Mountains Made Low

I said I was going to switch these reports to months’ ends, and—lo and behold—I have. If you’re getting sick of it, let me know.

Here it is: Your end of February report on the New Year’s Resolutions at Mountains Made Low. I’m writing this a little early, and setting it to post at the very end of the month, but I truly doubt much will change in the next 50 hours or so, so I think I’m safe.

And I’m pleased to report that all six resolutions are still going strong. Specifically:

#1 – Still a no-brainer. I work better, think better, feel better, and generally live better when I exercise regularly. And I know all this. The “feel better” part, in particular, keeps this a no brainer.

#2 – This one, once I thought I had it figured out, took on a life of its own. Really. I’m starting to think that I should just take my sleeping bad and bed down in the locker room. Really. In the past couple of weeks, I’ve been spending 10-15 hours per week in the gym; mostly cardio, but the lifting is coming along nicely, too, as long as I don’t get too hung up on the numbers or the weird looks.

#3 – Still no opportunities to mess this one up. But—the opportunities for opportunity are looking up. And that’s all I’m gonna say about that.

#4 – No change. This one is looking good for surviving by virtue of having sort of changed my outlook on the whole thing.

#5 – I posted my fifth book review of the year on Thursday. That puts me all of two days ahead of schedule for the year. And, of course, I’m mid-book on four books (one of each of my four main categories: fiction, nonfiction, short stories, and audiobook) right now. In fact, since it took me a couple of days to post the most recent review, and the time in the gym is staggering (or is that has me staggering?), I’m close to halfway through the next audiobook already.

#6 – The ninth movie post should be up before this post is. I’ve had The Dark Knight awaiting my attention for about a week and a half now, I haven’t gotten to it yet. But it will be in the next couple of days. If that post is up before this one, that puts me about two-thirds of a movie ahead on this resolution at the end of February, since it should be 8 1/3; movies in two months.

And there you have it. From this point forward, I’ll be keeping my Presidents’ Day resolution and posting these at the end of the month. See you with more on this on March 31.

Movie #9 (2009)

When I saw Tim Burton’s 1989 film, Batman, I thought I had seen the quintessential portrayal of the Joker on film. I couldn’t imagine anyone playing Batman’s sociopathic nemesis any better than Jack Nicholson. Then, last Sunday night, Heath Ledger was awarded a posthumous Oscar for his performance, and lots of people flipped out, saying that he had only won because he was dead, but I thought at the time—even not having yet seen the film, that those aspersions on Ledger’s award probably had more to do with the fact that a “comic book movie” should not garner acting accolades for its performers.

Now I’ve seen it, and I’ve got to say that Nicholson has, indeed, been topped by Ledger’s performance in director Christopher Nolan’s 2008 film The Dark Knight.

Reprising their roles from Nolan’s Batman Begins (2005), are Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne/Batman, Gary Oldman as Lt. Jim Gordon (later Commissioner), Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, and Michael Caine as Alfred Pennyworth. New additions to the franchise include Ledger as the Joker, Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent/Two-Face, and Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel Dawes (a recasting of the role played by Katie Holmes in the earlier film).

I’m in love with this new Batman franchise. The dark, gritty, realistic way in which Nolan and the writers have developed Batman’s world is phenomenal. Bale’s portrayal Batman—the real man and his sensibilities coming out only behind Batman’s mask, and juvenile, irresponsible, and frankly unlikeable character of millionaire playboy Bruce Wayne being the real disguise—is masterful. And I think, too, that the franchise, honestly, traded up in recasting Gyllenhaal as Rachel for the second installment—while still a dark beauty, she brings a level of maturity and believability to the role that Holmes just did not pull off.

The film deals with Gotham City in the throes of dealing with the backlash of organized crime against the mayor’s, the police’s, and Batman’s efforts to clean up the city. We see, early on, the Joker bringing himself to the attention of three major syndicates in the city: the Mafia, the Russian mob, and what seems to be best described as a coalition of African-American street gangs; leaving aside, for the moment, the stereotypical nature of these groups, what they have in common is their money-laundering operation through a Hong Kong investment banker. And the Joker exploits this connection to bring the groups under his leadership.

