James Wood's Criticism Is Like Tectonic Plates Under Pressure, Forming Mountain Ridges

James Wood's new collection of essays and reviews, The Fun Stuff, at once subverts the critic's elitist persona and fortifies it.

The Fun Stuff: And Other Essays

Publisher: Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux
Length: 352 pages
Author: James Wood
Price: $27.00
Format: Hardcover
Publication date: 2012-10

Few critics piss off readers with the consistency of James Wood. He is at once a consort to and unabashedly critical of Harold Bloom’s theories of interpretation, aesthetics, and influence. He embraces contrast and contradiction and digs deep into the schism of cultural pathos. He brings the heat like few other literary critics, but with subtlety and grace; his is a slow, corrosive criticism— lucid but not blunt, predatory but not vile; a serpentine wordsmith, nimble with passive antagonism. He sometimes feels like the personification of Chinese water torture.

Wood, like so many of his like-minded peers, is a descendant of contrarian par excellence Pauline Kael: he writes with fervid, candid authority and often takes unpredictable routes with his clean prose. He doesn’t pull punches—his blows bruise. His brand of contrarianism isn’t slack or indulgent, though. He backs up his criticisms, like an onslaught of so many word-warriors from his unfettered mind, with numerous quotes and passages and excerpts. Here’s Wood on Tom Wolfe (with whom he has feuded, much to the joy of long-time readers, since Bonfire of the Vanities in 1987) from an October 2012 issue of the New Yorker:

"Tom Wolfe writes Big and Tall Prose—big subjects, big people, and yards of flapping exaggeration. No one of average size emerges from his shop; in fact, no real human variety can be found in his fiction, because everyone has the same enormous excitability. So his new novel, “Back to Blood” (Little, Brown), is supposedly about Miami. But it is about Miami not as, say, “Dead Souls” is about Russia or “Seize the Day” is about New York but more as heavy metal is about noise: not a description of the property but a condition of its excess. If it is about Miami, then “The Bonfire of the Vanities” and “A Man in Full” were also about Miami, not about New York and Atlanta, respectively. The content and the style haven’t changed much since “The Bonfire of the Vanities” was published, in 1987: select your city; presume it to be a site of simmering racial and ethnic civil war, always a headline away from a riot; throw a sensational news story into the fire; and watch the various interest groups immolate themselves."

Wood supplies eight large block quotes of Wolfe’s writing throughout the long review, allowing Wolfe’s hyper-kinetic freight-train exclamations speak for themselves; it’s as if Wood is cocksure that readers will see what he sees—it shows a confidence in his assertions. A critic who doesn’t show you what he’s criticizing doesn’t allow room for discussion. And Wood is consistent; almost a decade earlier, he said something strikingly similar about Wolfe, in a review of A Man in Full:

"Tom Wolfe’s novels are placards of simplicity. His characters are capable of experiencing only one feeling at a time; they are advertisements for the self: Greed! Fear! Hate! Misery! The people who phosphoresce thus are nothing like real people. They are instead big, vivid blots of typology: The Overweening Property Developer! His Divorced First Wife! His Sexy Young Trophy Wife! The Well-Dressed Black Lawyer Who Speaks Too White! The Oafish Football Player! They race through huge, twisted plots, their adventures hammered out in a banging and brassy prose."

James, tell us how you really feel.

Though the two reviews overlap at several points and feel almost like siblings, one a bit older and more mature, maybe, Wood doesn’t really get caught in the slipstream of redundancy. If anything, his point is made doubly dramatic—the same exact criticisms hold up ten years later. Has Wolfe learned nothing?

The two reviews also serve as a rebuff of the oft-made accusation that Wood is so pro-literary realism that he dismisses all other styles of fiction. In his review of Back to Blood, he berates Wolfe for being too pro-realism: “Wolfe’s claims about American fiction since 1960 seem manifestly untrue, and more untrue by the day. American fiction is dominated by realism; there is, if anything, too much of it, and not enough careful artifice, not enough pressure at the level of form and sentence.” How so many readers failed to understand Wood’s point—he goes into detail for several paragraphs!—is sadly representative of the slow death of close reading. (And Wood would absolutely make an inflammatory, incisive claim like that.) Maybe that’s why Wood, Close Reader extraordinaire, has his legion of detractors. Maybe his is a dying breed of criticism, with no one shedding a tear for its demise. Maybe he’s a relic of a long gone era, like tube televisions and ice boxes.

