The Monster and the Critics

J. R. R. Tolkien is best known as the author of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. This nearly everyone knows. What many might not know is that Tolkien wrote a good many essays. Beyond being the author of two classic, 20th century novels (The Lord of the Rings actually being a novel published in three volumes, rather than three separate novels), Tolkien was also professor of Anglo-Saxon language (today better known as "Old English") at Pembroke College from 1925 to 1945 and professor of English Language and Literature at Merton College from 1945 to 1959, both colleges being at Oxford. Quite naturally, Tolkien wrote essays in his chosen fields.

Many of these essays were collected together and published in The Monster and the Critics in 1983, ten years after his death. The Monster and the Critics is a must read not only for Tolkien fans, but for anyone interested in the English language, English literature, and English mythology. Featured prominently at the beginning of the book is Tolkien's 1936 lecture "Beowulf: the Monsters and the Critics." With the exception of Lord of the Rings, this could well be Tolkien's greatest and most influential work. Prior to "Beowulf: the Monsters and the Critics", studies of Beowulf largely focused on the language of the poem and it was treated as a source of Anglo-Saxon history. At the time most scholars downplayed the poem's fantastic elements (such as Grendel and his Mother). Tolkien argued that these elements were pivotal to the poem and focused instead on the very poem itself. "Beowulf: the Monsters and the Critics" is widely seen as a turning point in the study of the poem. Beyond redirecting scholars' focus on the poem from its linguistic elements to the actual content of the poem, Tolkien established that it was indeed one of the greatest works written in the English language.

Although the other essays in The Monster and the Critics were not quite as influential as "Beowulf: the Monsters and the Critics," they are well worth reading nonetheless. "On Translating Beowulf" was written for the 1940 edition of Beowulf and the Finnesburg Fragment (J. Clark Hall and C. L. Wrenn) and focuses on the difficulty of translating the poem into modern English. It is a fascinating read for anyone interested in the English language. Like "Beowulf: the Monsters and the Critics," "On Fairy Stories" has also had a lasting influence. This essay is Toklien's defence of the fantasy genre. He argues that the genre allows readers to look at their own world from the point of view of other worlds. In this way the assumptions one had always held about the world can be challenged and changed by yet another point of view. Tolkien further argues that works of fantasy (or as he terms them, "fairy stories") can be enjoyed as escapist literature. Finally, he argues that they can serve as a source of emotional reassurance, their happy endings offering hope to the reader. First published in 1947, "On Fairy Stories " has been used ever since then as a defence of the fantasy genre. The essay also contains Tolkien's thoughts and philosophy regarding the genre, thus letting the reader look into the mind of one of the most influential writers of the 20th century.

"Secret Vices," a lecture which Tolkien gave in 1930 at an Esperanto meeting, is on the construction of languages. It deals with the relation of languages and mythology. It also offers insight to the workings of Tolkien's mind regarding his own contructed languages (Quenya and Sindarin). "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight" is a study of that poem, written as an introduction to his own translation. "English and Welsh" was a valedictory speech that Tolkien gave to the University of Oxford in 1955, explaining the origins of the term "Welsh." It is important in giving us Tolkien's own thoughts on language and linguistics.

The Monster and the Critics brings together some of Tolkien's best and most important essays. They are well worth reading for any Tolkien fan, giving insight into the workings of Tolkien's mind and his thoughts on language, linguistics, mythology, and fantasy. They are also a must read for anyone interested in the English language and mythology. Beyond being one of the most influential authors of fictions in the 20th century, Tolkien was also one of the most influential scholars of English language and literature.

The Seinfeld Curse?

