Pirates of the Bronx: At Semester's End

Sorry, Mate ... Just couldn't resist So, I'm a little short on sleep right now from a paper. Was going to sleep for longer today but there was the office Christmas thing and lunch with a candidate for a post on faculty (they like to have candidates have lunch with grad students in their specialty while they are here, this guys was in OT) and then I was going to come back and catch up on sleep but then realized it would be probably be a good idea for me to turn up at the talk the guy was giving at for (part of his visiting as a candidate) - was pretty drowsy during the talk but after was more awake, so ... Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End came out on DVD on the 5th and I got a copy but told me-self I could not watch it or the extras till everything was done - but then I was relatively awake, but realizing I would not be so long enough to make it worth getting started, since on this little sleep it is a better idea to catch up some on it so ... you guessed it ... while I did not watch the movie, I did go through the extras Quite simply: this movie rocks more every time I look at stuff from it. I highly recommend watching the extras - the work that went into that final battle in the maelstrom is every bit as over the top as the scene itself is in the finished movie (for which I have made a case, contra those who complain that the movie, and that scene was just too over the top, that that is life, especially on PoMo readings ... "Into the Abyss" is where life takes place and the Spirit is ever brooding over the chaotic face of the deep). And Hans Zimmer ... quite simply rocks - great peace on his work on the score For here, only briefly, I have four findings. I will go through them from the shortest to the longest, since I would not want the reader to get tired out by my longer discussions (and the last point is VERY long because it gave way, contrary to my original intention, before inserting this parenthetical here, to the previously promised discussion on recent statements of "authorial intent" by Rowling), - I would not want the reader to do this if the reader is prone to do so, and miss out on having at least the reward of the shortest one, which is just a really fun factiod, so I put it up first. 1. Gore Verbinski, the director, actually plays guitar in the movie. No, it is not an over-dub of the "Spanish Ladies" piece played by Captain Teague ... that part is actually played by Richards himself onscreen. Verbinski plays the only part in the whole movie score that is rock instrumentation: the haunting distorted electric guitar overlay in the scene where Will, Beckett and Jones meet with Barbosa, Elizabeth and Jack on the sandbar between the two armadas just before the final battle in the maelstrom (the one that sounds a little like some of the "ballad" stuff Metallica has done). Interesting too ... Hans Zimmer used to be in the rock music industry. 2. Hoist the Colors: The song was actually composed from scratch, both melody and lyrics, by not only Hans Zimmer, but Hans Zimmer and Gore Verbinski working together. Also on that song: I had written on here after I watched the movie umpteen times in the theater and then gotten a pirated version on Canal St in lower Manhattan, of my theory of the "meaning" of that song. In the movie Sao Fang's lieutenant sings "never SAY we die," but I was pretty sure that when the pirate chorus sings it at the beginning that it was "SHALL we die." And indeed, in the English subtitles for the extras piece on the song (where at least an original recording was done with Zimmers wife, who just happened to be in the studio that day, singing the song like a young boy), it is indeed, "never SHALL we die." My whole original comment was that the "never" has a secondary undertone of "EVER shall we die." That word in the gallow-pirates chorus is particularly fuzzy, sounding like it could be either. It was this, after looking online and finding a consensus for "never" (probably based in using the version by Sao Feng's lieutenant as a comparison source), that first presented to me the idea to me of two meanings arising from the "fuzziness," one primary and one secondary. The primary meaning is the "never" because this is what the brethren court intended in binding Calypso. The secondary meaning of "ever" is the reality of the thing - the "being towards" death I will take up in observation number 3. 3. Being Towards Death: There is a line I missed in previous viewings because of the chaotic setting and the quickness of it. But it is a central line for the case I have been making (while trying not to tip my hand too much on the contents of an essay I want to write and try to get published), concerning this movie's great manifestation of Heidegger's "being towards death" (which makes it fit well with HP because I have been making a similar case regarding Deathly Hallows). The line is one of two in the pairing off of the two captains, Barbosa and Jones, against each other in the battle in the abyss. I just mentioned, in the parenthetical, Jone's line, "into the abyss" (forget if I mentioned this or not, but the abyss is also a translation for the Hebrew word in that Genesis 1 passage, "the deep," and it is a very key term for Heidegger, the "ab-ground" that is the "nothing" out into which human existence, "dasein," is constantly held, and for Heidegger this is intimately bound up in the "being towards death"). But Barbosa's pairing line, when he takes the helm after Elizabeth and Will tell him they need him, relates directly to the "being towards death": "Dying is a Day worth Living For" (which echoes with Will's central line to his father, when Bootstrap says that 10 years at sea is a heavy price to pay for one day ashore with his wife: "it all depends one day" - and speaking of creation in Genesis 1, the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, does not read "the first day," but rather "the one day" - a point out of which the Church Fathers made a great deal in developing Christian eschatology, including in relation to Sunday as the 8th day, the "ogdoad," and the 1 day beyond the created 7 day order of Genesis 1-2). 