I suppose commenting on anything on tv (or in pop culture) as derivative would be superfluous, but some things are really quite.. well.. derivative.  ”Once Upon a Time” is very much one of these things.

I was excited, apprehensive, interested, appalled, defiant, and on board in anticipation of this show. As someone who has loved the DC Comics/Vertigo “Fables” series, when I read the description of this show at the upfronts I pretty much had the same reaction as my other Fables fan friends: WTF?!  When you read about fairytale characters magically appearing in our world and the lead being Snow White (with a Prince Charming, a Big Bad Wolf, etc.) and living in a town of Fables in a large East Coast city, what the eff else are we supposed to think?

The story goes that the producer had this in the works before LOST. And that ABC bought the rights to “Fables” but never went further. And that they did read “a few episodes”.  It’s a thin line.  Sure the actual story will be different.  If it got too close to Fables, then that’s easy to prove as stolen. But the premise of a pilot or a series of stories that involves these characters plus this backstory BEGS itself to sound like Fables is getting jacked one way or another.

But, alas, bitching about if this is actually happening will get us nowhere.  But, really, the start of this show is very much a derivative of the premise that began Fables.  Fairytales, love, evil power, evil magic, and boom bang pow: we have fairytales living in our midst.

Besides, what I realized tonight was that this is ABC.  ABC is owned by Disney.  Disney owns Marvel.  Marvel and DC make the big two and have been competing forever to be the top 1. DC owns Vertigo that publishes Fables. It wouldn’t be too far off to believe that Disney is using this show as a big FU towards DC and Fables for using “their” characters (even if they’re NOT).  Not enough people read Fables to know these characters more through them than through the books or even moreso through all of the Disney movies and tv shows, so really this would be a big, expensive way to be spiteful. But, hey, it’s Disney. It can totally be relevant.

Also – what was up with that stuffed Tiger in Snow White and Charming’s castle?! Did you see it?  It reminded me of the Fables cover for Animal Farm. (Check Vol. 2.  Really, go google it.)

Oh, right. No bitching.

The element of placing Emma in the (thing in the) tree while the world around Snow and Charming spoke to me as very Superman/Kal-El being sent from Krypton-ish. And hey, that is actually very Moses-ish too. And, THAT makes sense because Superman was, for all intent and purposes, a Jewish inspired hero.

Because LOST was such a huge show and the two producers worked on LOST, there had to have been some connections especially knowing how much LOST loved throwing out easter eggs for their viewers.  We get a lot of shout-outs to LOST viewers making the trek over.

Numbers: The evil queen’s Storybrooke address is 108.  The broken clock and the time in Storybrooke is frozen at 8:15.  16 shows up too.  I wasn’t paying attention to the other numbers.

Eye: We came back from commercial once to see Emma Stone’s eye.  That is how many LOST episodes started – especially with the dialating.

Smoke monster: When the queen and her men were storming the castle they were followed by a dark smoke. And yes, it wasn’t something just hidden in plain sight, it was an actual fire/smoke storm. But, before it engulfed the trees and approached the castle, there was a moment when it was in the background of the queen’s posse that it was THE island’s Smoke Monster.

I’m sure there were more. If the tv review site I read occasionally has more, I’ll link it up.  Actually, I’ll just do it now. Billie Doux Reviews.

The biggest derivative that I noticed of “Once..” in relation to LOST is its storytelling structure.  LOST used time and flashbacks (and forwards) heavily.  Basically, that’s what “Once..” is setting up to be with the island being Stonybrooke and the flashbacks traveling through the book.

What’s different is that there is a streamlined future/objective. But, I suppose going back to the first season of LOST, it seemed like the story was streamlined to getting off that damned crazy, weird islands.

I’m not sure the pilot was all that great – it was crammed, it had a lot of convenient situations to allow for folks to get information, and had to stumble over itself to make sure the viewers understood what it was and where it was potentially going.  Yet, I’m still in and I’m interested in where it goes.  LOST was a great, sometimes frustrating, but definitely addictive and fun ride.  I’ll stay on board to see how this team develops this story.  Besides, most new shows are terrible in their early stages.

And who knows? Next week we might see some dandy fellow playing the flute, a flying monkey, and a bumbling mayor of Fabletown. I mean, Storybrooke. STORYBROOKE.

There have been tons of controversy over the past few months with the landscape of comics and diversity, attempts at inclusion, and the fallout from them.  Essentially, all the attempts have resulted in a lot of angry people some with complaints I completely agree with and others I find to be repulsive and sadly more vocal and high in quantity than there should be.

There’s Miles Morales: the so-called “PC” 1/2 African American, 1/2 Latino young man (child) that has been created to replace the now dead Peter Parker in Marvel’s ALTERNATE universe called Ultimate. People complained, hemmed, hawed, threw out racist jokes, and all the hoopla (mixed in with A LOT of great support) when it was announced.  We saw a glimpse of him – a wayward wannabe hero.  Someone who could’ve been ANY of us as comic book fans.  But, alas, because he’s a “colored” replacing a non-”colored” the racists proclaimed yet another description of how they were being held down!  Now, some creators took the argument in a different direction and with some merit: they feel that the change happened too late or that more time should be spent in creating NEW superheroes from diverse backgrounds rather than filling in the same costume with different colors (and presumably same stories or worse outrightly tokenized stories). By the way, I think Miles’ launch in Ultimate Spider-man #1 was really well done and Miles has a family background of complexities with characters that don’t run around yelling “Fo’sho”.

