Hope, Security, and Freedom
It’s been about a month since the historic inauguration of Barack Obama, and already we have added another trillion dollars to our national debt.
A product of Keynesian thought, the exorbitant spending initiative is the largest since FDR’s New Deal. Oddly lacking from the stimulus discourse is any discussion of its goals. With all of the many Republican criticisms, the one which would actually force Obama and the Democrats to actually say what their intentions are is curiously absent. In his recent press conference, the question wasn’t even asked — let alone the diversionary rhetoric intended to obscure such axiomatic questions.
Only a few months since the bank “bailout,” the stimulus package has been billed as an “investment.” The irony shouldn’t be lost. Whereas the “bailout” or TARP actually was an investment in the nation’s financial sector, the stimulus invests in very little. Contrarily, it presumes that there is nothing to really invest in the US economy. Rather than attempt to broaden the US economy, it attempts to diminish it and make the government a sort of protector of it. In its diminished state, the government will assume an indispensable role for individuals and businesses. The security of dependence rather than the freedom of entrepreneurism has become through the stimulus the dominant political and economic philosophy.
This is all very odd. A nation built upon the premise of self-reliance is embracing statism. What is truly disturbing is a lack of context or perspective with the stimulus. It would be understandable that the government would intervene to “soften” the economic downturn. But rather than see the current recession as a part of a natural boom-and-bust economy, it supposes that there are fundamental defects to the free-market and that the only safe model is the one which ultimately relies on the state. Now are we to believe that America’s prosperity comes from the government’s propensity to print money? When the history is written and whatever successes and fulfillments are noted, it seems doubtful the government’s injection of nearly one trillion dollars into the economy will be one of them. And yet this is how the stimulus is being sold — a major success, a fulfillment to the drones of “change” and “hope.” This is what Obama (both the man and the myth) represent? — simply the diminished self-containment of the economy.
We will never know if the stimulus succeeds or fails – its stated intentions mentioned with a cough and a few inaudible syllables. Obama most likely does have the best of intentions. He probably does hope that this will “solve” our economic problems. But at the same time it would be safe to speculate that he sees this also as — ala Rahm Emanuel — an opportunity. Liberal ideas now have a chance to flourish. Expect the new administration to cast social programs through the prism of economic recovery — education, health care, social security. And in the same way Democrats objected to the Bush administration’s reliance on a national crises to justify policies, Republicans will probably follow suit. However, the GOP would be wise to recognize the nature of our times. They should be self-confidant in the country’s history of self-reliance — this will always be the case despite economic downturns. They should see that the US has faced economic problems before and the American people are usually capable in discerning proper economic policy in keeping with our democratic values. What they must watch out for and where the call of true leadership must be met are the demands of freedom. Only a few days ago a large area in Pakistan known for its ski resorts called Swat was just offered up by the Pakistani government. The beheadings, torture, and intimidation was too much for the beleaguered government to handle. They gave up; Obama must not. The true global crisis didn’t start last September, it started eight years ago – we can’t forget it. Republicans can’t forget it. The stimulus can’t become a rallying call for unrestrained opposition to the government, but rather the inconsequential action of a President defined by his promotion of freedom abroad.
And ironically enough its the Republicans who can make it happen.
Obama and his hope
St. Paul called faith ”the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” It’s a definition Barack Obama and his supporters should reflect on. Because it would seem that the louder and more insistent the shouts for “change” and “hope” are, the more hollow it sounds. What exactly is being hoped for, and what must be done to accomplish it? These are questions which “hope” always avoids answering. That’s the nature of hope – it avoids. It cowers away from what challenges it, and just curls up in a ball and wishes its problems away. It prefers insulation to action.
By the ferver of the Obama campaign, this sort of tepid and shallow brand of optimism would be the last thing to accuse Barack Obama. But what should we make of Obama’s “hope”? He calls for a victory in the war in Afghanistan, but an end to the war in Iraq? What an unusual distinction–victory in war, and an end in war. It would seem to be a new military strategy, to “end” a war. How would it differ from winning a war, or loosing? Perhaps ending the war in Iraq would return the nation to its pre-war dictatorship. Or maybe it would involve stabilizing Iraq through the help of the good-willed intentions of Iran or Syria; throw in a gentlemen’s agreement with Al-qaeda — I don’t bomb you, you don’t bomb me — and there ya go, we’ve successfully ( or more aptly, satisfactorily) ended the war. Anyone, though, with a rudimentary understanding of geo-politics would tell you that any sort of policy which would “end” the war like this would more likely postpone it.