4. The Long Awaited DVD Answer On Will's Destiny: In regards to this "being towards death" the one thing I was looking forward to in the DVD release was a rumored 23 extra minutes of deleted footage, which contained, among other things, material pertaining to the exact nature of Will's contract with the Dutchman as her captain. Well, that 23 minutes was only a rumor. The deleted scenes include only 2 brief scenes. BUT, I was rewarded on the matter of Will and the 10 years aboard the Dutchman. Rumor had had it that what was to be revealed was that Will had only one 10 year stint to do to fulfill the terms of service, and then he could stay on land with Elizabeth for the rest of his life all the time. This is not the case, and I am very glad. Rather than extra scenes, the DVD included in the insert a list of "top questions movie goers had about POTC: AWE" ... and the second question is that of one 10 year stint or a continuing system ... and the definitive answer in the insert is the latter. The reason I was so glad about this is actually very pertinent for recent events of public statements in Potter-land. In the "text" of the movie as it stands the best case that could be made for the shorter terms is that the text is ambiguous and leaves that question unanswered. But I do not think that position (of the text as completely ambiguous on the matter) stands up very well because it does not adequately describe the text. If one asks the question of the text, one must follow the logic in the text: Will replaced Jones, whose original accord was the longer, repeating, schema., and thus these are the terms of Will being captain. There is no going back to "normal" life. To quote Val Kilmer's Doc Holladay in the movie Tombstone: "there's no such thing as normal life, Wyatt, there's just life" ... and death (this line is spoken on Holladay's death bed). (I am also apposed to readings of this text that view the 10 years at sea as the man "going out every day to return at night, bringing home the bacon" concept of "normal life." That leaving and returning is a part of human existence, but this thing of "being towards death" - Will's specific task of ferrying the dead is central, as are his death and resurrection - the latter term used specifically in the DVD insert. It is the same with Harry: even though he goes on with life and marries Ginny and has a family with her, it can no longer be "normal life." Those events changed him radically and definitively. The scar has not even prickled in 19 years ... but he still remembers it and his hand still goes there by instinct.) Don't Mess With the Text: From Pirates to Potter The logic of the recurring 10 years stands as it is in the logic of the movie's text and I am glad they did not muck things up with some statement of authorial intent outside the text that muddied the waters of the text itself. The way that the reason I was so happy connects with recent Potter statements is that the logic of the text stands as it is, on its own. If that logic is flawed or not well written then that is just the way it is ... adding "extra" material does not fix the problem with the text as it stands unless you write a new text. And even on that issue, I see no reason to say that the text as it stands has lacunae that require explanation. And I don't think the proposed answer to a supposed lacuna is anywhere near as present, if at all, in the DH text as the author sees it. I don't doubt she had that reading of the character long before, maybe from the start, but I think she let the story tell itself by its own logic and that that logic does not contain that element for that character (neither that specific form, nor the question in general, either "same" or "opposite"). "Authorial intent" versus "author providing information on details." When sounding the war-cry of the "new criticism" (as I am apt to do) - "don't commit the fallacy of authorial intent!" - I would distinguish between authorial intent and information on details provided by the author. Under the latter I would place such material as giving the sources of images used (e.g. noting that the source directly and concretely impacting the nature of the four houses is the classical four elements cosmogony - but even in that case I would differentiate between what can be said about - such as, for example, that the four elements comprise the nature of the physical cosmos, just as the four houses comprise the English wizarding world's concept of the composition of the defining trait of their "world" as distinct from other worlds, such as the muggle world, with special emphasis on the fact that the author concretely uses the "world" terminology, which generally translates the Greek "cosmos" - from my own theories and comments, as an interpreter, of how the interaction between the individual four elements works out in the text). As an example from the wider world of literature (and I only know this one from doing a paper on it in undergrad) I would offer the example of informing the un-informed that the dates given as the headings of the four sections of William Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury are the dates of the Tuesday and Thursday-Saturday of Holy Week (in the year 1938 and, for the Tuesday, the Quentin Compton section, for 1928, I believe, but I would have to look it up, the years are given in the date headings), and thus one is justified in using Holy Week as an interpretive matrix for the novel. I do not believe that the statement in question falls under the heading of such information, but properly under the improper understanding, and really inflation, of the natural role of "authorial intent." As an example of such considerations of what is "in the text" take my comments on a possible Harry-Hermione thing, in remarks exchanged with Jo from Australia just after the release of DH. In those comments, if I remember them correctly (and if not, take this as an opportunity to edit that text of mine by here making a new text