With the DC Reboot, one of the biggest early controversies was the decision to return Barbara Gordon to the Batgirl alter-ego.  Barbara Gordon in the pre-reboot was once Batgirl turned Oracle when she became paralyzed from the waist down.  That meant a prominent figure in the DC/Batman universe was fighting crime and being a leader all from a wheelchair.  With the reboot, the wheelchair and paralysis were whisked away.  This angered many people that identified with Oracle as a strong character with a disability.  This also angered many fans of the pre-reboot Batgirl who lost a strong character – unsure if/where she would appear again.

With these two situations, the diversity or lack of or forcing of or ignoring of etc etc. was compounded with the truth that CHANGE (in life but ever moreso) in COMICS is a TERRIBLE thing for fans to come to grips with.  The DC Reboot itself was a big mess of angry and excited and scared and hopeful.  The reboot, from what DC Comics told us, is about creating a new, accesible, and diverse landscape to attract new comic book readers (or to revive the ones that had left.)  They said that one objective was to create more characters that resonated with more people.  They also were supposed to be employing more diversity in its creative teams.

But so far, this is seemingly what we have:

In July, a fan asked Dan Didio “where the women are” in the comics industry.  This, a month before the reboot, stirred up a lot of talk on the internet because of said reboot and also the big Kickstarter venture called Womanthology – an anthology of work by women in the field – was coming close to its funding deadline.  It made it’s goal by five times I believe. (I, too, made a donation.)  It was also backed by many big names in the field – many being the males.  And, even before this, there was drastic backlash against the attempts of some creators to change the Wonder Woman costume to be more modern (aka more covered, more realistic.. aka so she’s not fighting and all that crazy stuff in a one piece, strapless bathing suit.)  Change, remember, is the last thing many comic book fans want (… easily forgetting that these characters HAVE changed numerous times since their inception..and many times before most of us were even born.)  So, the field and the fans, are already more tense than usual about issues of women in all facets of comic books.

This week, two new reboots kicked off to quite the uproar: Catwoman and Red Hood and the Outlaws.  Catwoman was hyped to be an overtly sexual (some can say sensual.. others can say derogatory) jaunt.  Before I finished the book (I stopped in between poops.. TMI), I already read some tweets about the controversy over a sex scene.  I thought, initially, that the uproar was over the sex itself because it had been abbreviated to that in 140 characters or less.  I didn’t know what the REAL uproar was about.  But hold that for a second.  I didn’t buy Red Hood but I did check it out a bit at the store.  I noticed some interestingly shiny and generous showings of Starfire as a way to introduce her – kind of like a Bond Girl but only if that Bond Girl were a Penthouse Pet.  See where we’re going here?  Catwoman’s demise in many folks eyes wasn’t just the sex scene, but the fact that the complex, beautiful, wily, strong character of Selina Kyle aka Catwoman was introduced and basically relegated to Boobs, a claw, and aggressive superhero sex.  They told us going in that it was going to be a sexually infused romp. No excuses, but I knew that going in so I turned off that part of my critical lens.  But, honestly, I have to do that with almost ALL superhero comics that I read.  Hold that for a second.  Now, more egregious in my opinion than the physical depictions of Starfire or Catwoman, was how Starfire was introduced.  As you see in this response by Laura Hudson, the Starfire character was introduced by male superheroes describing her in an all-too real subjugation of her existence aka piece of ass first.. then actual ass.. then at some point she has a name, a story, etc.

Obviously, there’s cause for an uproar.  And, as Ms Hudson correctly points out, these are depictions of strong females – they’re depictions of what “guys” want their strong females to be: overtly sexual in appearance and behavior – the kind of girl that would look at your shoes, say they’re hot, and then strip down because hot shoes make them all sorts of horny.

I don’t know what the artists represent.  I don’t know much about Scott Lobdell.  I do know Judd Winick to some point via Real World and subsequent work in the comics industry.  He’s knowledgeable and sensitive to diverse issues and all that good stuff – I mean, it seems that way at least.  At the least, he doesn’t come off as some meathead that decided one day that Selina Kyle’s only worth her weight in boobs and red lingerie.  This goes to the root of the problem about Catwoman, Starfire, the reboot, diversity in comics, diversity in media, and diversity in general.  If the people who are creating and editing are both 1) not diverse in all meanings and 2) not GENUINELY aware of this lack of diversity (and understanding of it), then the stories, even if well intentioned, are going to be misrepresented.  Like Andrew Wheeler writes: “Diversity doesn’t happen because you think it should. Diversity happens when you make it happen.”