Wood's new collection of essays, The Fun Stuff, offers the most diverse and affable collation of his work yet. His 2008 book, How Fiction Works, is enveloped in a certain air of pretension; though undeniably brilliant in its theorizing discourse, it put off a lot of readers whose brows are not so loftily elevated. In his dissection and decimation of hysterical realism (a term that he coined, just to slay it within the same essay), Wood takes his piercing-prose to Zadie Smith, Jonathan Franzen, Don DeLillo, and Salman Rushdie. Like John Cleese slaughtering wedding guests in Swamp Castle, Wood takes down writers with swiftness and ease, each sentence like another deft swing of his sword. This is the Wood New Yorker readers have come to know and love—or loathe. But The Fun Stuff unveils another side of Wood. From the first page, the title essay disarms readers, beginning with, “I had a traditional music education, in a provincial English cathedral town.”

Wait… what? Where’s the insult? The satire? The sass? Is this James Wood?

“The Fun Stuff: Homage to Keith Moon” both sets the tone of the book and establishes the viaduct theme of the collection: Since his childhood, Wood has dealt with the clash of high-art and low-art. His parents dismissed rock n’ roll as noise, but Wood was drawn to The Who’s Keith Moon, and his frantic, manic skin-beating—his drug-and-alcohol-fueled drum-bash binges, as messy as they were controlled, as if the afflictions of British adolescence was collected in his core, forced down his arms, and exercised through his hands, beaten to death in 6/8 hysteria. Comparing Moon’s drumming to the prose of David Foster Wallace, another pop-culture connoisseur, Wood describes the music as, “a long, passionate onrush, formally controlled and joyously messy, propulsive but digressively self-interpreted, attired but disheveled…”

Wood dissects the role of his elitist persona; this is a man who loves The Who, who desperately wanted to be Keith Moon, the wildest (and most passionate) of British rock n’ roll drummers. Not John Bonham—he’s too calculated, too technically clear; a skilled drummer can replicate Bonham’s playing. But not Moon. No one can emulate Moon’s mania. “Fuck the laudable ideologies,” Wood says, quoting Philip Roth’s Sabbath’s Theater. Who else would interpret Philip Roth and David Foster Wallace as consorts of Keith Moon? And with such grace? Fuck the laudable ideologies, indeed.

The life-long clash of high and low art has forged the mythos of James Wood, like tectonic plates pushing up against each other and forming mountain ridges. But until The Fun Stuff, Wood has always favored his high-browed side. The title essay immediately throws the initiated reader for a loop and displays that wider yearning of cultural confliction— Wood stripped of excessive pretension. With The Fun Stuff, Wood conflates the intellectualist lecture-prose of How Fiction Works—which focuses on theories and ways in which we “should” read literature— with the fun, funny, subversive slap of The Irresponsible Self.

In the latter, essentially a book-length exploration of humor’s role in literature, Wood dedicates over 30 pages to berating Jonathan Franzen and his post-Corrections infamy—his anti-Oprah abrasion, his being “snubbed of a Pulitzer,” his bastardization of the “realistic” and “social” novel. Wood can do this because Wood knows as much about Franzen as Franzen does. He’s read Franzen’s influences, dissected them, consumed them; he’s read and dissected and consumed Franzen, and Franzen’s peers and contemporaries and enemies. (One may wonder how he has all this time, but one doth wonder too much.) When Wood makes a definitive, absolutist claim, you better believe his knows what’s what, even if you don’t agree with him. He can drop an insult on you that you won’t understand until years later, like he’s planting a vicious seedling in the soil of your cranium.

