Reading Plato, some observations

Confession: I’ve got gaps in my philosophy, Horatio. I have a basic familiarity with the broad tenets of some of the major schools. I have read deeper in a few areas I have found interesting, including the major works of existentialism, and Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations and the foundations of stoicism. But when it comes to the classic works my cupboard is pretty lean.

Inspired by the Online Great Books podcast, I decided to pick up Plato’s Five Great Dialogues, a book that includes the classics The Republic and The Apology. I read portions of these in high school or thereabouts, as I remembered the allegory of the cave and a few other bits. Back then I lacked the life experiences to take much from it; today I have a whole different appreciation for what these books say, and mean, and still have to teach us, thousands of years after they were written.

I won’t even bother trying to summarize what thousands of scholars and historians have already done before me, and far better, but rather just offer up a few takeaways and observations that hit home for me, personally.

Reading Plato is a cold drink of water for the soul. His dialogues are a series of questions about what life is all about, including why we behave as we do, how to govern ourselves, and in general what makes for a meaningful existence. These are written in a dialectical style. Plato’s subject, Socrates, engages in dialogues with a series of interlocutors, probing deeper at common but unexplored understandings and surface assumptions until they eventually arrive at a deep level of truth, possibly the bottom. “The unexamined life is not worth living,” Socrates says. Amen.

Plato’s theory of forms makes the case that there are transcendent ideas—justice, temperance, etc.—that transcend the physical. These ideas cannot be explained by science and studied at some atomic/structural level. But they are no less real, and in fact are more important than material existence. Some might take this theory of forms for granted, but it’s a stunning revelation, the framework upon which the rest of the book hangs.

Socrates/Plato believe in the immortal soul. We can deduce the presence of a soul by its absence (i.e., by looking upon a dead body, and finding it inert). The soul is a therefore a form. Like an odd number, it is irreducible by the presence of an even number—an even number does not destroy an odd number; in the same manner, death cannot destroy the soul, it merely parts it from the physical body. I like this, for obvious reasons.

Wisdom and truth-seeking are the highest virtues of mankind. Not "happiness" or wealth-seeking or sensual luxury. Plato believes in the existence of absolute truth and absolute beauty. Subjectivity is a form of blindness when it comes to truth-seeking. This declaration flies in the face of identity politics, which posit that every culture is morally equivalent, and that everyone’s subjective internal monologue is “truth speaking” and sacrosanct. Yes, we all have opinions, and have the freedom to express them, but some are far more worthy than others. Those that seek out absolute truth and absolute beauty, and wisdom and temperance, and make them their north star, are fit to lead, according to Plato.

Plato believes that the best form of government is a ruling class of philosopher-kings. These are chosen not by birthright, but by innate ability, and forged and tempered with exceptional physical and mental education. Rulers must exhibit a soundness of mind and body, and a willingness to sacrifice, to not even own wealth, lest they fall prey to corruption and graft. This structure transcends oligarchy and monarchy, even democracy and other forms of governance subject to nepotism and corruption. This is not a caste system, however. Children of these rulers, if unfit, cannot serve; those from warrior or merchant classes can move up into this class if they demonstrate the same fitness. Many today recoil from this portion of Plato but it is a framework worth pondering (some in fact have made the case that Plato himself did not take this too seriously, but was using the opportunity to satirize the corruption of the Athenian city-state and take the piss out of it). Nevertheless, this declaration is FIRE: “Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in one, and those commoner natures who pursue either to the exclusion of the other are compelled to stand aside, cities will never have rest from their evils—no, nor the human race, as I believe—and then only will this our State have a possibility of life and behold the light of day.”

Finally, there is heroism of the highest sort to be found in Plato. Socrates could have fled his execution, and in fact had ample opportunity to do so, but refused. He faces his death with equanimity and perfect clarity, because he has been condemned by his beloved city of Athens. To run would be to deny orderly society in favor of individual selfishness, and thereby debase himself. It’s so damned noble, exhibiting a degree of principle most will never fully comprehend, let alone live out. Yet this is what Plato encourages us to do, and what makes him worth reading today.

RIP Neal Adams

Every year in May I go to a major conference that takes me out of action for the better part of a week. And when I say out of action, I mean I'm up early and going straight on through the night with dinners and receptions. So shit gets missed, or put on the back burner until I can get back home and come up for air.