Is Obama and his followers really so naive to think that the problems we are facing in Iraq — ethnic factionalism, Islamic fundamentalism, and terrorism — will just go away with hope. Do they honestly believe this? Or more likely, do they just not recognize the importance in confonting them? If this is how we should deal with our security concerns, why not end the war in Afghanistan in similar fashion? Let’s do away with all that messiness of actually fighting the war and just end it — truly brillant. This is apparently Obama’s idea of hope in confronting American’s problems, to just ambigously end them. How should Iraqis take Obama’s brand of hope, or the Iranian youth, or the Israelis? How should Africans take Obama’s message — that the last eight years of a presidency which tried to solve the continent’s problems were wasted, that all along we should have “ended” them?
It’s clear that Obama’s idea of hope is really nothing more than the celebration of fatalism; it’s the comforting acceptance that things can’t change. There is something very pleasing in the idea that the stuggle of the last five years has been based on sensationalist and fictional threats and visions. We wish to believe that at the stuggle’s core is the irrational and reversible policies of a delusional president rather than a genuine and irreversible chasm in the international order, requiring direct and unyeilding intervention from United States and all democratic countries. Obama’s hope is anything but. It’s a warm tranquilizer, which calms our national anxiety — if only briefly. It’s our self-righteous indignation against our democratic calling and responsibility. It’s the last vestage of collective doubt and yearning for the past, which has its echos throughout history — for a dependent and subjugated colonial status, a sectarian and enslaved union, an imperialist and facist order, an authoritative monolith of communism, and now the ever-disappearing line between the developed democratic nations and the petty, despotic ones – a line which so protected the West and maintained our sense of security after centuries of turbulence. Obama’s hope may be the hope we want, but is this the hope we need? Perhaps, what we need now is not hope at all, but faith. It may seem bitter, but we better get used to the taste, for without even tempting to take a bite we may find it shoved down our throat.
The Stars Above
To those of you who have found this blog through a search engine, allow me to get the following names out of the way: Paris Hilton, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Scarlett Johansson, Jessica Alba, Emma Watson. If you are looking for these people, I apologize for bringing you here under false pretenses but let me assure you that this won’t be a waste of time. The thing is that I happen to think that what I’ve been writing about on my blog is a lot more important and interesting than a lot of the other crap out there which people are obsessed with. So, allow me to expose you to something new.
We all too often shelter ourselves with familiar ideas and experiences at the expense of learning about something different. The so-called information superhighway has gradually become, through our compartmentalized tastes, the information cul-de-sac. So, in the hopes of clarifying something extraordinary powerful, misunderstood, and greatly lacking public discussion, I present the topic at hand: E = mc².
I decided to write about this topic last week, after I read the book The Tao of Physics. In it the author presents the tenants of Eastern religion through the context of relativistic and quantum physics. The premise sounded pretty interesting to me, but I felt a little disappointed after reading it. With such a revolutionary topic, I expected more. The book did though revive a dormant interest in physics.
Ever since Stephen Hawking taught me about the Big Bang and black holes in A Brief History of Time, I have been curious about modern physics. The book outlined the current (as of 25 years ago) state of modern physics, the basic goal of which being the Theory of Everything – the two contradictory theories of relativity and quantum physics neatly wrapped up with a bow. Following this book, I discovered the author Brian Greene. In The Elegant Universe, Greene updates the status of modern physics and advocates String theory as being a potential candidate for the universal theory. This book really enthralled me. In it, Greene gives a thorough explanation of the theory of relativity, quantum physics, and string theory. As to quantum physics and string theory, I know enough to realize that I know very little. But Greene’s description of the theory of relativity truly opened my eyes to a world which seemed so bizarre and foreign, but yet shockingly so real and immediate. This world, as Greene explained, comes from that genius of the 20th century: Albert Einstein.