Consequent of his authoritative musings and clenched-fist-tight jokes and insults, Wood has earned his reputation for being elitist and snide—which he never denies, but rather defends with evidence of why he’s entitled to such monikers, as in his lacerating review of Paul Auster’sInvisible:

"There are things to admire in Auster’s fiction, but his prose is never one of them, though he is routinely praised for the elegance of his sentences. (A review of Invisible in The New York Times, likening Auster to Freud, Husserl, and Goethe, called it “contemporary American writing at its best: crisp, elegant, brisk.”) The most secondhand sentences in my opening parody [Wood began his review with a one-page satire of Auster’s cliché-laced writing, to great effect], the ones most thickly lacquered with laziness (about being beaten to within an inch of his life, drinking to drown his sorrows, and the prostitute’s eyes being too hard and having seen too much) are taken verbatim from Auster’s previous work." [Brackets mine.

In one paragraph, Wood takes shots at Auster and everyone who’s ever spoken kindly of him, including the New York Times. Most writers would have to duck for fear of being sniped with a paralyzing rebut from the Times, but Wood stands tall and proud; it’s the Times that’s been sniped, Wood coolly blowing the smoke from his gun and walking off into the horizon. Wood the rebel, the lone gunman, the critic without a name.

Wood’s negative reviews are, of course, how he made his name with book lovers, and the pissers remain his signature style. A negative review will always catch the gaze of more wondering eyes—ask Guy Fieri—and Wood writes scathing reviews that would knock Michiko Kakutani right off her horse. When Wood gets hot, writers get burned. His 4,200-word review of Jonathan Lethem’s Fortress of Solitude became notorious with bookworms after Lethem wrote a heated, in-depth rebuttal to Wood—eight years later. Lethem’s essay “My Disappointment Critic” goes to great lengths to debase and debunk Wood’s criticisms. It appeared in the LA Review of Books in 2011 and generated responses—criticism on a critical response to a piece of criticism on a novel—in The Awl, The Millions, The Vulture, Flavorwire, and others. (Kinda funny that Lethem’s didn’t appear in a New York-based publication, as both the novelist and the critic are New York-centric.)

Lethem begins his rebuttal with an extended quote from Renata Adler’s infamously venomous assault on Pauline Kael in “The Perils of Pauline”; right below that quote is a similarly caustic one from Wood’s essay against Harold Bloom, “The Misreader.” You can see right away that Lethem has something clever percolating just behind his thick-framed glasses—some seething but not quite cynical gut-punch on the horizon, his fist cocked back Mike Hammer-style. Next comes another long quote, this time from Morris Dickstein’s letter to the New Yorker Times decrying Wood. Then one last quote, from Randall Jarrell:

"Everyone speaks of the “negative capability” of the artist, of his ability to lose what self he has in the many selves, the great self of the world. Such a quality is, surely, the first that a critic should have; yet who speaks of the negative capability of the critic? How often are we able to observe it?"

Lethem, the trendiest of pop-culture connoisseurs, gets right into the thick of it: He offers a sort of apologetic explanation as to why Wood’s review continues to disconcert him, like a bullet in his brain he can’t dislodge. He thinks/thought Wood is/was the “most apparently gifted close reader of our time,” and says he would have loved a negative review from Wood had Wood taught him anything in the process. Lethem wanted to learn about his writing, use Wood’s review as a sort of critique letter. Instead, he thinks Wood was off-base and nasty (the latter being occasionally accurate); thinks Wood missed the point of the novel.

Now, The Fortress of Solitude is great fun, wonderfully messy and gloriously gaudy (as if Lethem’s prerogative) and affably chaotic as the front row of an early-'90s Pearl Jam concert; but it’s messy and gaudy and chaotic, not the tightly-controlled prose Wood usually favors. Lethem’s style is rooted in the sprawl of pulp fiction and urban-decay-voyeurism, science-fiction speculation and social subversion, so of course it embraces escapism, albeit with highly literature articulation. The fragments of Philip K. Dick and Raymond Chandler gleam like broken glass under close inspection. As Wood says:

"Jonathan Lethem's new novel is a bohemian rhapsody about an unwilling bohemian — a delicate little white pioneer named Dylan Ebdus, whose right-thinking parents decide, in the early 1970s, that a ragged street in swinish Brooklyn is the place before which to cast their only jewel. Dylan's mother Rachel, a pot-smoking hysteric, proudly tells her friends that her son is one of three white children in his local school: "Not his class, not his grade — the whole school." His father Abraham, once a promising painter, spends his days at the top of their faded brownstone, at work on an animated film: an entire morning of exquisite brushwork might represent a few frames, a few seconds of finished achievement."