With the debut of Julia Louis-Dreyfus's new sitcom, The New Adventures of Old Christine, there has been renewed talk of the "Seinfeld Curse." Supposedly, the Seinfeld Curse is a curse whereby none of the alumni of that sitcom can have another successful show. And, on the surface, it might well appear that they are cursed. Louis-Dreyfus has aleady had one attempt at another show--Watching Ellie, which lasted less than one season on NBC. Like Dreyfus, Jason Alexander has tried two shows since Seinfeld ended--Bob Patterson, which lasted but a few weeks during the 2001-2002 season, and the recently cancelled Listen Up , which at least managed to last a season and a half. Michael Richards' Michael Richards Show also lasted only a few weeks. Given the short lives of these shows, it is perhaps easy for many to conclude that the veterans of Seinfeld are under a curse. That having been said, I don't think this is the case.

Let's face it, there are only a few actors who have starred in more than one successful sitcom. Off the top of my head I can only think of a few. Following I Love Lucy, Lucille Ball saw success with both The Lucy Show and Here's Lucy. Bob Denver had already starred in the hit The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis before being immortalised as Gilligan. Michael J. Fox had success with both Family Ties and Spin City, while Howard Hesseman went from WKRP in Cincinnati to Head of the Class. Of course, Bob Newhart had success with The Bob Newhart Show and Newhart, although subsequent series failed. There are no doubt more actors who have had more than one successful sitcom (Ted Danson and Kelsey Grammer also comes to mind), but my point is that actors who have had only one successful sitcom far outnumber those who have had more than one.

Indeed, for a prime example of an actor who starred in a successful sitcom but never repeated that success, one need look no further than Maclean Steveson. Stevenson left M*A*S*H only a few seasons after it had become a hit series. Afterwards he never again played in a hit series, despite repeated attempts. The Maclean Stevenson Show, In the Beginning, Hello Larry, Condo, and the TV version of Dirty Dancing all failed, and miserably at that. Stevenson may be unique for having as many series failed as he did, but he is not alone in not being able to repeat his previous success. Don Adams played Maxwell Smart in the classic Get Smart. The show was critically acclaimed and even received Emmy awards. But Adams never repeated that show's success. His syndicated sitcom Check It Out ran three years, but it was never a ratings winner. A sequel to Get Smart, Get Smart Again, survived only a few weeks on Fox. If it wasn't for the animated Inspector Gadget, Get Smart would have been his last hit. Andy Griffith starred in one of the most successful shows of all time, The Andy Griffith Show, but did not have another hit series until Matlock, a mystery series rather than a sitcom.

In fact, one need look no further than the classic show Cheers for examples of how hard it is to have another hit. George Wendt failed with no less than three shows following Cheers. The George Wendt Show, The Naked Truth, and Modern Men all bombed. Shelly Long, who left the series at the height of its success, had no success with Kelly Kelly. Rhea Perlman struck out with both Pearl and Kate Brasher. Of the cast of Cheers, only Ted Danson and Kelsey Grammer were able to repeat their television success. And it took Ted Danson more than one try. His series Ink failed before he found some degree of success with Becker. Of course, Kelsey Grammer went onto success with Fraiser, one of the few spinoffs that was as successful as the original series.

The truth is that it is simply very hard to find success for a sitcom, or any other type of TV series, for that matter. Out of the many TV shows that debut each fall, only a few will survive to last a season. And out of those series lucky enough to last a season, only a few will survive more than one. In fact, I have read estimates that as many as 80% of all shows debuting in any given season will flop. Looking at these odds, an actors who have even one hit show under their belt should count themselves lucky! Quite simply television is a very competitive business in which the majority of shows simply will not last. Shows such as I Love Lucy, Bewitched, and Cheers, which last for several seasons and then go on to be rerun ad infinitum are very, very rare. Given this fact, it is perhaps no surprise that none of the veterans of Seinfeld have met with success since that show left the air. It is simply the odds of having a hit show, not some curse, which has left them without a single hit series following the success of Seinfeld.

Star Wars

I must confess to one grave oversight I have made in this blog. I have never written much about Star Wars. Make no mistake, I have always been a huge Star Wars fan, ever since I first saw Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope in the theatre in 1977. The complete saga is perhaps the greatest work of space opera ever acheived on film.

