No. Seriously.

Can't believe I haven't done this shirt already... I guess it's a Big Bang Week here at the Blog.

Thank you, ThinkGeek

I mentioned "Bazinga" WAY back in October as a part of the discussion on creating vocabulary.  It's a fairly recent lexicon development - although Big Bang Theory is in its sixth season now! - and it is one that is so often used incorrectly that I believe I've developed a twitch when people (even close friends of loved ones) treat it as a general exclamation point.

I won't rant about this because it makes me sounds crazy (and my mom did NOT have me tested). I will simply state it... thoroughly:

"Bazinga" does NOT equal "Boo-Ya!" or "Eureka!" or "Awesome!". 

"Bazinga" DOES denote a practical joke that has been successfully played. 

"Bazinga" is the invention of writer Stephen Engel who used it as his personal word for disclosing a prank before Dr. Sheldon Cooper was ever a uvularly-atypical, train-loving, ballroom-dancing, Fiddler on the Roof-regaling genius, atomic apple in the collective consciousness eye of CBS. I heard this origin explanation first during the TBBT panel at Comic-Con 2010 but Bill Prady has confirmed this on Twitter since then.

"Bazinga" means "Gotcha!" or "You've been fooled!".

Ignorance is no longer an excuse, if it ever was. Seriously. Use "Bazinga" as you will but know that you had better have punk'd someone but good beforehand in order to deserve that utterance. Misused terminology is no laughing matter - (see Monday's post).

 

Back to School

... but not the Rodney Dangerfield one! (Don't have a t-shirt to commemorate that one yet)

Happy New Year!

ThinkGeek purchase (Xmas gift to myself)

The first tee of 2013 is inspired by the 1986 Matthew Broderick film Ferris Bueller's Day Off, possibly one of the most iconic of 80s high school movies for quotability and pop references. "Movies based in high schools" is a great cross-genre genre. Like the adolescent years, these movies encompass comedy, tragedy, surrealism, mystery, and fantasy. Often all in one afternoon. They can be uplifting, sobering, confusing, disturbing, and ridiculous. Again, sometimes simultaneously. And if anyone were to contend that these movies are hyperbolic in addressing the chaos and roller-coaster nature of these hallowed halls, please come and visit my classroom for one day.

I'll throw the first gauntlet down and state that The Breakfast Club is the best of the lot. I could probably entertain contenders in the forms of To Sir With Love (theme song alone puts it in the top 10), Stand and Deliver (with the astounding performance of Edward James "So Say We All!" Olmos) or Pretty in Pink (despite the unfortunate script change, it's still the best of the female-centred Hughes movies). Any other challengers out there?

Well-Matched

Tesla Versus Edison - contemporaries, visionaries, geniuses, rivals.

Edison's name is, arguably, the more recognizable but Tesla's is more fun to say.

Today's t-shirt is the product of ThinkGeek (note Timmy the TG mascot on the label) and confuses the heck out of my students whenever I wear it.

Some of the most fascinating books, movies, and television arcs are driven by well-matched rivalries. Sherlock & Moriarty, Neo & Agent Smith, Gandalf & Saruman, Batman & Joker, Nina Sayers & Lily in The Black Swan (I'm assuming on that last one based on what I know about the movie)... An intelligent villain is far more interesting than the typical thug. I'd go as far to say that some villains are far MORE interesting than the supposed "hero" of the story. (Man, I do like to dump on heroes, don't I? First sidekicks, now villains. Not that Tesla is a villain... except maybe on Sanctuary. Anyhoo...) 

One of my favourite novels from my Arthurian adaptations phase is The Forever King by Molly Cochran and Warren Murphy. Cochran and Murphy collaborated in writing three books altogether before they divorced, personally and professionally - The Forever King, its sequel The Broken Sword, and a standalone Atlantis-based, story-within-a-story World Without End (not to be confused with Ken Follett's 2007 novel of the same name but greater exposure) - and their collective writing style was the first instance where I realized that the villain(s) was/were far more developed and intricate than the hero(es) of the stories. Where I could easily visualize every scar and shadow on the face of their villains, their protagonists remained faceless and generic. And, yet, all three books are intensely good reads. Now, in teaching English classes, the contrasting of protagonist and antagonist is protagonist-centred. The antagonist exists only to stand in the way or cause problems for the protagonist. The logic stands that the protagonist would be worth reading about even without the antagonist. That logic doesn't pan out in a lot of contemporary lit/media. I would much rather watch Renard than Nick on Grimm, much rather read about HAL's journal than Dave's, and think Jean Grey was more interesting after the M'Kraan Crystal fell into her life.