This is why Wood is the sharpest literary critic currently penning poison: he doesn’t stream a constant deluge of malice, but rather gets the novel’s best aspects right out in the open. And this is why his criticisms stab deeper, like a shiv suavely slipped between the ribs. Wood says, “The first part of this book, almost three hundred pages, represents a remarkable, often ravishing conjuration of the perpetual summer of childhood, quite different in tone and depth from any of Lethem's earlier, lighter work. (His last book, the smoothly entertaining Motherless Brooklyn, might better have been called Depthless Brooklyn.)” As much as I love Lethem, and I really love Lethem—I nerdgasm every time I reread his pieces on Philip K. Dick, or his personal reflection on his artistic upbringing, “The Beards”—he’s the one who’s off-base here. Wood champions the novel’s first 300 pages, however back-handed the praise may be.

But there’s something deeper at work, here—something Lethem should have picked up, something most readers should have picked up: Every time Wood discusses the contradictions and conflictions of Lethem’s prose, “Lethem's writing is at once vivid and unobtrusive, and captures the amoral curiosity of little boys,” a small, violently flashing red beacon appears in the mind’s eye. Wood never dismisses Lethem’s geekdom, never maligns the use of “low art,” the comics and graffiti and punk and avant-garde jazz.

Because Wood is like Lethem—his writing is steeped in confliction, his writing tries so hard to mingle low art (Keith Moon’s noisy, narcotic-laced skin beating) with the high (Dostoevsky, classical music, close, calloused vivisections on organized religion). He berates Paul Auster because he knows good pulpy crime fiction and Auster is not good pulpy crime fiction. He included Doris Lessing’s pseudo-sci-fi novel The Golden Notebook on his list of the Best Books since 1945 (Bloom was obnoxiously angry when Lessing received the Nobel Prize in 2007). He has offered immense praise for Pynchon and DeLillo and Barthelme. He should be Lethem’s ideal reader—someone who appreciates the conflation of post-modern musings and pop-culture penetration. You can feel his disappointment when he chronicles of Lethem’s faults and misfires. Lethem was almost right: Wood is a Disappointed Critic.

Never a fan of New Criticism, Wood always brings outside information about the author and book to his reviews. He uses Tom Wolfe’s essays to critique Tom Wolfe; mentions New York Times reviews to show how people misread Paul Auster; delves into his own childhood when discussing Keith Moon. The Fun Stuff may be best appreciated by the already initiated, since a lot of the fun comes from tracing the progression of Wood’s criticism over the last decade. His Auster reviews get better each time a new book comes out because Wood has more material to work with, like a veteran filmmaker who can reference his prior films while still creating something new (think Fellini, or beard-era Orson Welles). Once you’re initiated into the Wood world, as was the case with Pauline Kael’s legionary Paulettes, you get sucked in. Deeper and deeper, Alice and her proverbial hole. You can almost feel the monocle forming under your eye.

And yet it’s Wood’s positive reviews that warm a bibliophile’s heart and solidify his standing as a great critic. Wood undoubtedly, unquestionably, irrefutably loves words—loves reading, writing, language. His enthusiasm radiates humanity. Discussing Aleksandor Hemon’s The Lazarus Project, Wood says, “Hemon’s writing shares with Joseph Roth’s an interest in the extremities and borderlands of the Hapsburg Empire, and both writers delight in rich, fantastical metaphor (the fezzes like bonfires and flowerpots).” (He also discusses the ways in which Lethem is not like Joseph Roth in his Fortress of Solitude review, and he’s mentioned Roth in other reviews as well—even Wood is prone to hero worship, it seems.)