What’s most interesting though, in The Dark Knight’s version of the Joker is that he is not the psychopath portrayed in the earlier films (and portrayed exceedingly well by Nicholson). Instead, there is much more method to his particular madness: He is a sociopath, bent on showing everyone in Gotham—particularly Batman—that human beings are, by their very nature, base and in no way good. His mission is to destroy humanity’s belief in itself, Batman’s belief in humanity, and Batman’s belief in himself and his mission.

The Joker, however, misunderstands humanity, and misjudges Batman. When, for instance, he gives two ferryloads of passengers—one a group of law-abiding citizens and one a group of hardened criminals—the choice between actively killing the passengers on the other boat or having him kill them all, none of them can carry out the act. Even though the innocents vote to kill the convicts, none can act. And the convicts act even less selfishly—one of them throws the detonator they’ve been given out the window of the boat, refusing to take any part in the Joker’s game.

As for Batman, the Joker attempts to prove he is corruptible. That he can be forced to break his only rule: “I won’t be an executioner” (from Batman Begins). But Batman proves he has the inner strength not only to maintain his commitment, but to be “whatever Gotham needs [him] to be.” Even if what they need is a villain, so that Harvey Dent can continue to be their hero, their White Knight.

The dark, gritty, realism of this rendition of the Batman mythos is intriguing. And the story that allows Batman to be, and recognizes that he is, as Commissioner Gordon puts it at the end of the film:

…the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we’ll hunt him, because he can take it. Because he’s not a hero: He’s a silent guardian, a watchful protector. The Dark Knight.

And there’s a great deal to like in even a dark, crime-dominated world where even two people can realize that, and Nolan’s world offers us more than two. Batman and Jim Gordon are two, but Alfred, Lucius Fox, and Rachel Dawes are three more. And amid the grit and darkness, that gives hope.

Book #5 (2009)

Gregory Maguire’s A Lion Among Men, his third set in the land of Oz (following Wicked and Son of a Witch), follows the post-Dorothy exploits of the “Cowardly” Lion. In all honesty, it recounts his life pre-Dorothy, as well, filling in his entire biography.

The first thing to keep in mind is Maguire’s conceit that a Lion is quite different from a lion—the latter being a typical great cat as we would know it, the former being endowed with intelligence and speech. The protagonist, whom we first met in Baum’s original Oz story, is, of course, one of the former.

We join the Lion (also known as Brrr, or as a petty namery of the Empire of Oz, “Sir Brrr”) as he arrives at the mauntery which has featured in each of Maguire’s tales (Elphaba Thropp, the Wicked Witch of the West, was once a novice in this mauntery, and Elphaba’s purported son, Lir, also found himself there, as a guest, for a time). Brrr seeks to interview an elderly maunt, also rumored to be a seer, named Yackle, who knew Elphaba in the witch’s youth, and may be able to shed some light on the Elphaba’s history, and particuarly, Lir’s parentage.

This latter is most important because the Apostle-Emperor of Oz is Shell Thropp, Elphaba’s brother, who also claims rights to hereditary rule of Munchkinland, as the Eminent Thropp. Shell needs to be the rightful Eminence of Munchkinland to justify his invasion of the province which has declared its independence from Oz, but if Lir is Elphaba’s son, he—not Shell—is the rightful Eminence, as that title is matrilineal.

So Brrr is sent to learn what he can. But his quest for knowledge, in Mother Yackle’s presence, becomes much more a quest for self-knowledge, as he comes to terms with what it has meant for him, throughout his life, to be a Lion among Men. And as he discovers by the book’s end, what it might—or should or must—mean for him to continue to be so.

Through his childhood in the forest, his early encounters with Bears, and his continual vacillation between being a Lion both urban and urbane and a Lion on his own in the wilds of Oz, not to mention his brush with fame in the form of Dorothy, Brrr learns the meaning of family, the value of setting one’s own course, and the lesson of understanding that the opinions of Men (and Animals) are fickle and not to be trusted or valued.

He also, to some small extent, finds the information he’s looking for.

But not completely, and not enough that Maguire’s story of the Thropp family and Oz itself is complete. There will, almost certainly, be at least one more book in this saga.