One of those events was the passing of the great comics artist Neal Adams.

Rather than try to recap Adams' impact and extraordinary art, I'll just point you in the direction of Deuce Richardson's fine tribute over on the blog of DMR Books. Deuce is one of the best, maybe the best, at this kind of thing--recapping careers, digging up rare and extraordinary art, and packaging it all together in a personal, moving style that makes you realize he is a true fan and aficionado. So go do that, and tip back a cold one in honor of the late Neal Adams this weekend.

I'm borrowing one of the images from Deuce's post because it's new to me, and facially it might capture Conan's smoldering savagery better than anything I've seen before.

This next one from Savage Tales might be my favorite, but Adams left a legacy far too large to sum up in any one image.

Podcasted on Friends of the Merrill Collection

Last year I did a podcast interview with Oliver Brackenbury, host of Unknown Worlds of the Merril Collection. I remember having fun with this one and taking a pretty deep dive into sword-and-sorcery on it, including writing Flame and Crimson and speculation on the future of the genre.

The episode is now live and you can listen here. Give it a listen!

My top 5 Frank Frazetta paintings

Frank Frazetta is to the art of sword-and-sorcery what Robert E. Howard is to its soul. He’s the visual OG. Not the first S&S artist, but the one who captured its essence better than anyone before or since, likely ever. Pair him up with REH and it’s no wonder we had the Lancer Conan Saga boom of the 1960s.

I have a framed print of The Apparition (1969), cover art for the John Jakes novel Brak the Barbarian Versus the Sorceress, hanging up in my man-cave. I found it in an old comics store back in the 80s. It’s a bit faded but has lost none of its power. It’s a great painting but not one of my all-time favorite Frazettas, an indication of just how much awesome work he did over the course of his more than 60-year professional career.

Inspired by a recent interview with Schuyler Hernstrom in which the author of The Eye of Sounnu was sitting in front of one my favorite Frazetta paintings, I figured it was time for a top 5 list. Here they are, in no particular order.

Against the Gods (1967)

Against the Gods was the cover image for the Lin Carter paperback Thongor Against the Gods. What makes this one stand out is its stunning composition, the feeling you get of up—above the flight of an eagle, above the highest peak, this promethean figure, arms upraised, catching lightning from the heavens. It’s a moving depiction of achievement, man at his utmost heights channeling the elemental forces of nature.

The Barbarian (1966)

Again, the composition—that triangle of corpses, the curvaceous female grasping a thigh, culminating in Conan himself at the top of the pyramid, rugged arm and hand downthrust on the pommel of a gory sword. It’s the barbarian, triumphant, and the iconic depiction of Howard’s most famous creation. I also love the stylized background imagery, the skulls and lonely castle, which add an air of pulpy weirdness to the iconic tableaux.

Chained (1967)

This image from Conan the Usurper inspired me as a kid to get in the weight room. I love the rippling, deep muscles of Conan’s back, striving against chains. Bridled but soon to be unbridled power, as you know he’s going to burst his bonds before that snake can strike. By the way that huge snake, between his legs, make of it what you will. The lighting in this one is particularly effective, illuminating some touches in a creepy dungeon and the skeletal remains of previous victims.

Conan Man-Ape (1967)

This one to me has always felt like a camera capture of figures in motion, the swirl of combat of Rogues in the House. Add in the startling color contrasts—a dark background set against the brilliant red of Thak’s cape, Conan’s white eyes and teeth set and flashing, as that wicked poniard is poised to strike—it all adds up to stunning. A primal image of conflict, man vs. (man-like) beast.

Death Dealer II (1987)

I know the original mounted Death Dealer is the more iconic image, used by Molly Hatchet as the cover of their self-titled debut album, but I prefer Death Dealer II. The upraised axe, Gath of Baal’s downturned menacing red eyes, ready to deal an irresistible blow. That horned helmet is so cool. The pillar of smoke, and the wonderful lighting illuminating the tangled ghoulish creatures below, make this one scream sword-and-sorcery.

A couple honorable mentions: 1972’s Silver Warrior (come on, a chariot pulled by polar bears?) and Kane on the Golden Sea (1978), my favorite image of KEW’s iconic character, although Bloodstone is close.