The first I ever heard of Star Wars was in the pages of a Marvel comic book. I don't even remember which comic book it was, or even if I read about it in the Bullpen Bulletin (remember those?) or in a letter column. What I do remember is reading about the new movie the director of American Graffiti, the soon to be very famous George Lucas, had in the works. It was titled Star Wars: From The Adventures Of Luke Starkiller. Of course, "Luke Starkiller" would eventually become "Luke Skywalker" and the movie would eventually be renamed Stars Wars Episode IV: A New Hope.

It would be quite some time before I heard anymore about Star Wars. In fact, my next exposure to Star Wars would be the novelisation of the motion picture. In an unusual move, the novelisation was published in December 1976, a full six months before the motion picture was released. The novel was entitled Star Wars: From the Adventures of of Luke Skywalker and was credited to George Lucas. In reality, it was ghost written by science fiction writer Alan Dean Foster, drawing upon Lucas's script. In early 1976 I happened to see the novelisation on my then brother in law's bookshelf. I remembered reading about Star Wars in a Marvel Comic book and I was intrigued by the cover, in which Darth Vader figured prominently. I borrowed the novel from my brother in law and immediately found myself drawn into Lucas's creation. There was no doubt about it. This was a movie I wanted to see.

While I was fascinated by the novel, it did not generate that much interest. Only 100,000 copies were printed. I think it is safe to say no one, not even George Lucas, expected the reaction to the film. It was released on Wednesday, May 22, 1977. And almost immediately it proved to be a phenomenon. People were standing in long lines just to see the movie. My brother and I did so when we went to see it at the matinee. I still remember the date. It was Sunday, May 29, 1977, only five days after the film had been released. Star Wars would go onto become the highest grossing film for some time.

Like many people I found myself fascinated by Star Wars. I bought the books. I bought the comic books. I bought the poster. I even bought the action figures, even though I was far too old for toys at that point. And like many I eagerly awaited the release of its sequel, Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back.

It would turn out to be one of the few Star Wars movies to measure up to A New Hope. In fact, until the release of Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, it was my favourite Star Wars film of all time. Like many I was somewhat disappointed with Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi. I thought Boba Fett died all too swiftly. Given the build up the character had been given, I'd thought he'd have a larger role in the movie. And like many I found the Ewoks a bit annoying.

For many years it would seem as if that would be the end of Star Wars on film. Initially, with the success of Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, Lucas had considered doing twelve Star Wars movies. By 1979, however, he decided to only do nine films--three would take place prior to the original (and techically second trilogy) and three would take place afterwards. Following the release of Return of the Jedi, Lucas decided that he would make no more Star Wars films. All of this would change in 1995, when Lucas announced that he would make three prequels (Episodes I-III). The first Star Wars film in 16 years, Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace was released on May 19, 1999. Many people were disappointed in the first prequel, and the film was sometimes attacked by fans as well as critics. Perhaps the single most common complaint was that of the character of Jar Jar Binks, regarded by many as the single most annoying character in the Star Wars saga. Another criticism was directed at the idea that Anakin as a small boy could do such things as build C-3PO and pilot spaceships. Yet another criticism was the introduction of the idea of "midichlorians," mysterious organisms found in all living things that allow communications with the Force. I must admit that I was one of the fans somewhat disappointed by Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, particularly because of Jar Jar Binks...

Most fans found Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones to be an improvement over The Phantom Menace, although some were still disappointed. Personally, the only thing that really disappointed me about the film was the romance between Anakin and Padme. George Lucas's dialogue in the romance scenes simply seemed wooden to me. And in this film Natalie Portman (usually a very good actress) seemed to sleepwalk through her performance as Padme. This made the scenes between Anakin and Padme seem very unromantic to me. The romance aside, however, there is much I like about the film. Indeed, the fight between Yoda and Count Dooku (played by the great Christopher Lee) is one of the best scenes in any of the movies.