Wood sprinkles Hemon’s idioms and phrases throughout the review, as if he’s so enamored with the Bosnian writer’s singular control of the English language that he just wants to share it with his readers, like a friend who demands that you must go on YouTube and listen to this new song, right now:

James Wood (publicity photo /
photographer unknown)

"But more often he uses his astonishing talent to notice the world with a sarcastic, wily precision that is then put in tension with his love of surreal metaphor. A horse that is pulling the Archduke’s carriage drops turds that are “like dark, deflated tennis balls.” A shower head looms over a bathtub “like a buzzard head,” and pubic hairs are stuck to the side of a toilet bowl “as if climbing up.” Jozef Pronek, newly arrived in America, is amazed at how smoothly toilets work, and watches, in his Quality Inn, “how the water at the bottom was enthusiastically slurped in, only to rise, with liquid cocksureness, back to the original level.” When he and Andrea have sex, the language captures the erotic ordinariness of the event: “They breathed into each other’s faces and let their abdomens adhere. Then their little sex unit fissioned, and she went to the bathroom.” And there is much beauty on every page—the “sooty tapestry” of a fellow-traveller’s hairy torso, or Pronek’s skin first thing in the morning, “soft, with crease imprints, the fossils of slumber."

To read that and then jump back to the Auster review (any of them) is jarring, but it makes sense: Wood seems to feel betrayed by bad books, and he has to tell everyone why bad books are so heartbreaking. He gets angry at bad books because he loves books. It's like your father yelling at the TV when A-Rod strikes out with the bases loaded. Dad will be back on that couch the next night, cheering when the $250 million man steps up to the plate, and Wood will read the next Auster book. He’ll read the hell out of it.

The year in song reflected the state of the world around us. Here are the 70 songs that spoke to us this year.

70. The Horrors - "Machine"

On their fifth album V, the Horrors expand on the bright, psychedelic territory they explored with Luminous, anchoring the ten new tracks with retro synths and guitar fuzz freakouts. "Machine" is the delicious outlier and the most vitriolic cut on the record, with Faris Badwan belting out accusations to the song's subject, who may even be us. The concept of alienation is nothing new, but here the Brits incorporate a beautiful metaphor of an insect trapped in amber as an illustration of the human caught within modernity. Whether our trappings are technological, psychological, or something else entirely makes the statement all the more chilling. - Tristan Kneschke

Keep reading... Show less

The Best Dance Tracks of 2017

Photo: Murielle Victorine Scherre (Courtesy of Big Beat Press)

From the "shamanic techno" of Parisian duo Pouvoir Magique to Stockholm Noir's brilliant string of darkly foreboding, electro-licked singles, here are ten selections that represent some of the more intriguing dance offerings of 2017.

In June of 2016, prolific producer Diplo lambasted the world of DJ's in an interview with Billboard, stating that EDM was dying. Coincidentally enough, the article's contents went viral and made their way into Vice Media's electronic music and culture channel Thump, which closed its doors after four years this summer amid company-wide layoffs. Months earlier, electronic music giant SFX Entertainment filed bankruptcy and reemerged as Lifestyle, Inc., shunning the term "EDM".

So here we are at the end of 2017, and the internet is still a flurry with articles declaring that Electronic Dance Music is rotting from the inside out and DJ culture is dying on the vine, devoured by corporate greed. That might all well be the case, but electronic music isn't disappearing into the night without a fight as witnessed by the endless parade of emerging artists on the scene, the rise of North America's first Electro Parade in Montréal, and the inaugural Electronic Music Awards in Los Angeles this past September.

For every insipid, automaton disc jockey-producer, there are innovative minds like Anna Lunoe, Four Tet, and the Black Madonna, whose eclectic, infectious sets display impeccable taste, a wealth of knowledge, and boundless creativity. Over the past few years, many underground artists have been thrust into the mainstream spotlight and lost the je ne sais quoi that made them unique. Regardless, there will always be new musicians, producers, singers, and visionaries to replace them, those who bring something novel to the table or tip a hat to their predecessors in a way that steps beyond homage and exhilarates as it did decades before.