What are yours?

On suspect art, sword-and-sorcery, and good storytelling

Confession: I really like the old forms of S&S. I love my old purple-edged Lancers, and Heavy Metal (the movie, and bands like Manowar). I enjoy titillation and violence, with a cold beer for company. I like muscular dudes and attractive lasses in my artwork (not exclusively, but I do love the style championed by Frank Frazetta). I even love old S&S movies for their awfulness, in a mocking MST3K way. I enjoyed Deathstalker 2. 

I was born in 1973 which means my childhood and teenage years were spent in the 70s and 80s. I readily admit that I wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to art and pop detritus of that era. In general I try to focus on being positive and grateful for this life and everything in it, even suspect art. I like loud, and dumb things. Good things too, including Art (with a capital A), Shakespeare and Milton and Ernest Hemingway. But, I also like 80s hair metal, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s entire film oeuvre up to about The Last Action Hero, and of course sword-and-sorcery. Make of this what you will. 

Moreover I am, for better and arguably for worse, pretty forgiving of old fiction for its warts. I cannot fault REH for his occasional bigotry and racism, given the age and place in which he grew up. Expecting an author to transcend their place and time is not realistic. Wagging your finger at people from a long ago past who were suffused in different belief systems and social norms often comes across as sanctimonious. We all have skeletons (I know I do). And, I happen to think the positive contributions Howard made far outweighs the negative. Very few authors of fantasy can match his natural storytelling instincts, pace, poetic flourishes, and wild romance. I can count them on one hand, minus a couple fingers.

So, I will not reject Howard, or Leiber, or old S&S. As in, ever. I won’t rug-sweep S&S’ faults and will gladly talk about them. I love the academic work on these issues being done by the likes of Bobby Derie. These issues should be spoken about at conferences, written about, and generally acknowledged. But, I think these authors should still be read, and celebrated, and championed, at the end of the day. They have endured for a reason.

Social issues are important for most, and critical, maybe everything, for some. I respect that. There is a place for these battles to be fought. But when these are fought on every front, including sword-and-sorcery, I find it tiresome. Your mileage may vary.

I’m a fatigued Facebook ex-pat who turns to this type of fiction, and other pursuits (music, exercise, my kids’ sporting events) to get away from the constant, non-stop fighting, the civil war, that is social media.  

Whether or not you can truly put politics aside and write apolitical fiction is another debate for another day, but I do think it can be de-emphasized, and the focus placed where it should be—on story.

When it comes to sword-and-sorcery, good storytelling is really all that matters at the end of the day. Not a precisely worded definition of S&S, or following established rules of the game. Good stories will prevail over marketing. Unimaginative, derivative, or bland, safe writing will doom the genre, just as it did with S&S in the 70s and 80s. You need to have an edge on S&S, lest it become milquetoast and fail to scratch the heroic itch, and urge, in us.

In summary.

Write good stories. 

Take your influences, and create something new. Write for you. As an individual.

Make it impossible for readers not to be moved by your stories, and to talk about them.

Write good stories. The rest will take care of itself.

Defending 80s KISS

Big hair, and hair shirts.

According to some "fans" (I won’t name names—yet), KISS was only good in the 70s, and once the makeup came off they were irrelevant. The same types think that KISS is entirely a gimmick, a circus act that, minus the costumes and fireworks, would be forgotten to history.

Needless to say I don’t agree with this argument, and push back hard on it. I would never compare KISS to Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, nor even the better metal acts (Maiden, Priest). But nor would KISS, frankly. They’re a party rock band who happened to do that type of music as well or better than anyone. They know this, we know this, we’re all in on it together. And having fun.

I started listening to KISS somewhere around the dawning of my interest in rock music, 1987 or so, circa my freshman year in high school. The first KISS album I ever owned was Crazy Nights. By then, KISS had long been out of makeup, shorn away two members of the original band (and a few others like Mark St. John and Vinny Vincent had also come and gone). In place of fan favorites Peter Criss and Ace Frehley were Eric Carr and Bruce Kulick. 

