel to them than a lot of the other bands at the time (most of their songs are angst free).  They also didn't have any mystique.

The Gin Blossoms had a lot of turmoil in their early days that probably made them a sexy play for radio stations.  Doug Hopkins, the guitarist and main songwriter for the band, was forced out by the record label because of heavy drinking.  Just as Hey Jealousy (a song written by Hopkins) started getting traction, Hopkins committed suicide.

Now, you can't expect every band to have a story like that, but Toad really had nothing.  Counting Crows had dreads, Weezer had glasses, 3eb had the catchiest song ever.  Toad also didn't seem to be able to light up anyone's imagination or cash in on MTV in a meaningful way, back when MTV really mattered in music.

Toad ended up being what Matchbox Twenty probably would have been if Rob Thomas hadn't done Smooth with Santana.

Even so, Toad's tracks have just as much value today as they ever did, and their albums taken as a whole are very strong.  I'd urge you explore the Wet Sprocket further, for they be underrated.

Why don't people talk about this more?  Seriously, I've never once even heard of someone preventing a car theft because of a car alarm.  If you removed all of the car alarms from the earth tonight, what would happen?  Everyone would get a good night sleep?

No one actually thinks a car is being stolen when they hear one go off.  Can you imagine if you called the police every time you heard a car alarm go off?  They'd probably just laugh at you.

- "Please help!  A car alarm just went off outside my window, I think a theft is in progress!"

- "Can you see the thieves?"

- "What?  No, I'm not looking out the window!  Are you crazy!?  What if they see me, they could be armed!"

Not much really needs to be said, but I'd rather talk about it than actually take action and solve the problem.  That's a lot of work.  Ugh, work.

The ever rare theater review.

I had seen ads for Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson all over the manhattan subways all Fall.  I hadn't heard much about it and I didn't really have an opinion on it except that the tag line "History just got all sexy pants" made me smile, and the label of "The Emo History Lesson", made me cringe.  I saw a few short ads on TV for it and was colored unimpressed.

I don't want to sound like I'm someone who thinks they're too intellectually advanced for Musical Theater (like more roommates, for example), on the contrary, I am a big fan of a lot of musical theater.  I was frequently in musicals during high school and college.  I even prefer seeing a musical over most other plays.

The term "emo", however, I'm a little prejudiced towards.

Then, recently, I saw an article mentioning that BBAJ was already set to close after New Years despite overwhelmingly good reviews.  Peaked by the extremely positive reviews by critics everywhere from Rolling Stone to The New York Times to The Wall Street Journal, and maybe a little curious because I might occasionally listen to emo-rock as a guilty pleasure, I decided to check out the show this past week.

After giving it a day to digest, I can say, if there is only one thing you can spend $40-$120 before Jan. 2nd, Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson should be that thing.

There was a lot of awesome in this show.

The show gives a great first impression before it even starts.  The theater is decorated with tons of red christmas lights and ornate lighting fixtures (also with red lights), accented with paintings of historical figures form the early 19th century and full size casts of alligators on the wall, deer heads along the top of the stage, and a cow: hog-tied from the ceiling.  It was like a sort of red-neck macabre.  Very cool.

The entire time, sitting waiting for the show to start, they were blaring alternating Spoon with Tegan and Sara songs over the PA system.  Two bands I happen to enjoy listening to even when I'm not in a theater.  Very cool.

Then the show actually started.

BBAJ is a biography of the life of Andrew Jackson, after a fashion.  It would best be described as a satiric historical fiction.  Andrew Jackson as a rock star.  Riding a wave of fans into Washington to oust a bunch of out of touch elitists.  The show takes more than a few liberties with exact historical accuracy but the story is fast paced, extremely funny, interesting, entertaining, and very, very cool.

This was the first show I think I've ever seen on Broadway with the entire original cast intact (no understudies) and they were all very good.  Lucas Near-Verbrugghe was especially hilarious as an effeminate Martin Van Buren.  There really were so many good scenes and performances I'm not going to try to go through them all because it would just take way too long.

The music is used more as a tool to comment on or explain the goings on in the story than it is to get at the audience emotionally, more in the vain of a Urinetown than a Wicked, but it is very well done in its own right and you will occasionally find yourself thinking "Wow, I almost didn't notice with all that's going on up there, but this song is actually really good!" a few times throughout the show.

And I loved how the "orchestra" was a three-piece punk band on the stage, frequently joined by members of the cast on guitars.

These guys were he-laaar-ious

The most impressive thing about the show was how well it stuck to its surprisingly complex political message.  Perhaps this was my prejudice, but I really wasn't expecting so much depth from a show where the main musical refrain was: "Populism, yea, yea!" 