Think about these points:

1) You do not have to be a woman to write strong women characters well.  Women writers can be as terrible as guys.  But getting more diverse women as creators and as editors can and WILL help.  I don’t think writers have to check in with some Women’s Authority or something, but if you want inside knowledge on what resonates with women, then you should probably ask.. women to write those stories.  Tim Hanley at Bleeding Cool looked at the female creators involved in the DC Reboot Week 1.  Check out the INCREASED disparities.

2) In the same way, you don’t have to be ____ ethnicity to write a character of that particular ethnicity. Bad writers come in all shapes and people.  But, like I said, it helps to have more diverse creators and editorial staff need to be diversified. If the writers can’t cross the bridge alone, then have people around that are KNOWLEDGEABLE about various levels of understanding culture and diversity.

3) Good writers aren’t void of being essentially clueless in regards to diversity.  I can’t tell you Brian Azzarello is a dude that grew up in the streets, but even though most people CREAM about 100 Bullets, I’ve struggled to get to TPB 2 because I couldn’t stand how the black and brown folks “talked” in the first arc.  David Liss must be a great writer because he’s seen success in his novels, but how that meant he could write Black Panther in a NY gritty “colored” neighborhood I’m not really sure.  I read one issue and couldn’t really take the dialogue.

4) Tokenism is not a solution and sadly many creators take this road all too often to deal with diversity. Hey, let’s make this guy gay. Hey, let’s change this character to a woman. And NEVER do these changes really define the character except that they now fulfill a checkbox. And, by the way as an example, COMIC BOOK COMPANIES, if you want more African American readers stop filling your quotas with token AFRICAN characters.  Token images or characters might be okay for the faintly curious, but the rest of us that understand the complexities of culture expect more.

With no excuses ment, the reality is that we deal with this ALL THE TIME in every nook of media representation.  It’s not just in the books.  I was watching the Emmy’s and since there really aren’t any prominent non-white characters/actors in the successful shows, then of course they’re not going to win or even be nominated.  That doesn’t mean I hate my TV or hate the actors that were honored.  That means the SYSTEM is in dire need of PROGRESS.  X-Men First Class is a really good comic book movie.  Yet, for us who desire proper and respectful diverse representation, we can’t just HATE the movie.  I resonate with what Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote about his experience with the film.

It goes deep.  Way deep.  More than a blog, angry tweet debates, and lamentations will solve.  So, I suppose the first step is true consciousness and a quick transition to working together to find solutions.  Supporting diverse characters will help.  We’ll see what DC does with Static Shock, Voodoo, Bat-Wing, and Blue Beetle if they don’t sell.  And, as of now, there has been NO hype around any of those.  If they really support the diversity, they’ll amp up the PR, the creative teams, etc for these characters and NOT give them an early termination if their numbers are down.

People are talking. And hopefully reading. And, if they’re turned off by what they’re seeing, I hope they keep their brains and eyes and hearts open to look at other books with complex characters, complex women, (still need LOTS of help with the ethnic diversity), and complex stories.  There are great artists that have shed the 90′s stylized bodies for more realistic (albeit relatively fit) bodies for both male and female characters.  Since we are the consumers, we have the power to change things.  Comic books might not be the most important things in the world, but if they mean enough to you then help push for change.  They’ll HAVE to listen.

I’ve had a lot to tweet and facebook status about, so I thought I’d delve deeper into them since I seem to have some kind of juice going. (So crazy thought that we have “tweet” in our vocab and “facebook status” is both a noun AND a verb!) Topic 1:

FACEBOOK OUTRAGE

I’m in both camps in the not so real debate over whether or not we should be outraged about the Facebook changes.  Okay, when it’s put that way, I’m on ONE camp and that is the one that mocks the people that decry the tyranny and oppression by Facebook, Inc (is it an Inc?) to dare change our interface.  My main point in my initial reaction when the News Feed and “update” bar changed was annoyance and continued lack of understanding of why the company tinkered with the interface all the time and rolled out changes all the time.  I just don’t get how that makes sense for business.  Obviously, the changes haven’t stopped us before nor have the security issues or anything unsavory about our participation on the site.  Still, why not perform changes with announcements like creating versions with updates on changes like software or apps?  Why surprise people?  The fact that the “service” is “free” would note that at some point the bottom will burst and these kind of things will ball up into the exodus of its “voluntary” users.  Not that it’s free, but check Netflix.  Sure, the price change was outrageous without the announcement.  Yet, even after the explanation and mea culpa, Netflix/Qwikster still is suffering even though it seemed generally untouchable.

Now, why I would be on the side of anyone complaining or even close to it is based in this false idea that Facebook is a FREE service.  SURE.  You pay NOTHING to use it.  In that sense, the service is essentially free of monetary exchange.  But, we don’t get free shit from companies that are FOR-PROFIT and are making MILLIONS (or is it BILLIONS) of dollars on our free voluntary participation.  Their main capital is our DATA.  Although attached to dollars, the advent of social media has created a monetary system of data and data collection.  This data and data collection is sellable – it’s GOLD.  When we watched old sci-fi movies of dystopia, the monotony came from technology: our data, our trends, our thoughts, and the streamlining of them.  If we’re feeding our own demise and these fatcats’ wallets, then I think it’s okay for us to bitch a little about how the company rolls out its interface changes.  And really, that is the crux of the outrage, right?  It’s not so much the actual changes themselves but that they keep making them with no explanation or easily understandable timeline.

