[how to fail like an olympian]

When you watch the Olympics, it can be easy to forget just how ridiculously good these people are at whatever bizarre thing it is they’re doing. Take, for example, figure skating. Early in the evening of the ladies’ long program, long before Kim Yu-Na and the other medal contenders took the ice, there was Tuğba Karademir, a Turkish skater who ultimately came in 24th.

Now, I have never been the 24th-best person in the world at any particular skill, as far as I know. It’s an extraordinary achievement. And yet, watching her skate, it was absolutely clear why she was in a different class from the top five or six skaters in the world. So when you’re watching the coverage of a medal contender in the slalom who misses a gate, or of a bobsled team that plays it conservatively and can’t shave off that hundredth of a second they need to take the lead, you go, “Yeah, that was a mistake,” and you forget how insanely difficult it is to do whatever it is the athletes are doing in the first place.

And after a couple of weeks of that sort of thing, today I went to my Korean dance class, and I imagined what it would mean to be the best in the world at it, or one of the top ten or twenty. For one thing, it would mean practicing more often than once a week for 90 minutes. My dance teacher is an extraordinary dancer, and part of how you get to be that way is to do it a lot. And then there’s the level of detail: spending a week or a month or six months concentrating on just the right way to get your torso to expand and contract, or how to extend your fingers to draw out a line.

Beyond that, as I fumbled my way through my little bit of choreography, I started thinking about how much concentration is a part of athletic success. Sometimes, as I dance, some move I’ve just done half a dozen times will suddenly desert me, and I’ll be shrugging my shoulders when I’m supposed to be twirling already, or my arms will be flopping at my sides because I’ve forgotten where they’re supposed to be. Again, this is incredibly far removed from the kind of mental effort that serious athletes make, but I felt like it was an inkling, at the very least, of how it is that someone who’s done a routine a thousand times in warm-ups can suddenly flub it in competition.

And now, back to your regularly scheduled programming.

[beatles and birth order]

Does birth order affect who your favorite Beatle is? My sister is the youngest. Her favorite is George, who happens to be the youngest Beatle, who had to fight to get his voice heard, and who really came into his own as an equal to John and Paul only on the later albums.

My brother, the middle child, seems to like Ringo, the amiable peacemaker without strong opinions. Such a middle child!

As for me, I’m the firstborn, and I like John, the solitary dreamer, the one who turned his back most firmly on the fraternity of the group, and who really just wanted to settle into a relationship that didn’t have the bother of outside interference.

[scattered thoughts about avatar]

Spoilers galore. If you haven’t seen it yet, stop reading now.

So about those big ol’ robot suits. Why would you have them carry guns and knives in artificial hands, so that they can be dropped or taken by an enemy? Wouldn’t you just make the weaponry integral to the suit? The only reason to carry a weapon is because it’s not already attached to you. It’s not advantageous. Also, why would the suit fall down when the driver is killed? Makes no sense.
Overall, not enough backstory. Jake Sully’s connection to his own life is so tenuous that there’s really no question of loyalties. How could he side with an angry colonel, who himself has so little depth that he seems to have come out of Dr. Strangelove, but stripped of irony? The colonel offers him legs, but those can be obtained with money, we already know. There’s just not enough there.
We also don’t know enough about why the mining company wants the unobtainium, what it’s used for, or who’s backing them. Is this like the US trying to get heavy water in World War II? Is it like our current thirst for oil? Or is it Alcoa hitting on a copper mine? We know it’s expensive, but not why, and it’s a relevant point. Also relevant is the general attitude back on earth towards Pandora and Pandorans. Why? Because I’d like to know whether a defeat of this small, poorly armed security detail (seriously, no cruise missiles or drones?) will be Black Hawk Down, meaning a hasty retreat, or 9/11, meaning we come back in giant numbers and invade everything in sight.
Of course, what keeps it from being 9/11, or even Dances with Wolves, is the total lack of ambiguity. Because the mining company and its security force are largely men and all adults, there’s no conflict of civilizations. Regardless of the moral right of European settlers to show up and settle on Native American lands, settle they did, and that turned fights with the natives into threats to home and family. Indeed, Native Americans killed and kidnapped whole families, women and children included. That’s enough to motivate serious and even disproportionate reprisals, as was 9/11, and as is every terrorist attack on Israel.
There’s no equivalent on Pandora. Why is the colonel so invested in the fight? There’s no reason at all. He doesn’t even have Jack D. Ripper’s paranoia. Nothing. He just wants to go kill. His character, and the Marines who cheer with him, are an insult to actual Marines, who generally don’t want to go blow up indigenous peoples for the enrichment of corporations (even if that turns out to be the gig sometimes). Marines, or the ones I’ve known anyway, want to fight to defend our country by attacking and destroying those who would attack and destroy us. It’s not pretty, but it’s purposeful. It can turn pretty blunt, like just wanting to kill the fuck out of Muslims, but that’s because they’re seen as a threat to our way of life. Without that threat, I just don’t see the motivation.
So the Na’vi are spared the ambiguity of the Native Americans in Little Big Man or Dances with Wolves because they never encounter a child. And the Marines are given no chance for ambiguity. This same lack of ambiguity is acceptable when the enemy is presented as a kind of implacable evil, as in Star Wars or Lord of the Rings, but it falls apart when the enemy is human and identifiably ourselves.

