Catching Up With…

November 28, 2007

I’ve always thought that it would be fun to do interviews at this site. Mostly I envisioned asking various presidential candidates for their opinions on the issues of the day, c’est a dire Little Rock Streetcar expansion, Brandy Taylor/Anne Hathaway/Pretty Feet/all the other favorites of Salad actualia, new items at the Senate cafeteria, and the Treaty of Westphalia. Unfortunately, it’s been very hard to get any presidential candidate to commit to giving an interview (mostly because they’re all of the opinion that Heroes Season 2 is as strong as season one, and that they will be president) so I’ve had to come up with something else to fill this space. So I present Yesterday’s Salad’s first ever conversation with the living challenged, Jacques Derrida.

But before we begin, allow me to deal with the objections that are no doubt being raised as I write. First, this is not Yesterday’s Salad’s first engagement with the no longer living. Shel Silverstein has been suggested as a Superman author, and some of my favorite neighbors are Zombies. And, a reason before the reason, as I mentioned in my comment to JT in the Shel Silverstein piece: “While the [wikipedia] undead page is totally unhelpful, it does remind me that Derrida used the myth of the undead to break down the binary between life and death. But something tells me Derrida was reaching on that one.”

While I’m not one to regularly disagree with so wise a scholar as Mr. Dailysalad, leading luminaries would. Yosef Hayyim Yerushalmi ends his excellent Freud’s Moses with a monologue addressed to Professor Freud, Isaac Bashevis Singer believed in demons, and Messers Freud and Derrida (who now gets a chance to argue his case) would certainly disagree with me. As Derrida explains in Archive Fever (at least in part, a reading of Freud’s Moses), Freud has made references to “real” ghosts in his writing. This has to do with the fact that there is a “truth of delusion, a truth of insanity or of hauntedness.” (87; emphasis in the original) This is analogous to the difference between a “historical truth” and a “material truth.” Something can have a real effect without having ever existed.

So without further ado, a few questions for Mr. Derrida:

1) Did you ever get a chance to watch Seinfeld? Or, do you still hold to your opinion that Deconstruction has no sitcoms, and people are wasting their time doing things that don’t involve reading Deconstruction? (see here for some background, and don’t see Derrida) Read the rest of this entry »

Writer’s Note: See this post for an update on the sad state of Heroes.

___

I spend an awful lot of time on this site biting more eyes than I can chew. This is not going to change anytime soon. Every once in awhile, however, something happens that makes the eyebiter…smile.

Like taking responsibility for your crap, something that Heroes creator Tim Kring seems to be doing.

My thoughts on this:

  1. It’s a big step just to admit that your show sucks, even if you make this admission gently and/or with tact. Most actor/directors/entertainment types, if they do this, do it well after the fact, when the show is over or the movie has made its run. Those who don’t wait sometimes lose their jobs, so I don’t necessarily blame them for their silence. Admittedly, it’s probably easier to admit that your show sucks when you’re the creator (and when you’re on strike) but, hey, at the very least, Tim Kring’s eyes are safe for now. If I had enjoyed Season One of Heroes a little more than I did (I liked it, and I got a little sucked in, but I wasn’t shocked to see Season Two take a turn into Tanktown) I would have already chomped those ojos with such ferocity that he could have channeled Claire Bennet till he was Hank McCoy blue in the face and it wouldn’t have helped him.
  2. He basically hits on almost all of the major things that are wrong with Season Two. This includes: Not Tom Welling and Claire’s romance, Hiro’s way long unending infinite overstay in Japan (that goes on forever), the stinky new characters, and a lack of foreseeable connections between new story lines (made out of crap romances and stinky new characters) and the overall plot (whatever that is).

What else is wrong with Season Two?

Read the rest of this entry »