with the inaccurate material struck from the old text and this material inserted), that the presence of a real thing was ever even actually present. I think that the case is that the logic of character types and of experience lends itself to the possibility of something, but that is not the same as the thing itself actually existing between the two. I think a key element is the absence of Ron as a result of his actively leaving. I believe that it is only in this absence that logic of the character types and that of the emotionally intense common experience, without Ron there, ever even even have arisen at all, in any way shape or form, on Hermione's radar, even subconsciously (which is why I think Hermione was so upset with Ron for leaving - but on my reading it is also entirely possible that the blip on the radar is only subconscious and that Hermione could not consciously tie out this element as a contributing factor for her anger - but, as I said then, I do think that things such as the posing as a middle-aged muggle married couple so support the element as a factor in the text, at the very least in the use of the images, even if not at all on the level of the Hermione character, although I do think the latter at least possible, and my gut feeling sides with even at least probability, but how much I can "prove" is of course another matter - and here I am arguing in a different fashion from the "fun logic of images" I speak of sometimes, when I say I am not trying to proof-text or provide "evidence" for certain things, - here I am trying to provide evidence to support a certain reading of a certain possible element in the text). I do not think that the thing itself ever actually occurred in the text, only the latent possibility according to only the logic of character types and of the common experiences in that context. And I do not think Hermione ever chose (consciously or subconsciously) to follow those logics, but simply that they did put a real strain on her emotionally in Ron's absence (a tenet I would list on the "latent" level, but still concretely in the text on that level) ... a strain to which Harry was totally oblivious (the reason you go with someone is because you actually are drawn to them not because they are "your type" or simply because there is a certain logic in sharing certain general experiences together, even if those things contribute secondarily - and obviously in the final moment it is a matter of a choice, an act of the will). I think that is the state of the text as it stands in this case(on Harry, Hermione and Ron - the last especially evident in what Ron sees in the locket ... if it is in Ron's mind and read by the Voldy-Crux, Hermione can probably guess that it is in Ron's mind) and no statements of authorial intent would change that (the author might be able to change my opinion by their own arguments as an interpreter of the text, the same as any other interpreter might be able to by presenting arguments), just as statements that seem to me to fall distinctly under the class of "authorial intent," such as those actually made, will not change my read on that issue. On a further matter concerning that public statement, the matter of the public reception, I do not necessarily fault the author, but I do think that giving statements of interpretation, given the fact that in this case the interpreter in question is also the author, has seriously muddied the waters on the issue. John Granger has suggested in a post on the matter that one should heavily qualify the nature of that statement by observing the context. I don't disagree (at least not necessarily, not being in a privileged position to discern such things) with his assessment of the statement as heartfelt and honest and directed primarily to the questioner. What I disagree with in Granger's assessment is the contention that those parameters definitively define the context of the statement. This was not simply a private conversation, or even a Q&A session of a talk given in an auditorium filled with persons with a specialized interest in an academic matter, where the only audience outside the physical walls that will probably ever hear the answer are the academic readers of a peer-reviewed academic journal. The real context of the statement involves a very pervasive world wide-wide media in which often occur very heated and polemical ad-hominem campaigns (and even the original question evidences the differences: an audience interested in such academic textual matters would not generally ask a question of that nature - I do not mean to infer any ill mark on the questioner whatsoever, but such a question arises, I think, from conflating what the experience of the text means for a person, in their particular life-situation, with the text itself). (Wow, the end of that last paragraph, before the parenthetical, sounds so much like my roommates recent paper on Augustine on "gapped" texts, that the understanding of context and its role in genre-type plays a central role in the "meaning" of texts.) In other words, I think Granger (and probably the author, but I cannot say for sure), while calling attention to the context, have quite misunderstood the true scope of that context. I also think that Granger does not give proper consideration and weight to that matter of heated ad-hominem arguments in the public arena. One might take a view "against" but see a need to nuance it greatly in order to convey what they believe (such as not being mistaken as implying that certain people will necessarily go to hell if they do not leave a certain lifestyle ... although here it would be a matter of further debate whether, or to what extent, the categories of "insurmountable ignorance" apply or to what extent the psychological conditioning of certain experiences can impact a person in certain areas - and those experiences can drastically effect the psychological: just two days ago I was talking to the professor I spoke of who teaches the class on Corinthians, and he told me the story related to him by a man of how the man's son wound up in a holding