[vienna teng]

I’ve just discovered Vienna Teng, a lovely and powerful singer-songwriter. Her music reminds me of Noe Venable and of Fiona Apple, though Teng is distinctly her own thing (and in fact there’s a YouTube video of her covering Noe’s “Midsummer Night’s Dream”). Visit her site and listen to “Blue Caravan.” Then check out her MySpace page and listen to “Grandmother Song.” It’s an Americana stomp about being an aging singer-songwriter, a common enough theme, yet it manages to tie in (allusively) the whole Taiwanese-American experience, with the weight of war and deprivation that weighs so heavily on the youngest generation.

[scattered thoughts about precious]

1. OK, so who at Sunkist thought a product placement in Precious was a good idea? It’s there twice: once as a can next to Precious’s abusive mother as she hunkers in her gloomy apartment, then again as the label across the drink machine at the welfare office. Peculiarly, Mariah Carey’s character comes back with two cans of fake-label soda, drawing all the more attention to the product placement. In fact, throughout the movie, the only brand label we ever see is Sunkist. (McDonald’s and, inevitably, Oprah get mentioned, but we don’t see either. Oprah had been nationally syndicated only since September 1986.) The tag lines that come to mind are not good. “Sunkist: What your incestuous mama drink while she beat you.” “Thirsty? On welfare? Sunkist is for you!” This is not exactly ET eating Reece’s Pieces.

2. Mariah Carey was actually very good. Mo’Nique was extraordinary. Gabourey Sidibe was just OK. Her face isn’t terribly expressive.
3. There are very few men in Precious’s world. I think that’s probably an accurate depiction of a life like that, and it points to a very serious social problem.
4. I saw the movie with a couple of people who work in social services. It’s like seeing Office Space with your cube-mates. Afterwards, one of them told me, “When I found out she was HIV-positive, I was like, ‘Oh, now she can get housing!'”
5. Speaking of HIV, the film takes place in 1987, and a number of its characters are very poorly educated. When Precious tells the class that she’s HIV-positive, it seems anachronistic that there’s no fear, no panic, no immediate freakout, particularly considering that a number of these girls were in contact with Precious’s blood earlier on. The first anti-HIV drug, AZT, was introduced only that year, so AIDS was widely perceived as an absolute death sentence. ACT UP was founded in 1987. Public understanding was primitive at best.
6. The whole welfare process, as depicted in the film, is incredibly humiliating. You’re forced to answer incredibly personal questions from a case worker who has the power to take away your minimal livelihood. What’s your home life like? What’s your mother like? What’s your father like? They’re the kinds of questions it’s actually illegal for the HR department of a private company to ask. It’s painful to watch, and it must be painful to live through. At the same time, the process is shown to have failed utterly — Precious had never even been to a doctor — so it’s largely an exercise in humiliation and enforced lying before power.