And before we leave this psuedo-frivolous topic of Facebook, I think it’s debatable to call our participation in it voluntary or non-obligatory.  Like the phone or the post office, we don’t have the obligation to use facebook to do a spectrum of communication oriented things like keeping in touch with friends and family, running a business, pursuing human interaction, etc. It’s essentially voluntary.  We could lose our minds, lose our jobs, lose our incomes, but essentially that’s our decision right?  But, the advent of new technologies to create communication or pass information changes the scope of need vs voluntary.  And, really, Facebook has changed that dynamic.  Sure, Friendster and Myspace existed before, but Facebook has changed the world and how humans behave in order to get our natural fix of social interaction whether for business or for pleasure.  Sure, we can disconnect, delete our accounts, disappear from the Facebook world easier than from the phone or parcel companies.  But, in 10 years, if Facebook is still thriving as a viable MAIN option for interaction, then calling the participation “voluntary” would be obsolete.  And, I’m arguing, that it already is. We may not be physically or emotionally addicted to Facebook, but we sure are behaviorally. If we weren’t, every important (and even hella not important) information sources would not have buttons to link their stories to Facebook (or Twitter, etc.)

To simply say that the inconveniences created by a free non-obligatory website are much too trivial to bemoan is to ignore the gravity of the impact that Facebook (and other social media) is having on our behavior and existence.

Alright, you terrible terrible show runners, writers, and producers. You got me. At the end of Smalville when The John Williams soundtrack was used immensely as Clark finally became Superman and when they flash back forward to the Daily Planet we all know and love and there is a need for Supes that interrupts a Clark and Lois moment that flows into THE Superman theme song, I admit, I got chills. I love the idea of Superman. Always have. That’s what Smallville was built on… The superness of Clark Kent which made Superman much more super. It was the last 4 seasons of Smallville that I hated. And this finale, in snippets, reminded me why I loved this show before.

I’ve always been connected to the characters, the families, the character of the town of Smallvile, and their growth together. Sure, it was partly a teen soap dressed up in a monster of the week show, but it was well done for what it was. And it was about real people with real people problems explored in metaphors that related to meteor freaks and alien tech. It was about the destinies of best friends and future sworn enemies. It was about blue collar work ethic versus manipulative corporate greed. It was about innocent love. It was about discovery. But, eventually, when the original show runners left it became a farce.

The best parts of the finale were the return of the real Lex. Michael Rosenbaum is just so great as Lex and he was both the evil and noble Lex we’ve grown to love.. To hate. John Schneider and Annette O’Toole being Clark’s parents brought back the realness to the character – something missing throughout the last 4 years as the show has turned into some spandex noise fest. I love comics and if the producers think that is what Comics are about, they’re not only insulting the viewers but also US, the fanboys.

The rest was ultimately lame. I’ve never been convinced by the Lois and Clark dynamic as depicted in the show. I thought it was forced. The major plot lines of the darkness, Darkseid, and Apocalypse seemed rushed, forced, and climaxed rather lamely. Tess and Lex had the best resolution that fit their characters other than Clark of course, but we already knew what would happen with him.

The lead producers said that the story ultimately explored the idea of the need for heroes.. That Superman would ultimately save all those who were marked with the darkness like Ollie because he believed in them and they would in turn believe in him made sense. Too bad that’s essentially what Superman Returns explored. And, it was very much more cleverly done in Elf and about Santa Clause instead. The last two seasons of the show have had many episodes that seemed like stolen movie plots. This series finale wasn’t different. The lines were still terrible. And it was horribly talky.

Still, they got me. For a second, they got me. And I can now rest knowing that I stuck with this show despite knowing better and going 3 years in a row vowing I would end at the season finale and never come back but I always did. And you know what? I own the first 6 seasons. And those are the episodes I’ll watch again and again if I ever want to return to Smallville. Not the last 4 years of stupidity save maybe 25 minutes in the series finale.

And, as I did when I was still smiling and having chills when Clark flashed the emblem to end the series to transition into the two lead producers… I flipped off the tv.. Like it cut me off on the freeway. Straight finger waving. I hope those guys never get any DC or beloved comic boom heroes to screw over with their unfocused, inane, superficial “style” of television again.

9:30pm at Target’s gotta be the weirdest place to have some Robert Frostian proverbial fork-in-the-road kind of conversations, but alas it happened tonight within 5 minutes.

First, I ran into a college buddy who’s been not working for four months essentially by choice. Doing what? Traveling. Argentina last week. Moscow next week – all the way to Beijing via the Orient Express. Daaamn. Philippines a few months ago. Not sure where he was working or how he got the skrills – but it sounds so appealing. Dude was glowing about it. “You’ll realize how much we have.”