Besides the poofy hair, Albert Einstein’s most recognized attribution is E = mc². We all know it. It’s a common expression denoting genius and scientific achievement. Some of us may even know what it stands for. But how many know what it means, why it’s so important — not many. And given it’s importance describing the world we live in, this is pretty sad.
E = mc² stands for energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. The equation comes from Einstein’s theory of relativity, considered the greatest advance in science ever. It thoroughly smashed all previous conceptions of the universe which Isaac Newton had so gracefully assembled.
Newton believed what most of us still believe in: a static universe – a universe in which space and time are separate, immovable entities, which are only the hosts of matter and energy not participants. A universe with definitive locations and moments. A universe which is ultimately fictional. Yes, that’s right the world that we are so used to really doesn’t exist. Instead, we live in relativistic universe, where one objects’ location and time can only be determined relative to another’s. A universe where space and time are actually two aspects of the same entity space-time, which can be warped and torn. A universe where something that occurs on one planet may feel like only a couple seconds but for another planet may feel like thousands of years. Welcome to the real universe.
I can remember learning about relativistic physics from a high school English teacher. I really don’t think he quite understood it, but the story he told was pretty interesting. The story was about a reporter who asked Einstein to explain the theory of relativity. Einstein replied with a question, ‘How long would it feel like if for a whole hour you had to put your hand on a red-hot stove.’ The reporter replied, ‘A long time.’ Einstein then asked, ‘How long would it feel like if you were talking with a beautiful woman for an hour.’ The reported answered, ‘It would feel like a couple seconds.’ Einstein said, ‘There you are. That’s the theory of relativity.’ It’s a cute story, but I really doubt the reporter understood the theory of relativity by it. However, the basic idea is there: the experience of time is relative, measures of which are ultimately subjective to the object and have no objective reality of themselves. But what does this mean and why is it so mind-blowing? — Here’s an example.
Relativity comes from one object in relation to another or more importantly one’s speed of motion relative to another’s. Let’s say a rock leaving Earth, is flying through space at an extremely high speed . Let’s say on the rock there are two little bugs who are having a fight about who should win American Idol. Now, their conversation seems to last only 5 minutes, at which point they decide to go back to Earth and just find out who’s going to be voted off. To there surprise though, Earth is inhabited by futuristic robots. They ask one of these robots who won American Idol. The robot replies that American Idol has been off the air for 2 million years, but he surprisingly knows the answer: Sanjaya – the bugs then die in shock (joke). This isn’t just science fantasy, this is reality. How you ask?
Well, the faster an object approaches the speed of light the faster it experiences time. Those 5 minutes of arguing about American Idol were from the relative perspective of Earth, millions of years. Thus the potentially accurate premise to Planet of the Apes. Well, why does one’s motion affect time?
It’s quite simple and yet so profound. Remember there is no separate space and time, only space-time. Every object within the space-time continuum is actually going the speed of light, only some of it’s motion is displaced as its speed of motion and the rest is experienced as time. Thus if an object approaches the speed of light it is actually taking most of it’s light-speed motion and displacing it as motion in space, while only a fraction is displaced as time and thus it experiences the long eons of stationary objects as quick moments. This means that for us Earthlings, our speed of light motion is so fractionally displaced as motion in space (because we aren’t moving all that fast) that we experience our motion mostly as motion through time. But for light, ALL of it’s speed of light motion is displaced as motion through space and experiences NO time, thus light from the beginning of the universe 12 billion years ago has not experienced one second of time and exists through an eternal moment!!!!!
Now, this is where it gets crazy. The rule is that an object can never go the speed of light. Why? Well, to go the speed of light an object requires more and more energy. This in turn makes the object heavier and thus requires even more energy to approach the speed of light. So, what happens with all this energy as it approaches the speed of light? – It becomes converted into mass. Yes that’s right, the closer an object approaches the speed of light the more it’s energy is converted into mass. Thus the equation E = mc², energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. This is mind-blowing. To think that inherent in the universe, light has such a fundamental role. It is the eternal constant which both determines the experience of time and also the conversion of energy to matter. How phenomenal!