Fortunately, it would seem Lucas left the best for last. Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith is, in my humble opinion, the best of the films. Hayden Christensen, Natalie Portman, Ewan McGregor, and Ian McDiarmid all give excellent performances. The love scenes are heartfelt and genuine. And the transformation of Anakin Skywalker to Darth Vader is realistically handled. The action scenes are among the best in the series. In fact, the only real complaint I have is that the film could actually have been longer. In fact, there is enough material in there for two films!

Of course, Star Wars is not just about the films. Marvel Comics adapted A New Hope and the launched their own Star Wars series afterwards. They proved enormously successful, becoming the first comics to sell over a million copies since Batman comic books at the height of Batmania in 1966. Despite their success, I never really cared too much for Marvel's Star Wars comic books. They simply did not seem like the real Star Wars to me. Indeed, I seem to recall that they departed from the mythos a good deal. Since then Dark Horse has taken over the franchise and has done a much better job with it.

There have also been tons of Star Wars books beyond the expected novelisations of the movies. Indeed, the first sequel to A New Hope was not The Empire Strikes Back, but the novel Splinter of the Mind's Eye written by Alan Dean Foster. Since then entire series based on the movies have been published, from the Jedi Quest series to The Clone Wars series to series centred on such characters as Boba Fett and Darth Maul. I haven't read near that many Star Wars novels, although I have a friend who I swear has read all of them (no mean feat, given how many books there are...).

Star Wars even made its way onto television. Many might remember the abomination known as The Star Wars Holiday Special, which aired only once on CBS on November 17, 1978. It was so poorly done that George Lucas has largely disowned it. It is significant for one reason. It marked the first appearance of Boba Fett, in an animated sequence made by Candadian animation company Nelvana. There were also two made for TV movies featuring the Ewoks that aired in the early Eighties. There were even Saturday morning cartoons. Star Wars: Droids and Star Wars: Ewoks both debuted on September 7, 1985. Since then there has been The Clone Wars animated series which has aired on the Cartoon Network. Lucas even announced a planned live action TV series that would fill the gap btween Revenge of the Sith and A New Hope.

Of course, there have also been the action figures, video games, role playing games, collectible cards, and so on. Forbes Magazine in 2005 estimated that Star Wars had earned $20 billion in its history. Naturally, to do that Star Wars had to have a strong fan base. Late night comedians would sometimes have one believe that the average Star Wars fan is a socially challenged male living in his parents' basement, who has never kissed a girl (much less gotten laid). I have to wonder if they aren't confusing Star Wars fans with Trekkies...(I'm only joking; I am a Star Trek fan myself...). First, not all Star Wars fans are male. I probably know as many women who are into Star Wars as I do men. Second, I know of no Star Wars fans who have never kissed a member of the opposite sex and still live in their parents' basement. Fans of the franchise seem to come in all shapes and sizes. I know a happily married couple who are both Star Wars fans (my best friend and his wife--he's the one who's read every single Star Wars novel). I had another friend (now dead, sadly) who was a multitalented, professional artist. The absolute biggest Star Wars fan I know is a very beautiful, green eyed blonde with three children who runs an art gallery...hardly a nerd living in the basement!

I suppose the big question is why was Star Wars such a huge success on the release of A New Hope and has continued to be so successful nearly thirty years after the first film's release? I think much of the reason is that Lucas consciously drew upon folklore and mythological motifs in fashioning the Star Wars saga. It is well known that Lucas drew heavily upon the works of mythologist Joseph Campbell to create the films. Indeed, one need look no further than the character of Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader for an example of a folklore motif at work--that of the Faustian bargain. Such motifs became motifs in the first place because they speak to the human condition. In metaphorical terms they portray many of the struggles and problems we human beings face in our lives.