It's a sad but true trope that too often in our commercialized and mainstreamed world, "good" = "boring". J.K. Rowling is on record as cautioning fans from romanticizing her darker characters like Malfoy, Riddle and Sirius Black (my personal fave).

Reader participation time: Anyone have a favourite rivalry? Instances where it's more appealing to root for the "baddie"? Situations where these immortal words hold true?

Upstaging the Hero

Pity the brave heroes. Yes, they may overcome and triumph over villains and personal demons. Yes, their names may ring golden throughout history. Yes, they may fulfill prophecy, outwit Fate, undo curses, complete quests, ascend thrones, and get the happily ever after. But at what cost? The Hero's Quest is an archetypal path. Details vary but the elements remain the same whether you're discussing Superman, Katniss or Harry Potter. No matter the heights they scale or the foes they vanquish, heroes are trapped by the very role they play.

And the modern day hero is flawed. Whether they are flaws that need besting like Indiana Jones' fear of snakes or flaws that can be turned into strengths like the ADHD and dyslexia inherent in all the demigods in Rick Riordan's Olympus series, they are flaws that are laid out in a public vetting as thorough as any an American vice-president may undergo.  It's downright embarrassing if you consider that, as a hero, every aspect of your life is considered general knowledge. Forget paparazzi, teenage fanboys and girls are suddenly experts in every like, dislike or neuroses you ever experienced. And beyond the hysteria, there are the EXPECTATIONS. Sure, you killed that baddie and saved the world from that meteor but what have you done lately? Being a hero is downright exhausting.

Today's shirt courtesy of ThinkGeek

And where does this leave the happy sidekicks? Free to excel in any field they like without qualms of having a hero standard to live up to. Liberated from public scrutiny and permitted to be as quirky and edgy as they like. They can be endearing or sarcastic or endearingly sarcastic even. They can provide solutions without feigning angst or agony. Yeah, okay, they occasionally end up catching a bullet or a plague for dramatic effect (Whedon has been quoted as saying,"If you want an emotional response from the audience, hurt Willow.") but at least they are not forced to dance the morality/ethical cha-cha for the audience. They can have the occasional heroic moment, that spark of awesome to qualify them for important Girl/Boy Friday status, but there are no expectations placed upon their shoulders. Which is why they are, so often, able to shine brighter in our minds than the "hero".

On TV, these are our Willows, our Monroes, our Kenzies. In the movies, these are our Short Rounds, our droids, our Mr. Universes. In literature, these are our Nevilles, our Mr. Bingleys, our Diana Barrys. These are the individuals we'd like to hang out with, go see a movie with, take out for a smoothie, the heroes being too busy with their junkets and drama. 

I've always been slightly outraged by the disregard for Neville's backstory shown by the films. In the literature, it was pure chance that put Harry on the hero's path. If Voldemort and Bellatrix had traded chores, it would've been Neville's mother's love that wounded Voldemort and Neville would've been all scarred and tragic. And in that line of reasoning, based on everything we know...

Smarter, kinder, surviving a lifetime of visits to St. Mungo's and with a grandma that made him toe the line, Neville was made of such stuff as heroes are made of. Sure, he might not be as talented with a broom but in the greater scheme of things, Herbology expertise trumps Quidditch skillz wands down. And the dude knows how to swing a sword.

Years ago, I heard an anecdote about the casting of the 1985 TV film adaptation of "Anne of Green Gables" wherein actress Schuyler Grant had been cast in the title role only to have a visually ideal Megan Follows swoop in in the eleventh hour to steal the role. As Schuyler went on to portray Anne's bestie, Diana, this anecdote lent a new layer to a scene in the sequel movie (1987) where Anne discovers that Diana has always loved Gilbert but had never made it known because he was "always meant to be" with Anne. After hearing about how the casting fell out, I always thought that there was a note in Schuyler's voice and a glint in her eye that had nothing to do with a fictional infatuation. Some do not embrace the loss of hero status as easily as others.

The most clever recent sidekick/hero play on roles was in the generally panned film Sucker Punch, which I'm gonna have to admit I liked. Possibly specifically for the fact that Zack Snyder pulled a switcheroo at the end, the moment when Babydoll realizes that she is not, in fact, the hero of the story and that she was really just the means to someone else's happy ending.

So, it's been a while since I asked for reader participation. Anyone out there have an example of the series/film/book where the side characters are more interesting than the protagonist? Who preferred Jack over Will in "Will and Grace"? Honeycutt over Hawkeye on "M*A*S*H"? Buddy over Charles in "Charles in Charge"? Why are sitcoms the easiest to draw examples from? Ok, a book reference: who else looks forward to Bob the Skull scenes in the Dresden Files and could do with fewer Harry-preparing-another-spell scenes?