Alright, that’s about as far as I want to take this. My goal here was not to give a complete overview of the theory of relativity, which has many more facets and other fascinating details. My goal was simple: to promote a level of curiosity about our universe and it’s amazing inner-workings. To think that we live during such an important time of discovery is unbelievable. But we’ll never get a sense of these achievements until we take a break from adoring the stars of earth and take a peek at the stares above.
The Charlie Ticket
In 1887, amid much pomp and circumstance, “America’s first subway” opened, running under Tremont St. Boston — and ever since it’s been on a downward track.
Growing up on Cape Cod, riding the subway in the city was always a special treat. The subterranean labyrinth of dark tunnels never ceased to stimulate the imagination, the echoing sounds ringing from the depths and rising to the bustling city.
But as the unique experience became a common routine, the subway lost its mystique.
The mad dash to find a seat, the awkward looks and curious smells, the sweltering cauldron of contagious germs — all led to the gradual disillusionment of riding the “T.”
But all the while, as the treat became a necessity, the mundane ride on the subway had one redeemable factor: one dollar per token, one token per ride.
The simplicity of such a system was of little thought, though in retrospect quite taken for granted. But as the demands for revenue from a bloated bureaucracy and the novelty of new technology coalesced, the days of the token came to an end and the Charlie ticket was introduced.
Since graduating from college, trips into the city have been few and far between. Once again, jumping on the subway was a special occasion rather than a daily occurrence. The city had returned to be the oasis of spontaneity which it once had been, the place of continual discovery.
And so it was last week, when a random trip to the city became the occasion for a discovery of different sort: the Charlie ticket.
I decided on going into Cambridge to a place called the Garment District. So, I hopped on the “T” at an old stop I used to use, Wollaston stop in Quincy. It was there where I discovered that the familiar turnstiles had been replaced by electronic plastic doors and the token dispenser by the Charlie ticket machine.
‘Ah, Touch-screen! How convenient.’
‘Let’s see — All right, easy enough. Five, Ten, or Twenty dollars? Well, I’ll just be needing three or four trips, so five dollars. Put my five dollar bill in. No to receipt. Out comes my ticket. Easy enough, and I’m off.’
I got off at Downtown Crossing for a bite to eat. Then I got back on and headed to Kendall Square at Cambridge. It was at this point that the frustration of dealing with the city began to resurface.
‘Now, where is this Garment District? I know it’s near here somewhere. I think it’s down this street. Or maybe it’s that street. And about 20 minutes and two bad directions later, I managed to find it — closed.’
And then it started to rain.
And then the aggravation.
And then the fateful encounter with the Charlie ticket system.
I headed into the Kendall T stop. Down the flight of stairs. Took out my card. Put it into the slot. And — Buzz! Try it again — Buzz!
‘What? Why isn’t this working?’
I try again and again. Each buzz attracting a new face.
‘Why is this not accepting my ticket? I put 5 dollars in it. I know that the fare’s gone up a little, but something’s must be wrong, I should at least get three or four fares.’
And hearing the train approach, I accept the situation and rush over to the ticket machine and go through the whole process again.
‘Oh, this means I have to buy another five dollar ticket for just one ride. Ugh!’
‘Crap, I only have a twenty. Well, I’ll just get a five dollar ticket out of it.’
And then, Cling clang cling! , as fifteen Sacagawea dollar coins dispense below.
The train approaches. I swiftly grab those metal pieces of the continuous, never-ending failed experiment known as the dollar coin.
And as I briskly run by the MIT billboards which show the progress of technology on our lives, the irony is not lost on me — the day’s experience with the current advance in technology had been a sour one.
And on the ride home, I ponder this experience and the many questions I have:
How can a fare go from one dollar to two?
If I get two fares with a five dollar ticket, where’s that extra dollar go?
Why can’t I buy one fare at a time?
Who came up with this?
Do they realize people like me are getting screwed?
Someone needs to explain . . .