It must also be pointed out that Lucas drew heavily upon pop culture. The influence of Akira Kurosawa's movies The Hidden Fortress and Seven Samurai, as well as Frank Herbert's Dune series, is well known. And, of course, Star Wars also draws heavily upon such previous space operas as Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers.

Star Wars is arguably the most successful film series of all time. Given that it drew heavily upon folklore, mythology, and pop culture, I think it is easy to see why. In doing so, the Star Wars series resonates more with people than, say, the Bond series or even Star Trek. Its characters have long become a part of pop culture--I doubt that there is an American alive who does not recognise Darth Vader. As to myself, it remains my favourite film series of all time. I must admit that I wish George Lucas would make yet another trilogy....

V For Vendetta (the Film)

"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people." (V, from the movie V For Vendetta)

"Remember, remember the fifth of November
The gunpowder treason and plot.
I see no reason why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot." (Traditional Guy Fawkes Day Rhyme)

Tonight I went to see V For Vendetta, the new film written by the Wachowski Brothers (of The Matrix fame) and based on the graphic novel by Alan Moore and David Lloyd. The film has been advertised as an "Uncompromising Vision of the Future." For once, a movie's tagline isn't simple hyperbole.

Like the graphic novel upon which it is based, V For Vendetta takes place in a futuristic Britain where a fascist government is in control. Against this totalitarian government arises a lone freedom fighter, V, who has patterned himself after the notorious Guy Fawkes. For those of you who don't know your English history, on November 5, 1605, Guy Fawkes attempted to blow up Parliament using a copious amount of gunpowder. Wearing a Guy Fawkes mask, V starts his vendetta against the fascist government with a "bonfire" like no one has ever seen... In some respects, it's Batman meets 1984 meets The Phantom of the Opera...

From this description, many might think that V For Vendetta is a simple action movie. Nothing could be further from the truth. Like Moore and Lloyd's original graphic novel, V For Vendetta is full of ideas. Is V simply a terrorist or a freedom fighter? Do V's ends justify the means with which he carries out his vendetta against the fascist government? Is this movie simply a possible vision of the future or a commentary on current political situation? These and many other questions are posed by V For Vendetta. Indeed, it is perhaps the most subversive movie to have ever been produced by a Hollywood studio. I rather suspect that Bill O'Reilly will probably hate the film...

Without giving away any spoilers, I must say that purists who are expecting a faithful adatption of the graphic novel are going to be sorely disappointed. While V For Vendetta is much more loyal to its source material than other adaptations of Moore's works (From Hell and The League of Extraordinary Gentleman). Indeed, some of the scenes are taken directly from the graphic novel. That having been said, there were changes in the character of Evey Hammond, in how the fascist state came to power in Britain, and in even to some degree in the character of V (he does not express nearly as much anarchist philosphy as he does in the graphic novel). The reaction of the graphic novel's creators to these changes were mixed. Writer Alan Moore was so angered by the changes that he had his name removed from the credits of the film. On the other hand, illustrator David Lloyd has given the film his blessing and has been very vocal in his approval. My own personal take is that some changes were necessary in the film. The original graphic novel was publshed in 1989 and meant as an indictment against the Thatcher administration. A lot of things have changed since then and for the film to be relevant to today's audiences some aspects of the plot had to be altered.

Regardless, V for Vendetta is a very good film. Hugo Weaving is perfect as V. Clad in the Guy Fawkes mask for nearly all of the film, he expresses V's inner emotions with body language and his voice. Even considering his roles as Agent Smith in The Matrix Trilogy and Elrond in The Lord of the Rings trilogy, this could well be his best role yet. Natalie Portman also does well as Evey Hammond, who is alternately fascinated with and shocked by the audacious V. The largely British supporting cast of V For Vendetta also give excellent performances. While John Hurt is impressive as High Chancellor Suttler, the best performances of the supporting players are given by Tim Piggot-Smith (who has previously appeared in Gangs of New York and The Four Feathers) and Stephen Fry (perhaps best known as Jeeves from the series Jeeves and Wooster and a veteran of many films and TV shows). Piggot-Smith gives a chilling performance as Creedy, the head of the secret police (who reminds me a bit of Dick Cheney...). As to Stephen Fry, he is delightful as Gordon Dietrich, a British television comedian with a lot to hide and everything to lose (he is one of the few sympathetic characters in the film).