7. The teacher and her partner have a beautiful home. Was that affordable in Harlem in 1987?

[memory, history, and the beatles]

What does it mean to remember an experience? Sitting with my parents recently, listening to the Beatles remasters that just came out, it became clear that what my parents remembered about the Beatles — the order things came out, which songs were on which albums — was a kind of visceral memory, often inaccurate when measured against the archival record. My father compared it to the way people of his parents’ generation remembered World War II versus the way he grew up learning about it: they knew better what it was like, while he knew better what had actually happened.

Time also has a way of distorting our views. I know that I take Kurt Cobain a lot more seriously now than I did when he was alive. Until his suicide brought his art back into focus for me, I thought of Nirvana as a pretty good if simplistic and overhyped grunge band that was never as cool or interesting as Soundgarden or Pearl Jam. He wasn’t the voice of my generation until he no longer had a voice.

That effect is probably even stronger with the Beatles, who shaped a generation far more intensely than Cobain ever could have. In the many years since the Beatles were a going concern, we’ve seen Wings, and Plastic Ono Band, and the Concert for Bangladesh. We’ve seen The Compleat Beatles and Anthology. We’ve heard Let It Be de-Spectorized. We’ve seen John Lennon martyred, and Yoko Ono transformed from witch to hipster icon. And we’ve grown more familiar with the canonical materials, while the uncollected detritus of abandoned pop culture — radio and television interviews, DJ chatter about new Beatles songs, the speculation of one’s friends about whether the Beatles turn on, the newspaper and magazine articles — all fade into oblivion.

Above all, we know how it ends now. We know that Sgt. Peppter’s Lonely Hearts Club Band is the highwater mark, that Abbey Road is the coda. We know that no Beatle ever did anything solo that was as impressive as the Beatles together. And we know that the story was closed forever by a pointless murder.

But what was it like to here “Tomorrow Never Knows” without knowing what was to come?

Sitting with my parents, listening to their memories of these songs when they were new, I got a taste of what that might have been like. And that got me to thinking about my own first experience of the Beatles.

Until 1987, what we had were the records — the American records. I grew up with an album called Song, Pictures and Stories of the Fabulous Beatles, a decidedly silly repackaging of Vee-Jay’s Introducing… the Beatles that included a gatefold, drawings of the Beatles, blurbs on their likes and dislikes, and places to put heart-shaped photographs of oneself under photos of each Beatle and the words, “JOHN LOVES,” “PAUL LOVES,” “GEORGE LOVES” or “RINGO LOVES.” It was a record meant to be bought by a schoolgirl, and it was, and that has some meaning to it.

What changed in 1987 was that the surviving Beatles and George Martin released something resembling the whole Beatles catalogue in what became canonical form, based on the British albums, with the stray bits and pieces gathered onto Past Masters I and II. I say something resembling the whole because they did away with the instrumental versions of several songs that populated the American versions of A Hard Day’s Night and Help!, and because all of the canonical CDs were in stereo. To muddy the waters even further, in 1987 George Martin took it upon himself to redo the stereo mixes of Help! and Rubber Soul, so we’ve been listening to different versions of those LPs than the already somewhat obscure British stereo records.

The newly released remasters are a useful corrective. The music sounds grand, which is obviously the most important thing. I don’t imagine that it sounds quite like a brand new pressing of British wax played on a brand new hi-fi from 1965 — certainly not when I play it on my iPod, through quality earbuds — but it sounds clear, resonant, full, and punchy.

And the release of the mono remasters, complete with the original stereo mixes of A Hard Day’s Night and Help!, makes it possible to hear something much closer to what everyone heard when the Beatles’ music was new. For the first couple of albums, the stereo mix is pretty arbitrary, mostly an artifact of how the music was recorded for mono: the vocals are all in the right channel, and the instruments are all in the left. I’d go so far as to say that Please Please Me and With the Beatles are actually preferable in mono, even on headphones.