At first, it is hard to figure out which political party or politician the BBAJ is taking aim at.  There are a few not so subtle shots at George W. Bush, and it is pretty easy to connect the dots to Sarah Palin at several moments, but there is also some pretty clear criticism, if not of Barack Obama himself, then definitely of some of his more vocal supporters.  

Then, it dawns on you: they aren't so much lampooning politicians, as they are criticizing the willful ignorance of the American people, the nature of the political machine, and the failure of either to mature since the early 1800s.

BBAJ nails anyone who ever voted for someone just because they thought they were "cool", or thought "I'd like to have a beer with that candidate" firmly to the wall.  Because while it is fun and easy to vote for someone who reminds you of yourself (not to mention an ego trip), you might want to think about it first, because you probably don't know much about how to run a country.  

So, maybe you should try to learn something about the issues (and not just learn more of what you want to hear) before you hit up the polls next time, instead of just voting for someone because "hey man, we should be able to make socialism work" or their daughter "danced" on a prime time network TV show.  Being president is a really hard job, and it takes a lot of intelligence, patience, tact to be good at.  Not just charisma.

I'd like to think it wasn't the case, but both sides of the political aisle are filled with people who are selfish and spoiled and end up convincing themselves that what ever they want, is what the country should do, rather than the other way around (because, hey, it's like, really hard to understand some of that healthcare shit, okay?).

It's almost like, the adolescent attitude of the music and the show was an allegory for the American people.  Woah, mind. blown.

I don't want to over sell the show too much.  The humor at times is a little sophomoric and the frenetic pacing sacrifices some character development and doesn't afford the audience much of a chance to take in the more tender moments of the show (though, they are few).  Although there are several catchy and memorable tunes, I wouldn't say any really qualify as a show stopper.  Still, the great far outweighs the good and makes the not-so-good seem nonexistent in this show.

An amazing show more than worth your time and money.  It is a shame to see it closing so soon.  Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson, you are outstandingly underrated, and gone too soon.  We hardly knew ye.

I did it!  I finally saw Avatar.

I've heard a wide range of opinions on this movie; from it sucked - to - I wish I could afford to have surgery so I could look like cat people.  After hearing so much about it I had a pretty good idea of what to expect:  Incredible special effects with a relatively generic but entertaining story.  

I was mostly right.

Let me just say first that I can completely see how this movie would have been amazing to see in IMAX 3D.  It had lush visual effects, fantastic sound production (the unsung effect), and James Cameron clearly knew what he was doing when he made sure nearly every action sequence involved a significant amount of flying or falling.

Yeah, this does look good. $12 good though? Eh.

BUT!

When people told me the movie's plot was cliche, wow, they weren't kidding.  Outside of the visual presentation I don't think there was a single original thing in this movie.  I've heard a lot of comparisons to Dances with Wolves but, to be honest, that's more than this movie deserves.

Everything involving story in this film is familiar and for a movie that pushes 3 hours (and feels longer) there isn't a whole lot of character growth.  "Oh, what?  But the Jake learns to love the Na'vi and goes from a cold hearted marine to one of them!  How is that not growth!?"

Easy there, dorks.  Sure, Jake does eventually (officially) join the side of the Na'vi, but he's never really ever against them.  Right from the get go, he is a blank slate waiting for something to give his life direction.  So joining this new and exciting world of the cat people makes complete sense for him.  It would have been different (and far more interesting) if he actually had something invested in kicking the Na'vi out and helping the company or the Colonel, but he's pretty much on the side of the Na'vi from the second he meets them.  Boring.

In fact, that's pretty much the deal with every character in this movie.  You can tell every character's arc almost as soon as they are established.  There are no twists, no surprises, nothing original.  It is so bad that you could spend 10 minutes in the bathroom, come back, ask someone what happened, and all they'd have to do is tell you where the scene took place and what characters were there.  Without even beginning to talk about the actual content you would know what happened.

Whose fault is this?  Well, Sam Worthington is about as charismatic as a brown rock, so there is that obstacle.  But even talented actors like Sigourney Weaver and Giovanni Ribisi (Pretty much, playing a carbon copy of Burke from Aliens... only less weasely.  Once again, boring) don't get much to do.  

The real problem is the way the movie was made.  I suspect Cameron and the entire production team spent so much time everything looked so good they never really focused on the story and the actors are so busy running around and jumping off things they never get a chance to do any acting.  Putting effects first isn't an uncommon choice in action movies, but it really doesn't work when all you have to go on are a bunch of flat one-liners.

A good contrast here, actually, is Cameron's Aliens.  

Game over, James.