I knew KISS from the likes of Beth and Rock and Roll All Nite, but it wasn’t until 1987 and Crazy Nights that I became a true fan. So, I categorically reject the argument that KISS is a gimmick who roped in kids with the makeup. I’m sure that occurred in some instances, but come on, be serious—how long can that infatuation and shock stage possibly last? A year, three, 10? Surely not 50 years. A wave of trash bands with more shock and awe came along in KISS’ wake, and today no one remembers them. Underneath it all, KISS wrote a lot of good, straightforward rock-and-roll that kept the fans coming back. Simple stuff, yes. But if writing commercial rock hits were easy everyone would be doing it. 

KISS was of course awesome in the 70s, taking a rocket ride straight to the top with the likes of KISS Alive. They were on lunchboxes, comic books, even starred in a terrible made for TV film (KISS Meets the Phantom of the Park). And, underneath the limousines and seven-inch leather heels, they wrote some of their best material in the 70s. Hard rock hits like Parasite, Strutter, Deuce, and Detroit Rock City, were great then and still are. Everyone loved KISS in the 70s—how could you not?

I do too. But, I’ve always had a soft spot for 80s KISS. Maybe it’s the nostalgia of my Crazy Nights tape, which I still have by the way. Maybe it’s one too many beers in the 90s, or in general a suspect taste in music. 

Possibly, but I don’t think so.

I actually think KISS peaked musically in the mid-80s. Eric Carr was without question a better drummer than Peter Criss. Ace Frehley is an underrated talent who wrote some iconic solos and hooks, but Kulick can play, and at this point was far more disciplined in his craft than the dissolute Frehley. KISS was also facing much stiffer competition from younger, more energetic bands like Van Halen, and had to step up their game. To its credit KISS delivered with some awesome music in the 80s.

I’m going to leave one example, right here.

I love this song. Paul sounds phenomenal. In the 80s he grew fully into this voice. This was his  best decade vocally. The guitar tone is perfect. The deep backing chorus is magnificent. The lyrics are what I want—empowerment, girl you messed up when you left me ‘cuz I’m the best, stuff I wanted to hear then, and still has a place now. It’s got power and punch. It’s better than just about anything you’ll hear on the radio these days but that’s not saying much, either.

I could go on and on with further examples. A few others: Creatures of the Night, War Machine, Lick it Up, Fits Like A Glove. KISS had it going on.

KISS was undoubtedly less popular in the 80s, ceding space in the limelight to the likes of Def Leppard. By the turn of the decade they already seemed a little old, perhaps a little out of touch. And they hurt themselves with a pair of turkeys out of the gate (I like a couple songs off 1980’s Unmasked and the ill-fated The Elder (1981), but no fan would call these largely lousy efforts their finest hour). But, for those who kept listening, after some initial stumbles they soon started putting out some really good material. It started with Creatures of the Night (1982), which holds up as an outstanding example of 80s hard rock/nosing up to heavy metal. I think it’s one of their best albums, ever. KISS continued to crush it on Lick It Up (1983), which got big props from the likes of Kerrang. Animalize (1984) was a step back, but who doesn’t love “Heaven’s on Fire” and the terribly underrated “Thrills in the Night,” one of my favorite all-time KISS tracks? Asylum (1985) had “Tears are Falling” and “Who Wants to be Lonely.” (“Uh! All Night,” a song about as subtle as a Penthouse centerfold, is embarrassing, but not really). Then of course came 1987s Crazy Nights, with its rousing anthemic title track, “Reason to Live” and my favorite, “Turn on the Night.” Which still makes it into my regular rotation when I want to hear KISS. 

KISS closed out the decade with Hot in the Shade (1989), which I don’t think holds up as well as the previous albums I’ve listed, a bit of whimper to be honest, but since I danced with my wife to “Forever” at our wedding, because of “Hide Your Heart” and “Rise to It,” AND because it was the first tour on which I saw KISS, it still holds a soft spot in my hard heart.

So there you go. 80s KISS. You probably won’t find too many riding out to the defense of the band in the decade of excess. I can’t defend the most garish of Paul’s outfits (green sleeve gloves and tight white jeans?), his trapeze acts, or Gene’s hair. But their music? Yeah, I’ll defend that.

First Blood, David Morrell

Don't push it, or I'll give you a war you can't believe.