V For Vendetta is the first film helmed by James McTeigue (who served as assistant director on both The Matrix Trilogy and Star Wars Episodes I-III). For a first time director he shows that he has already mastered his art. While McTeigue gives us some excellent action sequences, at the same he insures that those action sequences do not overpower the ideas that are central to film.

V For Vendetta does have its weakness, perhaps the greatest of which is suspending disbelief that one man (even assisted by Evey) can do so much. But then I suppose it must be kept in mind that in many respects the movie, like the graphic novel, is a parable. And like the graphic novel, among its themes are that one individual can make a difference.

V For Vendetta is a powerful film. I rather suspect that it will be an uncomfortable movie for many to watch (as I said, Bill O'Reilley will not like this movie...). But it is also a film that poses some important questions and does so in a way that is both entertaining and visually impressive. I really cannot recommend this movie enough.

Greatly Exaggerated Deaths

"The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."--Mark Twain

I have good news for fans of comedian and actor Will Ferrell. He is not dead. On Tuesday a hoax press release, in which it was claimed Ferrell had been killed in a freak paragliding accident, was published on the website iNewswire.com. According to the release, Ferrell was killed when a gust of wind came up, and Ferrel and a companion were blown into a heavily wooded area at around 60 miles per hour. Despite the fact that the news release was filled with grammatical and spelling errors, despite the fact that news of the actor's "death" was not reported in any of the major news outlets, and despite the fact that Ferrell is still very much alive, rumours of his death soon spread across the internet. iNewswire has since yanked the prank news release.

For many rumours of the still very much alive Ferrell's death might seem strange, but rumours of the death of celebrities is nothing new. Indeed, it happened to none other than Mark Twain, possibly the greatest American writer of all time. In 1897, Twain visited his cousin James Ross Clemens, who was seriously ill, in London. Somehow this became construed that Twain himself was ill. As a result, the New York Journal published news of Twain's "death" well before he had passed on (in 1910, for the curious). Twain, with his typical wit, responded with the above quote.

At least Mark Twain was famous when his death was erroneously reported. Frank Gorshin was still an up and coming comic when his death was reported much too soon. In 1957, well before he would find everlasting fame as The Riddler on the Sixties series Batman, Frank Gorshin was in an auto accident in which he fractured his skull and after which he was in a coma for four days. Several Los Angeles newspapers reported that the upcoming comic and actor was killed in the wreck.

While Mark Twain and Frank Gorshin's deaths were only erroneously reported once, Bob Hope had the dubious honour of having his death erroneously reported twice before he actually died. In 1998 a pre-written obituary somehow made its way onto the Associated Press website. As a result Hope's "death" was even announced in the United States House of Representatives! In 2003, another pre-written obituary of Hope, along with those of other celebrities, was published on CNN's website when their password protection failed.

At least Twain, Gorshin, and Hope's "deaths" were misreported by the press. And even Will Ferrell can blame reports of his "demise" on a website. Often rumours of a celebrity's death spring from nowhere. And more often than not these urban legends have a morbid twist. In the Seventies one of the more popular urban legends was that Susan Olsen, famous as Cindy Brady on The Brady Bunch was killed when her pigtails (or in some versions her coat) was caught in the doors of a bus and she was dragged to death. Nearly as bizarre as the urban legend regarding Susan Olsen's supposed demise is one in which Steve Burns, one time host of Blue's Clues, died of a heroine overdose (or, alternatively, was killed in a car wreck). Some variations of this urban legend even claimed he was replaced by a look alike (much like Paul McCartney--see below).