Then, I was checking out the replacement carafe for a Mr. Coffee, and this dude walks by and talks about being a coffee drinker. Stops. Asks me about grinding coffee and we agree that the flavor is great. He asks me where I’m from. “You’re from another country like me.” Talked about work. Asked if I was in Tech. Said I was in nonprofits. Said I had a lot of patience for lasting in the field for 10 years. And, the way I just described this sounds like dude was trying to pick up on me, but I don’t think that was the case. I think the guy was just friendly and wanted to have a conversation with a random person. The “fork” here was the comment about my patience and the “keep it up if it’s your passion” support. Passing comments from a random stranger from a somewhat awkward conversation, but I did choose my field a few years ago and have continually made the decision to stay. “I can’t see myself doing anything else right now” I respond to the comment about having patience. It’s not patience. It’s actually impatience – because the reason I’ve been so disgruntled isn’t my social or professional status – it’s the state and integrity of the work I’m doing when others around me are incompetent and care more about their statuses, their prestige, and NOT about the community.

Anyway. Should I stay? I have a lot of community developing to accomplish. Lots of community to work with me. Should I go? There’s a world out there that I want to see and smell and hear and feel and taste. Better now because later it’ll become never, right?

One of my favorite comic book creators at the moment is Skottie Young and when a passionate argument erupted in the comic book creator world about “creater-owned” vs “commercial” work, he stepped aside and said that the best thing to do is talk about your favorite comic books to get more people to read them rather than join in on the fray. He talked about “I Kill Giants”.

This wasn’t the first time I saw rave reviews for this story. It came up a lot on my many Amazon browsing sessions and I had already, in fact, bought the trade paperback before I saw this post. But, it spurred me onto pushing it up my reading to-do list. I also have been reading more classic manga (by Tezuka and Urasawa) and was inspired to jump into a manga-inspired art piece – not at all knowing what it was in fact about.

So, with that, I had to readjust my ignorance to the story as I read the first chapter (issue). And it was good. Needed time to settle in though. So, I sat one afternoon in a car waiting for Huong to get out of a meeting and chose I Kill Giants to read. And boy, did it hit. As I tweeted to Skottie Young – It hit me like a ton of bricks.

Here’s a description of it from Joe Kelly from an interview with Comic Book Resources:

“I Kill Giants is the sort of book I’ve wanted to write for a long time,” Kelly told CBR News. “It’s the comic equivalent of an indie film–funny, raw, starring real people going through real problems — with a twist. I couldn’t be more proud of the story and the book itself, which is going to be gorgeous.

It’s a dark, emotional story. It’s written with dedication to all its characters, to its mood, and to Barbara Thorson – it’s 5th grade protagonist. The art by Niimura is equally magnificent – adding mystery to the mood and emotion.

It’s rare for comics, no matter how touching, to get to me. And this did.

Get through the first chapter. Let it sink in. Then go with it.

Speak the silence. Listen.
She whispered the the anger of generations
Spawned like egzema on her skin
Itching. Coarse. Unwelcome.
Strained.

Melancholy hair spray maintained
The facade of her okay existence.
Underneath tectonics of emotions.
Remorse. One continent.
Anger. The other. One pushing the other.
Overcoming the first.
Instability and the ground rolled
As the safe steps, baby steps of staccato
Faltered. Stopped.

Silence.
As trees swayed, and pebbles popped popped
And mountains stretched their arms and lifted themselves up
As furrowed brows and searing streams
From her eyes.

The memories learned and the hope borrowed
Burrowing tunnels of exasperation
In the transcendental disappointment.
She thought the victories would have sustained
By now.
Not the regression.
Not the mudslides of muck of lies of profane
Inhumanity painted in pretty faces
And sullen, petty, and hateful men.
Not the mudslides wrought by
Destruction of the lifelines of trees, of grass,
Of god’s and mother’s gifts.
Compassion eroded in green hued rain.
Washed. Away.

There’s gotta be more, she thinks.
More to life than the repetitive
Corrosive noise.

Playoff season is a crazy animal no matter who’s playing.  It gets infinitely more interesting when a local team partakes.

It’s interesting the bickering that goes on between fans – whether in person or under their breath (or online or to a friend at home) – because there seem to be so many rules on being a fan.  And yes, I’m as guilty of this phenomena as well.

Take the term: Bandwagon Fan.  What does it mean?  Sure, there’s an easy explanation: some person doesn’t give a crap about a team but suddenly becomes the biggest fan when there’s something to root for.  That’s where the complexities come in.

Take the Giants as an example.  No doubt, the majority of the Bay Area is Niner country.  Sorry Raider fans – it’s true.  Then, the immediate 2nd are the Giants.  No doubt.  The not so immediate yet firmly at 3rd are the Warriors.  Then, I suppose the Raiders would be 4th.  The Sharks, fifth, but only because they’ve been a winning franchise, then the A’s, sixth, only because they’ve been relentlessly mediocre (and with horrible management) for the last four years.  And, really, all the last four teams can switch given their vicinity to a winning season.