And so with a determination which arises only after experiencing that rare moment of public embarrassment and institutional thievery, I seek the answers I deserve. I want to know who this Charlie is and what’s he done with that extra dollar of mine. It’s time to write the man.
Coming later, the response from the MBTA regarding the aforementioned concerns with the Charlie system. Next stop: Commuter justice.
Made in America: The Sopranos Masterpiece Part 2 of 3
(Check out Part 1 below if you haven’t read it yet)
Made in America, the name of the final episode, is a common phrase used in many contexts. We often search for it when buying something. It’s a phrase which has come to mean genuineness, durability, authenticity. In addition, to be ‘made’ connotes the ritual one goes through to be initiated as a true gangster. Put together the phrase offers a sort of ironic twist to the concept of being made. What was once thought of as achieving true identity and purpose has in a sense been a fraud– all the ritual, all the pride and supposed comradery, all superficial. The process of being made is a fraud, it is not the genuine process of becoming. Notice what Phil says about the NJ crew, ‘they don’t even make people right, they don’t even prick the finger.’ Notice what the NJ crew says about Johnny Sack and the NY crew, ‘he created a sort of insecurity’ (referring to Phil). After the death of his brother, and his near death experience, Phil made it his calling to reaffirm his ‘made’ gangster identity. But in the end it led nowhere. Did anyone else catch the brand of vehicle which ran over Phil’s skull. It was a Ford. 100% Made in America. In a sense, this symbolizes the true process of being made overpowering the fraudulent ‘made’ one. So, if we recognize the symbolic judgment passed on the fraudulent ‘made’ identity, than where is the real process? In the final episode, who is Made in America? — This is where it gets a little fun.
The Sopranos opened it’s eight year run with Tony Soprano entering therapy after the onset of anxiety attacks. Through five seasons, we captively watched as Tony and the gang killed, stole, and threatened. For five seasons, we saw Tony, at first reluctantly, open up to Dr. Melfi. We saw Tony recall his traumatic childhood. We saw Tony kill his friends to protect himself. And we saw how gradually Tony’s attacks diminished. Everything seemed pretty self-evident and any direction one could take from the series was matter of great speculation. That was until season 6.
I’ll be the first to admit that season 6 struck me as odd and disappointing. Although I was willing to give it a chance, the show seemed to have taken an odd direction. The opening episode had Tony being shot by Junior, putting Tony into a coma. It is in this coma, that Tony experiences a long dream-sequence. Much longer and complex than a normal dream, the coma dream, which I had at first dismissed, potentially holds the key to understanding the season, the series, and the man.
The coma dream had Tony as a business man at a convention trying to find his wallet after realizing he had accidentally taken Kevin Finnerty’s. He then has to spend more time at the hotel because he can’t leave without his wallet. He speaks to his family (who isn’t Tony’s real family) and later falls down some stairs only to have the doctor tell him that he is getting Alzheimer’s. Later on, he decides he would like to go to The Finnerty family reunion, where he finds Tony’s cousin trying to persuade him to come in. At the door there appears to be Tony’s mother. Tony is reluctant, and when he hears the voice of Meadow in the breeze he decides not to go and then Tony wakes from the coma. The coma dream is apparently forgotten, but Tony emerges from the hospital “smelling the roses.”
What could this coma dream mean? For all those fake fans of The Sopranos, you are forced into a real problem. How do you explain such a bizarre and mysterious set of episodes?
The coma dream, properly interpreted, reveals the entire meaning of the show and the essence of Tony Soprano. To understand and fully appreciate this dream is a huge undertaking; the analysis of which could fill a book. But I’ll just give you the abridged version.