And if there is, I’ll read it. But I don’t know that I’ll be as much looking forward to it as I was to this one. It seems to me that, in terms of telling this story, Maguire is losing steam. I loved Wicked, and I thoroughly enjoyed Son of a Witch. A Lion Among Men, though, was entertaining, but not as compelling as the first two books in the series. This far into the series, though, I’ll finish whatever comes.

But this Lion, in my book, could just as easily never have come Among Men.

Kinda? Sorta? Ish?

Maybe.

Maybe not.

And that’s all I’m saying about that right now.

I feel the need to bake cookies this weekend. It’s a deep-seated urge that I cannot avoid. But it also presents me with a problem: I get the urge to bake cookies when I want a cookie and would feel perfectly comfortable having a cookie (or two or three over the coming week). But I’ve yet to meet the cookie recipe that talks in terms of one or two or three—or even four—cookies; usually they talk in terms of 4 or 5 dozen cookies.

So here’s the deal. I’m gonna bake cookies—haven’t decided what kind yet, so don’t ask, and besides, beggars can’t be choosers! If you want cookies let me know (and how many, if you care—I’ll probably default to a half dozen or a dozen). I’ll send them out Monday morning.

First come, first served!

Something I noticed a while back, that sort of slipped to the back of my mind, but that came up again, recently, and that—following a little research (a very little)—really disturbs me now.

There is a movement (if you can call it that) afoot to get something akin to “____ is dating ____” added as a Facebook relationship status option. No fewer than five groups on the social networking site have this as their stated goal, and there are a number of others whose raison d’etre seems to be getting other, further, options approved (I didn’t look but shudder to think: … is hooking up with …, … is shacking up with…, … has a crush on …—where does it end?).

The argument (for “dating”) runs that there is a time when you are “dating” someone but not in a relationship with them. This is, of course, true, in real life.

But on Facebook? I think not so much.

And here’s why:

There are those in this world who are not dating anyone, and we, rightly, have the relationship status on Facebook for these people: We call them “single.” Well and good.

There is another group, then, who are casually dating one or more people. They go out, they have fun, they fool around, and—honestly—maybe they’re even sleeping with one or more of these people they’re dating. But it’s casual; none of these affiliations is serious, none is “a relationship”; no one in this situation has discussed exclusivity (either to say “we should be exclusive” or to say “let’s be each other’s primary partners in a non-exclusive way”). And, like it or not, everyone in this situation is still, effectively, “single.”

I say this because the minute you have that discussion—again, whether you like it or not—one of Facebook’s extant relationship options does apply. The minute you have that discussion, you’re either “in a relationship” or “in an open relationship” (or, of course, the other person in the discussion feels pressured and freaks out, and you find yourself completely, unquestionably, and undeniably “single” again).

Bottom line, for me, is that if you’re “just dating” (no matter how many people you’re seeing), then you’re single. If you’re seeing someone exclusively—exclusively enough to want to display their name on your Facebook profile and to ask them to consent to this arrangement (which they must, for their name to show up)—then you’re in a relationship. Period.

So, please, check the “in a relationship” box, type in your paramour’s name, and GROW UP.

Because here’s a list of things being “in a relationship” is not: 1) scary; 2) a lifetime commitment; 3) a emotional declaration tantamount to dropping the L-bomb; 4) a sexual declaration tantamount to shouting “I’m screwing this person” from the nearest convenient rooftop.

And seriously, if “is dating ___” were an option, what would be the point? That still declares your romantic attachment to one individual, and it still declares your (more-or-less) unavailability.

Yep, if you’re seeing one person, and you want to declare that fact on Facebook and, particularly, name their name, well then, my friend, you’re in a relationship.

Like it or not.

I’ll admit it: I know the answer to that question. But still, there are some very frustrating days, and today’s one of them.

There are days when I wonder why I spend 8 or so hours every week in the gym (sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less). Some are days when I see that the numbers aren’t changing. Some are days when I notice that some other changes are happening and not in what I would consider positive directions—building muscle makes you bigger, even if not heavier. Some are days when I face the fact that shirts/sweaters/etc that fit my shoulders and chest have an annoying tendency to make me look chunky around the middle.

It was some combination of the last two as I got ready for work this morning (I’m still doing fairly well at not sweating the numbers). And, if I’m honest, there are other issues, too.

But seriously, is a little noticeable progress in 6 months too much to ask?