Growing up in the 80s, surrounded by larger-than-life action heroes, one of my favorite films was First Blood. The first in what would become the “Rambo series” was my favorite, darker and more serious than its sequels. First Blood and John Rambo became a minor obsession among my friends, one of whom got hold of a “special forces” knife with the wicked serrated back edge and a hollowed-out handle where he stored a needle and thread—just in case we needed battlefield stitches. You never know.

As most know First Blood tells the story of a special forces soldier, John Rambo (played wonderfully by Sylvester Stallone), coping with post-traumatic stress syndrome from a brutal stint in Vietnam in which he was captured and tortured. Now stateside and adrift, a post-war vagrant, he just wants to be left alone, but quickly runs afoul of an overzealous small-town chief of police (Brian Dennehy), who ushers him unceremoniously out of town.

Pushed too far and humiliated, Rambo refuses to acquiesce, and turns back. That sets in motion the events of the rest of the film—a rousing jailbreak, a cat-and-mouse game in the mountains of Washington State with Rambo using his survival skills honed as a Green Beret to maim (but not kill) his pursuers. 

I loved the film, and still do. But all this time I had never read the book upon which it is based—David Morrell’s First Blood. Published in 1972, it was out a full 10 years before the film adaptation, which spent the better part of a decade in “production hell” before finally making it to the silver screen.

I recently got a hold of a copy of Morrell’s novel and rectified that, burning through a read in all of 2 nights. I enjoyed the heck out of it and was surprised by the differences from book to film. Chiefly, that Rambo turns on a blood spigot and kills at least 20 of his pursuers, maybe more. Holy hell there is a lot of killing, including a pack of dogs hard on his scent. There is also more characterization. Teasle, the police chief, is portrayed far more sympathetically and three-dimensionally in the book than the film. Morell places a heavy emphasis on his service in the Korean War, a sad separation from his wife, and his obsession and eventual identification with Rambo. I won’t spoil the ending but that is also quite different, and much grimmer, than we see in the film.

 Otherwise the movie follows most of the major beats of the book.

I have this edition... 
but not the knife.

Make no mistake, like the film the book is mainly pure action, unrelenting page-turning glory. There is a deeper and more serious undercurrent, commentary on the invisible scars soldiers often bear (made doubly hard on the veterans of the war in Vietnam, an unpopular and unfavorable conflict that most of the U.S. populace either wanted to sweep under the rug and forget, in some cases treating its returning Veterans with disdain). But principally it grabs you from the opening page with a compelling pace and refuses to let up with its action.

As a sword-and-sorcery fan headlong action and violence is part of what I enjoy in my reading. And First Blood scratches the same itch. In fact, outside of being set in modern times, there are several S&S parallels—an outsider protagonist, suffused with gray, wandering from place-to-place. Low stakes/survival plot. We even get a “dungeon crawl,” a hair-raising sequence in a cave where Rambo encounters filth and bats, rats, the skeleton of an unlucky miner. And a final showdown with Teasle and his men. The equally shared POV between Rambo and Teasle is not something we typically see in S&S but it could work.

Near the end of the book Colonel Trautmann, architect of Rambo’s Green Beret training (played in the film by Richard Crenna), offers up an interesting commentary on why the modern age is anathema to sword-and-sorcery heroes. With the manhunt in full swing, Trautmann—who is both helping Teasle capture Rambo, while also admiring his pupil’s incredible survival skills—laments the coming “machine” that will spell the end of heroism:

“In a few years a search like this won’t even be necessary. We have instruments now that can be mounted on the underside of an airplane. To find a man all you need to do is fly over the spot where you think he is, and the machine will register his body heat… a man on the run won’t have a hope. And a man like me, he won’t be needed. This is the last of something. It’s too bad. As much as I hate war, I fear the day when machines take the place of men. At least now a man can still get along on his talents.”

Morrell, now 78, has lived an interesting life. A former university professor, he gave up his tenure to pursue a career as writer. First Blood earned him a handsome payout from the movie rights and he went on to write novelizations of the ensuing films. He also wrote horror (winning an award from the Horror Writers Association), non-fiction, and for the comics (Captain America, Spider-Man, Wolverine). A pretty cool mid-list author success story, increasingly rare these days.