Indeed, often urban legends about a celebrity's death become increasingly complex over the course of time. One need look no further than the urban legend in which Jerry Mathers, the "Beaver" of Leave It to Beaver was killed in Vietnam. Now Mathers did serve in the Air National Guard after graduating high school, but he never went to Vietnam. What makes this urban legend so strange is that it has even spawned what might possibly be urban legends regarding its origins. Supposedly, the legend that Mathers was killed in Vietnam started when a soldier with the same name died in Vietnam. This led to erroneous reports in the Associated Press and United Press International that Jerry Mathers, the Beaver, had been killed. On The Tonight Show that aired that night, actress Shelley Winters repeated the news of Mather's supposed demise. This sounds like it could have realistically happened, but Urban Legends Reference Pages has found no evidence of false reports of Mathers' death, nor a Tonight Show appearance in which Winters mentioned Mathers being killed. In other words, as the Urban Legends Reference Pages theorise, it could simply be an urban legend about the origins of an urban legend...

Of course, rumours of Jerry Mathers' death are nothing compared to the "Paul is Dead" phenomenon. The rumour may have begun with the song "Saint Paul," performed and written by Terry Knight. The song was played heavily in the Midwest in May 1969 and treated Paul McCartney of The Beatles as if he was already dead. More likley Knight was making a metaphorical reference to the eminent break up of The Beatles. At any rate, the rumour that Paul might be dead began to spread. The rumour first saw print on September 17, 1969 in the Drake University (that's in Des Moines, Iowa, if you're wondering) newspaper The Drake Times-Delphic in an article entitled "Is Beatle Paul McCartney Dead." The rumour would really catch fire, however, on October 12, 1969 when DJ Russ Gibb of WKNR-FM in Dearborn, Michigan received a call from someone calling himself Tom claiming to have "evidence" that Paul McCartney was dead. In October 14, 1969, Fred LaBour, then a junior at the University of Michigan, published a review of the album Abbey Road in which he claimed that clues to Paul's "death" could be found in the covers of various Beatles albums. The rumour soon took on a life of its own. It was "established" that Paul was killed while driving in his Aston Martin (the particulars tended to vary). Even a date for Paul's "death" was established--5:00 a.m. on Wednesday, November 9, 1966. As to Paul still being part of The Beatles, this was explained by McCartney having been replaced by a double. This double was even given a name, usually that of William Campbell, William Shears (after Billy Shears, the leader of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band), or William Shepherd.

The supposed clues that Paul was "dead" were many and grew as time passed. Supposedly on the cover of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts club Band, The Beatles were standing in front of a freshly dug grave (I don't see it myself...). On the back cover of that same album, the fact that Paul is standing backwards was used as evidence that he was dead. The cover to Abbey Road was also supposedly a clue to Paul's "death"--namely, it supposedly potrays a funeral procession. John Lennon, in white, was the priest. Ringo, in a dark suit, was the undertaker. George Harrison, in a blue shirt and jeans, was the grave digger. As to Paul himself, barefoot and walking out of step with the others, he was the corpse. The songs of The Beatles also supposedly held clues that Paul had "died." The lines "O, untimely death!" from a BBC broadcast of King Lear, sampled in the song "I Am the Walrus", was supposed to be a reference to Paul's "demise." Of course, many also pointed out that according to the song "Glass Onion" on The Beatles (better known as The White Album), the Walrus was Paul.

"The Paul is Dead" craze resulted in numerous fanzines dedicated to the "late" Paul McCartney and his mysterious "death." Even the legitimate news media took notice. Life sent photographers to Paul's farm to see if he was indeed still alive! The result was an interview, published in the November 7, 1969 issue, in which Paul dismissed many of the rumours. Despite this, there are still people to this day who believe Paul is dead.