Most normal dreams have familiar scenes, individuals, and situations. They almost always involve a familiar version of yourself, which can be called the ego. Normal dreams have us in various situations, usually based on images of our ego-lives. Tony’s coma-dream, however, is not a normal dream (the writers of the show actually suggested that it wasn’t dream). So what is different than a normal dream? First off, Tony isn’t Tony. Everything about him is different: His occupation, his voice, and his family. This would mean that the familiar ego-self is not there. The coma dream thus comes from the deepest recesses of the human mind, beyond familiar conceptions, beyond memories, beyond everything which characterizes the concept of ourselves. This unconscious is deeper than our personal unconscious. It’s what psychologist Carl Jung called the collective unconscious: the realm of archetypal images which are common and fundamental to all people (It’s a really complex idea, not easily comprehended). The trauma of the shooting left Tony in psychologically vacated state, almost like a blank slate; the image of being held up in a hotel trying to find his wallet illustrates this loss of identity. Gradually we see Tony emerge from this state; within this vacated state emerges the ego-Tony grasping for realization (This gradual realization of his identity coinciding with his emergence from the coma). With the mention of Alzheimer’s disease we finally find one familiar aspect of Tony’s life. This is followed by the family reunion, which provides more characters from Tony’s life. We are now in the realm of a normal dream; however, Tony still isn’t Tony. He’s now confused about who he is. This is symbolic of emerging from the blank slate of the collective unconscious to the personal unconscious. The experience within the collective unconscious has in essence annihilated his prior ego-identity. So, as he begins to emerge from the coma, he enters as the annihilated ego into his prior personal unconscious. This is truly brilliant! Tony doesn’t know who he is, but he is confronted by images of his past ego. This comes in the form of his cousin inviting him into the mysterious house, the Finnerty family reunion. What does entering the house mean? It means returning to that state which is perpetually under threat, requiring constant guarding. It means returning to that psychological state which holds on to the prior ego identity, being afraid to let go, for fear of not knowing what will replace it. In short, it means returning to that identity which is the cause of his anxiety attacks. But through the wind, the voice of his daughter calls out, awakening the real Tony, the individuated and free Tony. The voice of Meadow is the final beacon to finding his identity. Having rejected the psychological state required from his ‘made’ identity, he finds in the trees his true identity, his calling, purpose, and natural Self. Having had the ego annihilated within the collective unconscious, Tony thus is able to emerge as a renewed Self. Having let go of his prior, Self he awakens psychologically and physically from his coma (This analysis is brief. A thorough analysis would be much more in depth).
And so the coma dream is forgotten, deep within the unconscious of Tony Soprano.
That is until he kills his final victim: Christopher.
Christopher was always going to be groomed as Tony’s successor. Maybe not direct successor, but like a son within the gang. When that SUV flipped, leaving Christopher wounded why didn’t Tony call 911? Why did he cover his mouth and snuff him out? The meaning of this killing is profound.
The killing of Christopher not only represents but actualizes the end of that impulse of Tony’s which necessitates the killing of friends and colleagues to save himself (This impulse represented as the Finnerty family reunion in the coma). By killing Christopher, Tony kills that dream of maintaining and passing on the gangster identity on, to show it affinity and the respect which he once had for it. Notice the song in the background, Comfortably Numb. The lyrics say ‘The child is grown, the dream is over.’ (Tony was also singing this song in a previous episode, foreshadowing the importance of it). The killing of Christopher is that act which let’s go of his psychological attachment and anxiety to his ‘made’ identity. Being free of this identity (actualizing the act of not going to Finnerty reunion), Tony is in need of a new identity. He needs to, what Dr. Melfi referred to as, “search for something.”
Feeling lucky and free, he goes to Las Vegas and takes peyote. It is here which we get a glimpse into the perspective of Tony. For a couple of seconds, while Tony is beginning to trip in the bathroom (having knocked his head, like in the coma dream) he stares into the light. This image comes straight from the image of the helicopter in the coma dream. Why would he stare into the light? Well, my contention is that during the trip, Tony had a sort of flashback to the coma dream (not visually, but psychologically). It sounds like a daring, unsubstantiated contention but I think it holds true if you’ll bare me out.
The light immediately brought into the conscious the individuation journey from the coma dream. Questions regarding why he does what he does, who he is in relation to everyone else, and his ultimate purpose. We even witness Tony laughing at the idea of Christopher dieing at the roulette table. At the end of the trip he stares at the sun and starts shouting “I get it!” What does he get? What could he mean? Later on he describes his experience to Dr. Melfi and tells her that, although he didn’t hallucinate, he made some insightful observations about life. He describes how our mothers are bus drivers and we are all trying to get back on the bus. What else could he have gotten? We know that he was “searching” for something by taking the peyote. I’ve argued that it is his new identity, having snuffed out the anxiety-provoking ‘made’ identity. What did he “get”? What identity did he find? And why did the “sun” provide the revelation?