There’s also the peculiarity that certain songs have different bits in them, depending on whether you’re listening to the mono or the stereo version. The Sgt. Pepper that played endlessly on the radio was probably the mono version, in which “She’s Leaving Home” is a faster number in a different key, avoiding some of the soupiness of the stereo version, and the reprise is noisier, layered with more crowd noise and crescendoing with some great shouting by Paul that’s missing in stereo. (In other cases, the stereo versions are better. Who wants to miss out on Paul reaching for the high notes as he sings, “Every single day!” during the fadeout of “Got to Get You Into My Life,” or Ringo’s famous “I’ve got blisters on my fingers!” as “Helter Skelter” fades back in?)

Getting to hear all this music, in a variety of formats, is wonderful. And it’s not too difficult to create a playlist that recreates the American discography (although you do have to live without those instrumentals).

So what’s the difference? Well, often the songs were in different orders, and the whole experience of the early Beatles was shaped by the overlapping releases of Introducing and Meet the Beatles!. The latter album, which launched American Beatlemania, opens with the world-conquering “I Want to Hold Your Hand,” but leaves out “Twist and Shout” (not released by Capitol until The Early Beatles came out in 1965).

Even more significant were the changes to the middle-period albums, which were my parents’ favorites, and whose structure and release schedule helped to map their courtship and coming of age. The now-canonical albums aren’t the ones my father remembers. Help! opened with a James Bond theme intro (not digitally available), and was full of instrumentals. It didn’t contain Yesterday, which wasn’t on a US album until after Rubber Soul.

And it’s maybe Rubber Soul where the changes matter most. My father remembers that record as part of his experience of traveling around Europe in the summer of ’66, being in love with my mother. In the US, it opened with Paul’s lovely, folkie “I’ve Just Seen a Face,” not the smirky “Drive My Car.” Side two opens with “It’s Only Love,” a considerably sweeter number than “What Goes On.” And the dark moods of “Nowhere Man” and “If I Needed Someone” are left off completely. The result is an album that has a different ratio of love to chagrin. There’s a different vibe.

Then there’s the whole sea change that seems to come with Revolver. In the US, that change was spread out over two albums, with “Yeterday”…and Today coming first, opening with “Drive My Car,” “I’m Only Sleeping,” “Nowhere Man,” and “Dr. Robert,” and closing out with “Day Tripper” (not found on any UK album). In America, Revolver was a bit less trippy than in the UK, and provided almost a lull in the psychedelic experimentation before the summer of Sgt. Pepper and love in 1967.

Somewhere in my parents’ house is a reel-to-reel recording of my parents calling in to a radio show and chatting with John Lennon while they were tripping on LSD. I’m not entirely sure whether I’ve actually heard this tape, or just heard of it. I can’t remember what anyone said. But this sort of relic reveals the unbridgeable gulf between the canonical text and the lived experience. No one will ever release a handsome boxed set of snippets like that. But chatting with John on the radio was another kind of listening to the Beatles. I’ll have to dig up that tape one of these days and find out what, if anything, they talked about.

[so what’s this korean dance you’re learning?]

This is a reasonable question that a number of people have asked me, including my mom. A quick search for Korean dance on YouTube turns up mostly pop, and if you throw in the word “traditional,” you get mostly women. And I had to admit that even I wasn’t very clear on what the dance style I’m learning is supposed to look like when a man does it. (When it comes to men’s dancing, I’m much more familiar with the twirly hat stuff and the 사물노리 (samulnori) farmers’ dance.)

So I went searching, and I’ve turned up a few examples, which I will present for you here without further ado (better to link through where you can see the YouTube videos in a bigger size):
The first one is, I believe, roughly what my teacher has in mind for me. The odds of my dancing that well are not high. My parents told me about a budding jazz singer they knew who started weeping when they played a Sarah Vaughan record for her, and I kind of feel like that watching this video.
All of these dancers are impressive, and having taking a few classes, I have a much clearer idea of just how challenging it is to move gracefully through these poses. It’s a beautiful form of dance, and extraordinarily foreign to me. I remember how startling it was when a crowd of people started up with a folk version of this sort of thing during the halftime of Korea’s quarterfinal game in the 2002 World Cup, dancing in a circle and banging drums and cymbals there in the dirt field of the local middle school.
Bonus: For those who don’t know, Korea has perhaps the world’s most badass b-boy culture. Please to enjoy. 멋있다!