In many of these instances it is easy to understand how celebrity deaths could be erroneously reported. Mark Twain's cousin was ill and this got misconstrued that Twain was ill and that got misconstrued as Twain was dead. Frank Gorshin was in a serious car accident which led to reports of his death. In other instances, there seems to be no real explanation for how rumours of a celebrity's demise gain currency. Indeed, I can remember in grade school there was at one time a rumour going around that Jimmy Walker, then at the height of his success as J. J. on Good Times, had died in a car crash! I can only suppose that such rumours could arise out of our own society's fears of death. Perhaps in hearing of the death of a beloved celebrity it eases our minds as to our misgivings about our own mortality. I can only suppose that the knowledge that the rich and famous can die gives ourselves some security in knowing that we are not alone in being mortal. I realise this is not much of an explanation, but it is perhaps better than my other thought on the matter. Perhaps many in our society simply have a bit of a morbid streak...

Maureen Stapleton R.I.P.

Character actress Maureen Stapleton died yesterday from chronic pulmonary disease at age 80.

Stapleton was born in Troy, New York on June 12, 1925. She started acting on stage almost as soon as she graduated high school. She first appeared on Broadway in 1946 in The Playboy of the Western World. She earned her first Tony playing Serafina Delle Rose in The Rose Tattoo. She continued to appear on the Broadway stage for much of her career, in such productions as Toys in the Attic, The Secret Affairs of Margaret Wild, and The Little Foxes.

Stapleton made her first appearance on television in an episode of the series Curtain Call in 1951. She would go onto guest star on such series as The Philco Television Playhouse, Studio One, and even Saturday Night Live. She is perhaps better known for her work in film. She made her film debut in Lonelyhearts in 1958. She would go onto lpay Mama Mae Peterson in the film version of Bye, Bye Birdie and writer Emma Goldman in Red. She received the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress for that role. She was also nominated for Oscars for her roles in Lonelyhearts, Airport, and Interiors. She also appeared in Plaza Suite, Cocoon and Johnny Dangerously.

I always did like Maureen Stapleton. She seemed to have a remarkable range. Her characters were almost always down to earth, but they could vary from strong to vulnerable. Sometimes the characters she played were downright unstable. Regardless, Stapleton always played her parts well. It is sad to think that she is gone.

She seemed very capable of playing down to earth characters who could be either tough or vulnerable, and sometimes both.

Storms

Today simply does not seem like a fitting day to make an entry on some artefact of pop culture. Last night storms ripped through the Midwest, with Missouri apparently the hardest hit. It is quite possible that we had more tornadoes yesterday than any other day in the state's recorded history. To give you an idea, according to a Kansas City Star article, western Missouri usually sees only 11 reports of tornadoes a year. Yesterday there were 15 reports of such storms in the area.

In all, nine people in Missouri were killed by the storms. Four of them were in Renick, which is only about 25 minutes away from my hometown of Huntsville. There was a good deal of property damage around Madison and Middle Grove (both about a half hour's drive from here), although fortunately no one was hurt. I know that there was a good deal of damage in the area, as while I have been able to get online, I cannot download my email (I'm having to rely on my webmail right now). As to my cell phone, I can make calls, but I cannot access my applications. Huntsville appears to have been largely spared, but the surrounding area was apparently hit pretty hard.

Elsewhere in the state, one woman was killed in Sedalia and another man in Ulrich County. Yet others died elsewhere. Although the city of Sedalia did not receive a direct hit from tornados, at least 100 homes in Pettis County were destroyed. On Interstate 70, around Sweet Springs, several tractor trailers were blown over. Some areas of the state are without power. As of yet the National Weather Service has not determined the strength of the storms.

Anyhow, I hope all of you understand if I do not think it is a fitting day to write about pop culture. I don't think Missouri has seen a day quite so bad with regards to twisters and with any luck we won't ever see one quite like it again.