Okay, tangent.  Take the Giants for example.  Ever since AT&T Park opened, sellouts have been frequent at the stadium and they’re deep rooted in the community and media (KNBR and NBC11 – before that KTVU).  The Giants have a large pool of people to push the turnstiles.  But, when a push for the postseason comes and when they make it to the actual playoffs, there are many people who get priced out.  All of a sudden, all the inherited season ticket owners/corporate seats, are filled with casual/if not completely connected “fans”.  81 games are impossible to attend everyday unless you’re wealthy, stealing tickets, funemployed, or what have, but some folks only come when there’s a spectacle.  The issue?  Fans that are uneducated and not synced with the rest of the everyday fans can sometimes bring bad juju to the game and team energy.  Not saying this is true of these folks, but I assume that’s the vibe that, say, the bleacher bums would feel of these “bandwagon” fans.  But, I can feel them – the “regulars”.  I’ve been to enough games over the past seven years to say I’m one of them – “scraping” by to sit in the bad nosebleeds, sit in the unrelentingly cold seats in the bleachers, or even standing during the early/mid 00′s heyday.  It’s like the Superbowl.  When the prices are so high and corporations and special league invitations start filling the lower bowl, you can see the bad energy versus what it was at the two conference championship games two weeks earlier.

To be fair: the crowds at AT&T have been popping off since one of the LA series in August.  Yes, including the lower level.

So, that’s one example of a bandwagon fan.

Another is the casual fan – got a life, got work, got family, got other sports.  Whatever the case, they don’t ride the wave like everyday fans do.  They come around when there’s something at stake.

Importantly, causal fans have to be distinguished from “fair-weather” fans.  We’ll get to them in a bit but this brings us to a section of categories that might really receive the rile from the regulars.

Let’s call this next type the… fake diehards.  Let’s say most of these folks are casual fans.  Nothing wrong with casual fans.  If there weren’t casual fans, then there would be no economy for sports teams.  What is annoying, as it seems, to most authentic (paid the dues, paid the time, riding the emotions all year) diehards are the folks that come out of the woodwork during these postseason good times and start mouthing off like they’ve been there the whole time.  Of particular ire are these fans that start bitching about certain players on the team.  Look, all fans have the right to bitch about whatever.  I do it.  I know it makes me look terrible, but whatever.  But, regulars – especially baseball fans because the journey is really a grind for the players AND fans – are also protective.  It’s like tough love – tough, verbally abusive, hella inappropriate mostofthetime, take for granted kinda love.  But we still love our players like our homeboys.  So, I feel like regulars have a gut reaction to lash out at the “fake diehards” when they complain about a player or the team or a loss with, “you don’t have a right to get mad with you’re 2 week old hat and 5 day old beard.”  (As a footnote – I don’t ever claim to be a Giants diehard.  But I sure as hell know more about this team than most “fakies” and most “regulars”.  But, whatever.)

These are also the folks that I assume get reamed on twitter, on facebook, with side comments, and with eye rolling when they don’t even know the players’ names.  It’s Pat Burrell.  Not Burroughs.  Or, they don’t know the game.  It’s a RUN, not a POINT.  Semantics, but I can feel them for their frustration.  You either buy the tickets and hence buy the parking, gas, and/or public transportation tickets throughout the season, take time to go, you listen on the radio, you watch on tv – you feel like you’ve earned a higher place in the fan hierarchy – because you’ve actually invested in the team rather than some folks that wouldn’t give a rat’s ass if today was April 5th and the 2nd game of the season.  I mean, there are fans that spend more energy and emotion on one at-bat than some of these folks do a whole game.

I guess these folks  could be classified as fair-weather fans.  If so, let’s call them Class B – less guilty of fanhood’s great unspoken rules of behavior.

Let’s get to Class A fair-weathering.  (I’m going to channel Mike Singletary and tell you that I am going to make a statement and that is in my opinion..) My opinion is this.. the fair-weather fans pretend they’re diehard fans throughout the season, but find ways to violate those aforementioned unspoken rules of fanhood.  (See how I just did that?  Made a statement first that I was going to make a statement before making an actual statement?  Listen to a press conference or a radio interview once.  Then you’ll know.)

Say I have a jersey or a jacket or sticker on my car or other fave-team oriented swag.  Say I rarely ever go to a game or watch them on tv or read up on their scores.  You know – claim a team for the sake of claiming the team?  Or, say they do watch games, but spend the whole time complaining or waiting for them to lose or starting picket lines to fire the coach, the GM, the hitting coach – and yes, I mean the WHOLE time.  You know, we all get frustrated with our teams and wish for better everything.  We throw our players under the bus once we reach our tipping point.  We make snarky remarks about how bad they are in.. maybe.. bad attempts to find some humor in the bad play – but we still hope for the best – for the win – for the enjoyment.  Okay.  Everyone has a different style of being a regular fan, but some are just haters – entitled fans that feel the team OWES it to THEM to win.  It’s waaaay different from being an annoying “tough love” kind of fan.  Yes, you might disagree, so just reread my statement about making a statement. *Find “Mike Singletary statement”

I keep getting sidetracked.

So, these folks fake it day in and day out or wait for the sky to fall day in and day out.  Then, when the success train rolls in, they jump on board and all of a sudden become rabid with their intensity and their puffed out chests.  They avoid the the ballpark if their team’s losing.  They avoid the claiming of them except for territorial and/or fashion’s and/or habitual reasons.  But here they come, pretending that they’ve been the flag toting diehards the whole time.  Class A fair-weather. IMHO.