cell and was subjected by other inmates to certain things, in other words forced and by no means of his own free will; after six months of not telling anyone the son took his own life). But if one takes such a stance and holds such a view, as I do (and as the Church of John's active creedal affiliation does), such a statement as this by the author potentially gives rise to certain problems. Holding such a nuanced position, one might wish to exercise discretion by "choosing ones battles," and such an authorial statement might seriously limit one's ability to exercise such discretion (I personally try to exercise discretion, not simply for the matter of considering when and where a statement might or might not be effective, or to what degree, but because when making a statement I wish not to be misunderstood, for instance, on the distinction between the simple having of certain inclinations, and the acting upon those inclinations, especially if the misunderstanding meant being construed as saying "you are abhorrent and going to hell simply for having the inclinations" and I tend to gravitate towards situations in which I have more chance of being able to make such distinctions and nuances. For instance, while my roommates might not agree with me, they do know my beliefs and we are able to get along, but many others do not have that privilege of being able to say they concretely know where I stand ... unless they happen to be reading this blog post I guess). If one is of such a mind, and is a PhD student at a large university, and is known to be a practicing Catholic, and is also known to be a huge Harry Potter fan, as I am ... situations which one might otherwise avoid might become unavoidable from causes not within one's control, including, as the first such factor, the author's public statement. In such a case one will likely be written off as "phobic," without the chance to explain one's position adequately (fortunately this has not yet happened to me personally ... but given things as they are, it is not necessarily unlikely ... and the further consideration that should be added in my situation is that, if asked on the matter, I do not wish to betray my faith, I prefer to be honest). Granger gives an example of, when he worked for Whole-Foods, a certain label being applied to himself owing to his marriage and large family (the term rhymes with "feeder"). Being so labeled does not seem to have affected him greatly, but his charitable disposition (and I mean that description of him in all seriousness of respect) does not changed the bigoted nature of someone labeling somebody else that way. Granger makes the statement that such polemicists from the "against" side (as I mention below parenthetically) wrongly take the matter to the level of "election year politics"; but I would argue that the true state of affairs in our cultural context, especially give the aforementioned pervasive world-wide mentioned above is that ... it's always an election year. In short, I think that in trying (and I freely admit that I think he does so with the best intentions) to "pour oil on the water," Granger really just adds fuel to the fire. Better simply to say something nebulous like "well, its a thing people are naturally going to disagree on" and leave it at that (which, in and of itself would be enough to send those who are unfortunately given to agitated polemics "against" and lack of discretion in how they handle such a situation - if looking to distinguish oneself from such polemicists is the desired goal of such as statement ... such polemicists tend to settle for nothing less than very animatedly hopping on their side in no uncertain terms - but I would differentiate between such polemics and generaly being a bit perturbed by the statement, and I don't think Granger addresses this distinction sufficiently enough to justify the statements he himself make ... just my take on it). Better to make such brief and nebulous statements than to go to the lengths he has chastising those who were upset for being so vocally so (or at least that is how I read his statements, but that may just be me for the reasons I stated just now). For this reason, while I disagree with the polemicists (on both sides of the fence), I do not find the same fault as Granger seems to (at least in that one piece as I understood it) with some being agitated by the statement. On the score of the question of whether or not the statement of "authorial intent" impacts the meaning of the text, even some decidedly, publicly, and even polemically, on the one side (the "pro" and activist side) have argued that it does not, such as John Cloud in Time, who basically said (in a piece in time days after the author's statement) "you're not doing any good for my side ... put the character back where the character was before your statement -in the ...." All that having been said, I do think that it is a legit question to ask whether this particular author, in her particular time and life situation, would have written such a character (who we all have found genuinely VERY endearing) without such a concept (not "could this character be written without this concept" in general, but in the very particular case of this author) ... and the attendant question of whether or not any body else, period, could have given us this particular character. I do not know the answer to that question, but I do think it is a valid question to ask. It is a question that applies to the way in which the text arises, as distinct from the text itself, but I do think it a legitimate question to ask. so, there you have it for what it is worth: Merlin's literary theory (101) and read of recent major HP events and the responses to them ... I wouldn't necessarily advise quoting it in any significant debates if I were you (not for my own sake ... for yours lol). I was not planning on making the big long statement on the recent HP developments and Granger's commentary on them. I was planning just to make a short post on Pirates the Caribbean and then put me to bed, but oh well. Now I really am going to bed.