They've invaded your mind, Metropolis.
Last night was Michael's birthday dinner, drinks at Bravo, and general merriment. It was good to see a lot of people out and about, even in the face of crushing scholastic pressures and the diamond-producing stresses placed on us. Arguments over poetry, politics, film, sushi, the Gin. Michael liked his present and I got to wake up with him this morning, which was nice because it hasn't happened very much lately - too much going on to sit still an enjoy things lately.
I'm going to babble about art and things now.
The Question #4 came out today. It continues to be a pop bauble, and Tommy Lee Edwards continues to impress me with his art: he's added a new trick, or at least focused one that threads through the series so far, where we are given an inset panel within any given comic panel; these insets are all yellow and reveals the pseudo-mystical vision of a situation as the Question sees it - the equivalent of Superman's X-Ray vision, actually. At times it seems superfluous but there are a few good moments where we, the readers, are allowed to see "beyond the veil" with the Question. The yellow insets are filled with silhouette figures of the main action and Edwards has a wonderful grasp of using dark against light. Some with Veitch's dialogue is a trifle awkward, he seems desperate to remind us of the Subterraneans' tricks for evading Superman's attentions - even though, let's face it, this is not a book most people would pick up if they hadn't started at the beginning. Lois Lane still fights against the idea of Chi and all the general mysticism of the world which is intriguing in a lot of ways - she's the skeptic, and very well-written as the female protagonist of the book. There's a slightly weird encounter between the Question and Superman, who delivers the "Don't do drugs, fight crime with the limits of the law" speech we expect from him (and, wow, comes across as completely square). There's more of a straightforward encounter between the good guys and the bad guys.
The Question continues to talk to the city, babbling Ginsbergian power chants and the like. It struck me because I read this after I read a section of Pynchon's The Crying of Lot 49 where, you know, I start to actually get interested in Oedipa's character (she's written pretty flat), where her search for the conspiracy takes her through San Franscisco. There's a ridiculous encounter in a gay bar (with "the lavender crowd" in the background), and then she takes to the streets, and interacts with the city in a similar way to the Question, except from a different angle. She talks about how she began the story as a private eye on a quest for answers, but that in any good detective story, eventually the private eye gets beaten up. It is walking through the city that this happens to her in a strictly metaphysical sense; Oedipa encounters again and again the symbol of the conspiracy she's looking for, and the repetition, the all-consuming presence beats upon her and makes her doubt her resolve. She actually also starts to demonstrate some actual feelings with regard to the dead ex-lover whose will started the action off to begin with. Anyway, I thought the violence perpetrated by the city upon Oedipa was interesting, because she was shown to be powerless in the city rather than connected to it - she's a foreigner, she's known to looking to close to something, and the invocation of the noir genre really did it for me.
There are still a few things about Oedipa that bother me - her sexual side is underdeveloped but constantly referenced - at one point she has a random sexual encounter with the lawyer co-executing the will, and then runs off from a potential sexual encounter with a member of what might be the conspiracy, and then complains in the gay bar that the "Despair came over her, as it will when nobody around has any sexual relevance to you." It's an interesting concept, but I find overall that Pynchon never seems to know whether or not Oedipa is a sexual object or subject, or a sexual being at all - not neccesarily that she has to be on category specifically, but there's no rhyme or reason to what element manifests, and what's more - Oedipa doesn't seem to consider it, either. I don't mean that she has to sit there and angst away about her role in society with regard to sex, but she seems blank about it. When she refuses the one proposition she doesn't just refuse, but runs off into the night, whereas other times she just seems to blankly not react. Christian was saying that her flatness was intentional, that it references her position as an unliberated housewife at the beginning of the story (this was written in 1966), and I'm not sure how I feel about that idea. People aren't necessarily consistent either, but something about Oedipa's behaviour doesn't work for me on a narrative (there's that word again) level, and I'm not sure I can yet articulate why.