[more dancing with the ajummas]

As my grandfather tells it, he always thought of himself as rather weak and small. He’s short, and as a child he seems to have been somewhat bookish (though his idea of bookishness was to run five miles to the library, get a book, and run five miles back), and as an adult he became a corporate lawyer, not a role that necessarily calls for strapping men.

Then, in his forties, he took up mime. Now, this was before mimes became a horrible punchline, before that awful time in the eighties when mimes, like the homeless, became a constant urban menace. The way her learned mime, it was a serious, strenuous art form. He lost weight, gained strength, and developed a sense of physical presence and spatial awareness that was still serving him well into his eighties, as he would dance about the kitchen, closing cabinet doors behind him with his foot.
I take after my grandfather in a lot of ways, and certainly physically. As a kid, I was small for my age, and I was never much good at sports. Compulsory Israeli folkdance at summer camp was always a horror of ineptitude and humiliation. And you might have noticed that I have certain bookish tendencies.
But in the last couple of years, I’ve started to dance. I was not the quickest student in my swing classes, but I wasn’t consistently the slowest, either. And at this point in my life, I’m willing to learn slowly and awkwardly. It’s really OK. I make a grownup living and can spell and all that, so it’s not really a big deal if my Charleston is a little sloppier than some other people’s.
And now I’ve managed to find my way into Korean dance. Karen, the resident American who’s been studying this stuff for 15 years, insists that I’m learning faster than most students, that I’ve got great lines, that I’m a natural. I kind of think this might be similar to the way Koreans have been telling me my language skills are amazing ever since I learned to say hello, but she might also be being honest. For once, it seems, my odd little duck walk may be paying dividends. I tend to walk back on my heels, with splayed feet, and I’ve been told this is the walk of a yangban, or traditional Korean gentry. And my years of swing dance practice have taught me to keep my knees bent. So maybe I am better at following dance instructions than I used to be. Maybe my physical prowess is greater than it was when I was 12 and practicing layups.

[more on japanese vs. korean coolness]

I was going to follow up on an earlier post about Korean vs. Japanese coolness, and wondering whether anyone in Korea would ever be doing something like this:

Yes, it’s awful. But it’s also cool in a way that I didn’t think Korean culture would quite grasp: the cool of the avant garde.
So I went fishing on the Interwebs to see if I could find an equivalent, and lo and behold, I discovered Balloon & Needle, a Korean artists collective that does things like this:

For some reason, this gives me hope.

[is korea getting kinky?]

“Abracadabra” from Brown Eyed Girls is the first bit of Korean pop culture I’ve happened across that makes explicit reference to either BDSM or female bisexuality. (It’s much more common to see sadomasochism couched in a “horror” context, which makes it more acceptable.) It’s a sexy video, and not just a cutesy pantomime of American sexy.
Back in 2002, Korea was not sexy or cool. It really wanted to be cool, but it just wasn’t.
I had a friend who was teaching in Japan at the time, and she reminded me that Japan used to be the same way. Back in the 80s, Japan was Mr. Miyagi and the dorky car executives in Gung Ho. And then one day, somehow Japan was cool. It was weird techno and Cibo Matto and tentacle porn, and those cheesy anime shows we used to watch were suddenly part of a vibrant Asian subculture.
When I wondered whether Korea would turn a similar corner, I saw a few things holding it back, but mostly it came down to prudishness and conservatism. Where Japan has a long tradition of frankly bizarre erotica and exuberantly weird subcultures, Korea’s long-reigning Joseon Dynasty emphasized Confucian values of propriety, frugality and restraint. And Korea today is home to a large and passionate community of devout Protestant Christians. Also, Korea doesn’t really do irony, and irony seems crucial to finding your way into the hearts of American hipsters.
Even so, the Hallyu, or Korean Wave, has managed to spread Korean pop culture across Asia in recent years. Compared with a stagnant, aging Japan and a China where censorship still rules, Korean culture can seem downright (dare I say it?) dynamic.
Will it catch on in the US? And if it does, where in our culture will it fit? I don’t know, but I do know that Korea continues to surprise me.