Aliens is widely considered one of the greatest sci-fi action films ever yet you are over an hour into the movie before a single gun is fired or you see any aliens.  This first hour is spent with the characters interacting with one another.  Building dynamics and establishing relationships.  By the time they start getting attacked you really care about them because of that first hour.  Even more generic characters like Hudson (Bill Paxton) are fun because he is well written and Paxton actually gets a chance to make the character his own.  It would have been nice if this same approach had been used in Avatar, but Cameron and everyone else was simply too excited to put the 3D glasses on.

It might be a little unfair of me to compare it so closely with Aliens.  For one thing, Aliens had the major advantage of being a sequel, so right off the audience knows what Ripley's deal is and her entire character's conflict can hit the ground running with virtually no exposition.

And in all frankness, action movies just aren't made the way Aliens was.  Good luck to you if you think you could get a major movie studio to produce an action movie that doesn't have any action in it for the first hour and has long stretches in its second act where characters sit around talking and doing things that don't involve shouting "Go, go, go!".

In case you were unaware, it is basically a law of screenwriting that action movies must have an action sequence every 15 pages (approx. every 15 minutes).  Avatar is pretty faithful to this model, which is alright, but it also is just one more thing about it that is by the book.

I guess that's what I didn't really like about this movie, the plot only serves to decorate the incredible effects, when it should be the other way around.  You can watch the trailer and know not only everything that happens in the movie but also what every character's motivation is going to be and what they're going to do to try and get it.

It is interesting to see what a huge phenomenon this movie became.  Red Letter Media broke down the commercial genius of it all.  But now that it's off the big screen, I don't know if these tricks are going to hold up.

I've heard some people try to defend Avatar by saying people like me expect too much of it.  Sorry, but I think a movie that made a zillion dollars should be better than "okay."

Avatar in the living room just comes off as a pretty nice looking, cliche'd, generic, overlong (a common failing of many of Cameron's movies) action movie.

Yup, Avatar, a little late on the wagon, but you're overrated.

Aaaaaand the books are... The Learning Tree (1963) and Mother Night (1961).  Both novels happen to be written by two of my favorite human beings to have lived in recent years; Gordon Parks and Kurt Vonnegut Jr., respectively.

I pretty much read The Learning Tree solely based on my love for everything Gordon Parks.  He has an amazing life story on top of being a pretty incredible photographer (if you are unfamiliar with his life, I strongly recommend looking into it).  After Parks had established himself as a significant artist has his generation, friends started chirpping in his ear telling him he should write a novel.  He did (despite having no previous experience as a writer) and 30 something years down the road it was curated into the library of congress, along with everything else he's ever done.

So, I decided to check it out.

It starts off a little slow.  I went a week or two without picking up after getting about 50 pages in.  But after the first act it picks up.  There is an authenticity in the characters and dialogue that gets you invested in the story.

It has a bit of a "high school cirriculum" feel to it, but the story is well written and valuable nonetheless.  Parks is able to avoid the dry stretches that hurt the opening chapters as the story gets going and it is very hard to put down in the last 100 pages.  I found the ending to be surprisingly down beat, actually, there aren't very many happy moments in this book, but I don't have a problem with this because it is depressing with a point.

The most compelling and important part of The Learning Tree is the glimpse into a kind of Americana rarely explored by 20th Century writers, of any medium.  A story that no doubt many people lived but is seldom told.

I almost hate to admit it, but I didn't spend a whole lot of time digesting The Learning Tree because I started reading Mother Night the very next morning.

Vonnegut is undoubtedly my favorite author.  The guy is a literary genius.  He has a an incredible ability to state the most complex paradox in such simplicity that a 6-year-old could understand it.  His simultaneous love of the human spirit and disappointment in human nature is drenched in every sentence.  The guy is a fucking legend.

Mother Night is considered one of Vonnegut's best works so you could say I was pretty excited to get started on it.

The story centers around Howard W. Campbell Jr. (who also makes a brief appearance in Vonnegut's Slaughter House Five), a nazi on trial for war crimes in Israel.

The story essentially plays as a type of memoirs for Campbell, an American spy who acted as a propagandist for the nazi party on the radio during the war.  He sits in prison because the American government refuses to claim him but, as the story progresses, the reader starts to realize that Campbell is actually right where he would prefer to be. 

The story does an excellent job challenging the ideals of nationalism and sparks an interesting debate on whether one should be judged based on the merits of their actions or their character.  Vonnegut, for his part, announces the moral of the story (or one of them, anyway) at the opening of the book, "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be."

My favorite quote from this novel doesn't actually come from the novel at all but the "editor's notes" in which Vonnegut says of the fictional Campbell, "A very good me, the real me, a me made in heaven, is hidden deep inside."

So, there they are then.

If you only had a week left to live and had to read one of these books I would say Mother Night and I don't think I'd have to think about it but both were definitely well worth the time I put into them.

I'm not really sure how to classify this... underrated?  They aren't really, but what the hell?