In the final blog of my three part series, I will show how the keystone episode “Made in America” fits into the series to form a quite beautiful reality. We will leave this rather dry interpretation and move towards a much more exciting esoteric interpretation, or as it is known in art — appreciation.
Made in America: The Sopranos Masterpiece Part 1 of 3
In ancient architecture, the keystone was thought to be the most vital part to the structure of an arch. It was the top piece which held the rest of the arch together. Today, the word keystone is commonly used to denote the importance of one thing in relation to what it belongs to. Episode 86 of the television series The Sopranos, although panned by critics and viewers alike, can best be appreciated as that keystone to the series.
Television is at a disadvantage when it comes to portraying elements like theme, metaphor, and character development. These ideas seem to be monopolized by literature, which has the advantage of narration. Through written prose we’ve seen artistic genius flourish. We’ve witnessed the philosophical and literary visions of countless authors and experienced there ideas. With the direct unencumbered authority of the author, the book has made this all possible. TV though, with all the complexities of production, acting, and the limits it has in the portrayal of the aforementioned literary elements, has for the last 50 or so years tended to present the quick laugh, heartfelt moment, and car chase. On June 10, 2007 the monopoly of the written book ended.
Made in America, the 86th and final episode of the Sopranos aired amid huge anticipation and speculation. Will Tony go to jail? Is Pauly a rat? Will New Jersey get it’s revenge against New York? In the newspapers there were even contests to provide the best ending. Being a faithful viewer and seeing the trend that the last season has been headed (both seasons 6a and 6b) I kind of got the feeling that with all this hoopla, people were missing the big the picture and they’d be in for a disappointment. Sure enough shortly after 10 o’clock, fans began to revolt. HBO subscriptions were canceled, bombarding web traffic almost brought the website down; people were ticked. I kind of had the feeling that this would happen, but this seemed a little overboard. All right so you didn’t like, but are you really prepared to pass judgment on a series which has provided so much enjoyment — Do you honestly think Chase just had a bad day writing this one? Of course not. Anyone who knows the series knows how meticulous and thought out it is. How could the final episode be any different. So, what was it people didn’t like? — Well, it’s I guess pretty obvious: the last scene.
Tony comes into a diner to meet his family. He sits down and observes the various people. He picks a song by Journey on the jukebox. AJ and Carmilla come in. They talk for a little. Meanwhile, Meadow struggles to park her car. The family eats a couple of onion rings. Tony seems to watch as Meadow comes running in. And then 11 seconds of nothing. That’s it. That’s the end. Roll credits.
Well, I guess at face value that sure is a disappointing ending. It’s almost like they ran out of film or something. But for those who were looking for that worthwhile ending and were disappointed, I can understand — You seem to be under the impression that you are watching any normal TV show. You seem to be expecting what normally satisfies your expectations from television — the quick laugh, heartfelt moment, car chase. Well it appears you didn’t get that for an ending. You got, well — nothing. Yes, apparently that’s your ending: nothing. It does sound kind of disappointing when you look at in those terms. But let’s just say that there was more than nothing. Let’s for a moment, speculate what this nothing means. And for the fun of it, let’s assume that we are fully expected and encouraged to do so. Well then we have ourselves an ending!