***

As a feverishly exciting run makes it way through the community, it’s just natural for folks, fans or not, get sucked in.  What are people supposed to do?  Non-sports fans are watching.  Regulars are watching.  But, there are the unspoken rules of cheering for a team that we can understand as regulars but might be a bit unfair for the casuals.  (I think Class A Fair-Weathers deserve our eye-rolling and shit-talking tweets, though.)  That’s why communities, cities, nations pay a lot of money for teams – because they mean and represent a lot more than the X’s and O’s or double switches or pageantry.  That’s why televisions networks and corporations put money into broadcasts and sponsorships.  Sports teams – especially when in high profile exciting situations like the playoffs are – are a culturally defining and culturally expansive experience ultimately meant for the masses.  No, I’m not trying to say pro sports are more important than other things – but these teams carry the banners of constituents like any other piece of the fabric of the community.  Townships and villages in any culture have had representatives: community leaders, religious leaders, politicians, entertainers, flag bearers, dancers, and/or warriors.  Sports teams, no matter how ridiculously corporate they are now, still rally communities together.  And I’m pretty sure that experience shouldn’t remain exclusive to us who have been part of the ride for the whole year, decade, or our lives.

***

And where does that place me in your eyes?  I know who I am as a sports fan and I know my loyalties and my best buds in and out of sports fandom know.  I am enjoying this Giants run and I care for the team, the players, and the everyday fans I know and love because they deserve such a successful and exciting journey.  They also know that my number one team is the A’s – and that I don’t believe in a steadfast rule of “sports monogomy”.  That doesn’t mean I’ll run around and say my favorite team is “X team” that’s currently the best in the world. (BTW, I think my favorite X-team would consist of Cyclops, Marvel Girl, Wolverine, Colossus, Kitty Pryde, Psylocke, Rogue, Gambit, Storm, and… Molly from Runaways.)  That means I think it’s lame the attitude that because there’s a quasi-”rivalry” between two geographically close teams that I can’t have sincere sentiments for both teams.  If the A’s were heading to the World Series against the Giants, I know what hat I’d wear.  I know where my emotions would flow.  I know which team I would hate in the heat of battle.  And I’m comfortable with that.   That mediocre team (since 2007, fyi)’s got my heart and I’m not flipping my loyalties just cuz this other lovable team’s better.

I was there at the Coliseum days after they re-opened after 9/11.  I remember looking in the sky at helicopters and small engine planes with a hint of fear.  But the game took me in and I fell back in love.  I was there when that stadium was full to the point of being there for 2 of the top 5 attended games in Coliseum history.  And I’ve also spent hours in the park the past few years as it’s been embarrassingly empty.  Still cheering.  Still hoping.  Still snapping off some frustrated and snarky comments.  But still hoping for Kool and the Gang’s “Celebration” to hit.

I was that guy that came out of the woodwork.  2000.  The Giants were playing the Mets.  The Mets were the team I first fell for being in New York from 83 to 87.  I enjoyed the A’s in the late 80s and grew to hate the Giants.  Not sure why, but I’m sure it’s because they beat the Mets.  But, some point in 1993-99, I just stopped watching or caring for baseball.  Then 2000 came and both the Mets and the Giants were playing for the NLCS.  My original love in the Mets caught my attention  but my partying-age love in the city of San Francisco also perked up.  So, I don’t remember much details, but I knew I would’ve been happy either way.  Tickets to AT&T Park were hard to come by.  The coliseum, even with the glory days, weren’t so much.  Cheaper too.  So I went.  And I already said what happened.

So, now I’m here.  Disappointed that the Giants couldn’t clinch last night but infinitely confident and excited to see Jonathan Sanchez do it again and Clinchez this thing for the team and the community.  I’m even more disappointed by the loser “fans” posting their doomsday obituaries for this team that they’re supposedly “fans” of.  But I digress.  I’m excited for tomorrow.  I love this game.  I love the MLB playoffs.  And I’m going to be there being the best fan that I know how to be.

***

This morning Brian Murphy shared an email on KNBR from a man that found a children’s baseball in his backyard.  It wasn’t his kid’s.  He picked it up and saw scribbles on the ball.  They were the names of Giants: Tim Lincecum, Buster Posey, Cody Ross.  They were “signed” by the kid – a treasured baseball with the “signatures” of his favorite players.  Murph exulted that new memories were being formed.  New generations were falling in love with the game.

That’s baseball.  I love baseball.

The burrito was generic.
The salsa non-existent.
Chicken in sauce – not too salty. That’s good.
And the tortilla chips were
Simple. And forgettable.
Yet, today is still okay.
Because mundane is quite alright
Once in a while.

The morning greeted me, and you, and us
With clouds and chill
And almost empty pot of coffee.
I forgot to go to the store the night before.
And the morning came too fast,
From the longer evening spent
Not soul searching, not imagining, not creating,
Just playing, just reacting.
Lost in something insignificant.
Yet, today is still okay.
Sometimes, mundane is good.
Once in a while.

In passing conversations –
The topics of yesterday’s reality check
Were of tragedies and terrible misfortune
Of mothers not meeting their babies,
Of mothers saying good bye too early,
Of mothers. Of sisters. Of daughters.
In heartache.

In passing conversations –
Other people’s pain, mere strangers at the end of the day,
Spark the sadness
Inside me. Cold. Distant.
Far from their realities,
Yet just trying to imagine,
In an effort to gain empathy
Proved more than enough to wade in emotion
Then get swept away to drown in the sorrow.
No, I couldn’t imagine
because my body needed protection.
Still. Overhwhelmed.

The coffee at lunch was popular brand
Of more of the unnoticeable – the often regarded
Last resort.
It was filled impotent by design:
Half decaf. Half flavored. Wholly weak.
Yet it was warm. Comforting in the mix
Of creamy softening and sweet distinction
In its favored pop of earthen bitterness.
In background, the sips matched pleasant,
Yet less regarded lounge music
Like that in the old romantic Hollywood yarns
That mixed bravado, wit, and often impending doom.
But today, it was just a backdrop
Of mellowed notes
Like that of the coffee and irrelevant burrito.
Yet, today is still okay,
Because breezing through the unspectacularly mundane
Is life in its sweet fragile essence.
And it’s great.
Once in a while.

Wednesday nights this summer have turned me into art whore and recently also angry art whore.  I’ve never shared anything otherwise the fact that I love seeing artists in their process.  I’ve also been open to getting caught up in silly televised contests.

So, last week I went on a twitter rant against art critics because many of them bug the shit out of me because they base their “critique” on their personal biases, rely strictly on their reactions (that rely on their expectations), and often laud art on the basis of their acceptance by other critics because they have too look like their knowledgeable and cutting edge and not pretentious in there pretentiousness.  Insert some of the food critics on Iron Chef America in this group and I wouldn’t skip a beat.  Same with some film critics, television critics, etc.

So, I’m biased in this show.  I like Abdi’s work.  Dude is talented as an artist and as someone dedicated to bringing art to the people as resources and for show.  A lot of the artists featured are fabulous at their crafts.  Just like other silly reality shows, they’re thrown into challenges that move beyond their work style – their voices – their artistic process and are forced into producing art pieces.  Fine. No big deal.  They reap the rewards from the exposure.  They’ll all be surrounded by more buzz now and some will get commissioned for commercial art that they might not otherwise have been candidates for – some I can see making covers for comic books.

Admittedly, his last two weeks were weak.  Judging is based off the critics, the network, and the show producers.  We know this already.  I think he should stay safe from his work from earlier in the series and because he’s a vibrant young person.  And of course, we only see snippets of conversation to play with our emotions as viewers.  But one of the critics has come out blasting at Abdi with some questionable comments regarding “self congratulatory” and “commercial” (maybe not in those terms).  For the past two challenges, he’s had artists block.  It happens.  When you’re playing a game and being asked to.. say take a shit on command.. sometimes you get constipated.  Yea, yea.  It’s all sound byte-ification for television.  FINE.

But Jackie – who is a great realist artist – has continually created pieces on the theme of overcoming her own insecurities often placing herself and her naked “vulnerable” body in the middle of the pieces.

And Miles wins on structures that have evoked simplicity and vulnerability and emotional disorder.

Abdi last won a challenge by creating sculptures of young angry black men as actual bombs/grenades.

Peregrine won last week because she depicted her childhood in San Francisco surrounded by drugs and AIDS and eventual tragedy and innocence lost.

So, apparently if you play into the stereotype of whatever PHYSICAL LOOK you present, you become more “real” for the judges.  Peregrine as the child of haight ashbury – the typical hippy San Franciscan.  Jackie as the pretty woman held back by her own lack of comfort with her own femininity.  Miles as the emotionally troubled kid.  And Abdi as the young black male needing to show his anger and deficit as a young black male in America.  Neither Peregrine or Abdi have played into those stories.  They tell more or at least try to even if they don’t succeed.  They’re high in conceptual effort and have tried to depict different stories.

Miles is highly conceptual also and damn good at what he does.  But he’s continued to present the SAME.  Jackie is a phenomenal painter.  But she keeps presenting the SAME.  And, as you’d expect, they’ve ridden high most weeks.

And this is the problem when high brow “art critics” are responsible for passing or failing diverse artists.  They see an artist for their socio-cultural identity and expect, too many times, to set their biases on these identities (or stereotypes for most critics).  I have no empirical data on this, but that’s what I think I see in this show – and I can see this in other realms of art – say for instance: hop hop.

Who sells the records? CEOs.  What do they want to sell?  Angry, gangster, loser black males.  Why can’t calm, methodical, highly intellectual and charming young black men be promoted?

I have no problem with artists telling stories of the populations they identify with.  It’s THEIR art.  It’s THEIR stories.  Go with it.  Same if they DON’T want to tell the stories of the populations WE identify them with.

There are these racial dynamics and sociocultural biases we all bring into pieces of art as consumers – and it’s no different for critics. Except, other than for commercial art, we don’t define what is proper art.  And, that power to utilize whim, no matter how technically knowledgeable, to define art bugs the shit out of me.

“Work of Art” airs on Bravo on Wednesday nights.