The perspective of the series has largely been 3rd person. That is we watch the characters and plot from an outsiders point of view. For the most part this is the perspective. However, every once in while it becomes a sort of 1st and 2nd person perspective. Every once in while we are thrust into the perspective (usually just visually) of Tony. There are many instances which I will bring up later, but this has been the basic pattern of perspectives for the series. Let us say that those 11 seconds of nothing was really being suddenly thrust into that Tony perspective. What would this nothing mean? Well, it would mean he is dead. Suddenly, without warning, Tony is dead. Well, how would he have a died? I don’t know about you, but did you notice that guy who barely touched his food at the counter go to the bathroom? We know how they do it. Inconspicuous. Methodical. Without warning. Headshot. Dead. So, Tony is killed in front of his entire family. Some may say how do I know if this is what the nothingness is? Okay, let’s say you’re right and Tony is killed, why wouldn’t they just show it. My reply is that I guess I’m not as heartless as you. I really don’t want to see Tony get offed. It seems a little perverse. And for you fans who would want to see it just to know, you really aren’t fans. A real fan would relish the opportunity to experience that last moment rather than merely witnessing it. A real fan (unlike Dr. Melfi) believes there’s something good in Tony worth experiencing. And for those fans who refuse to step into Tony’s world, David Chase gave you the ending you deserved: nothing. As for the true believers who have made it a habit to empathize and understand, we have the special treat of truly experiencing who the man is, his essence, and his purpose. And if you need any further encouragement to accept this interpretation, remember what Bobby said to Tony on the boat: When you die, all you see is blankness. Coincidence–probably not. For those who are now ready to step inside the world of Tony, remember that at the heart of understanding The Sopranos lies the viewers’ willingness to infer. (Parts 2 and 3 coming later this week)
A ‘note’ on this blog’s title . . .
Welcome to my new blog! For those of you who may not know me, my name’s Brian Monroe. Yes, that’s right–the one and only Brian Monroe. The name is a Hibernian mixture of sorts, with Brian coming from the Irish king Brian Boru, who, if I recall correctly, helped unite Ireland during the 11th century against the Viking invasion. The name Monroe comes from Scotland. I’m not really sure what it’s derivation is, but I do know that my name in full–Brian Howard Monroe — loosely translated, means ‘The strong watchman of the marsh.’ Not all that glorious, but I guess it could have been worse, like ‘The dirty pervert outside the window,’ or ‘The foul dwarf of the cow pasture’ (not to put down dirty perverts or foul dwarfs). But anyways that’s my name and that’s what it means, if this counts for anything.
This blog is something I’ve been wanting to do for a while but never really got around to it. I have a keen interest in many topics which I like talking about and writing, but I’ve limited most of my musings to other people’s blogs. A lot of the time I write little comments that I know most people will disagree with. I don’t do it out of spite though, I just like to add something provocactive to get people thinking differently. Sometimes though I do the exact opposite and say things that everyone will agree with. Like on a blog about The Beatles I recall writing, “I think we can all agree that The Beatles were an excellent group.” Every once in a while I think people should take a break from all the arguing and just agree on the basics. But in this case, I did it to be weird and funny.
As to the name of this blog “Blogs from the Underground,” it comes from the Dostoyevsky book “Notes from the Underground.” It’s considered the first Existential work and has been very influential with many subsequent authors. It doesn’t have much of a plot but mainly deals with the neurotic self-obsessed thoughts and ideas of the main character (name escapes me) and his turbulent and hostile reactions to the most ordinary of social circumanstances. I enjoyed the book because it had an unordinary plot and the main character was disgruntled. I wasn’t necessarily riveted by the book, but enjoyed it nonetheless. I guess my main reason for choosing the title is that it sounded cool. But I also think that the whole thing with writing on people’s blogs stuff that I knew people would disagree with has a sort of “Notes from the Underground” flavor to it. It’s the whole non-conformist’s dissension towards society’s unexamined and sterile attitudes and ideas which I’m going for. I don’t really know if “Notes from the Underground” fits this description, but close enough.
So, without further ado I present “Blogs from the Underground”–my musings of the world of art, music, politics and anything that’s on my mind fitting into the aforementioned criterea. I’m glad I finally stopped procastinating and actually did it, and I just want to thank Tom Kershaw for giving me the idea and recommending this website to do it. I really hope that I keep up with it and put out some good stuff. As to my first real blog, I plan on giving my own spin on the TV series “The Sopranos” following the final episode, so come back to check it out. Overall, I hope this blog will provide top-notch critism of worldly topics and be a sort of guide to understanding this all to often smelly, foggy marsh we call the world. Hopefully, I’ll even be able to live up to my name and be that strong watchman of the marsh.