As electronic music continues to evolve and its endless sub-genres continue to expand, so do fickle tastes, and preferences become more and more subjective with a seemingly endless list of artists to sift through. With so much music to digest, its no wonder that many artists remain under the radar. This list hopes to remedy that injustice and celebrate tracks both indie and mainstream. From the "shamanic techno" of Parisian duo Pouvoir Magique to Stockholm Noir's brilliant string of darkly foreboding, electro-licked singles, here are ten selections that represent some of the more intriguing dance offerings of 2017.

10. Moullinex - “Work It Out (feat. Fritz Helder)”

Taken from Portuguese producer, DJ, and multi-instrumentalist Luis Clara Gomes' third album Hypersex, "Work It Out" like all of its surrounding companions is a self-proclaimed, "collective love letter to club culture, and a celebration of love, inclusion and difference." Dance music has always seemingly been a safe haven for "misfits" standing on the edge of the mainstream, and while EDM manufactured sheen might have taken the piss out of the scene, Hypersex still revels in that defiant, yet warm and inviting attitude.

Like a cheeky homage to Rick James and the late, great High Priest of Pop, Prince, this delectably filthy, sexually charged track with its nasty, funk-drenched bass line, couldn't have found a more flawless messenger than former Azari & III member Fritz Helder. As the radiant, gender-fluid artist sings, "you better work your shit out", this album highlight becomes an anthem for all those who refuse to bow down to BS. Without any accompanying visuals, the track is electro-funk perfection, but the video, with its ruby-red, penile glitter canon, kicks the whole thing up a notch.

9. Touch Sensitive - “Veronica”

The neon-streaked days of roller rinks and turtlenecks, leg warmers and popped polo collars have come and gone, but you wouldn't think so listening to Michael "Touch Sensitive" Di Francesco's dazzling debut Visions. The Sydney-based DJ/producer's long-awaited LP and its lead single "Lay Down", which shot to the top of the Hype Machine charts, are as retro-gazing as they are distinctly modern, with nods to everything from nu disco to slo-mo house.

Featuring a sample lifted from 90s DJ and producer Paul Johnson's "So Much (So Much Mix)," the New Jack-kissed "Veronica" owns the dance floor. While the conversational interplay between the sexed-up couple is anything but profound, there is no denying its charms, however laughably awkward. While not everything on Visions is as instantly arresting, it is a testament to Di Francesco's talents that everything old sounds so damn fresh again.

8. Gourmet - “Delicious”

Neither Gourmet's defiantly eccentric, nine-track debut Cashmere, nor its subsequent singles, "There You Go" or "Yellow" gave any indication that the South African purveyor of "spaghetti pop" would drop one of the year's sassiest club tracks, but there you have it. The Cape Town-based artist, part of oil-slick, independent label 1991's diminutive roster, flagrantly disregards expectation on his latest outing, channeling the Scissor Sisters at their most gloriously bitchy best, Ratchet-era Shamir, and the shimmering dance-pop of UK singer-producer Joe Flory, aka Amateur Best.

With an amusingly detached delivery that rivals Ben Stein's droning roll call in Ferris Bueller's Day Off , he sings "I just want to dance, and fuck, and fly, and try, and fail, and try again…hold up," against a squelchy bass line and stabbing synths. When the percussive noise of what sounds like a triangle dinner bell appears within the mix, one can't help but think that Gourmet is simply winking at his audience, as if to say, "dinner is served."

7. Pouvoir Magique - “Chalawan”

Like a psychoactive ayahuasca brew, the intoxicating "shamanic techno" of Parisian duo Pouvoir Magique's LP Disparition, is an exhilarating trip into unfamiliar territory. Formed in November of 2011, "Magic Power" is the musical project of Clément Vincent and Bertrand Cerruti, who over the years, have cleverly merged several millennia of songs from around the world with 21st-century beats and widescreen electro textures. Lest ye be worried, this is anything but Deep Forest.

In the spring of 2013, Pouvoir Magique co-founded the "Mawimbi" collective, a project designed to unite African musical heritage with contemporary soundscapes, and released two EPs. Within days of launching their label Musiques de Sphères, the duo's studio was burglarized and a hard drive with six years of painstakingly curated material had vanished. After tracking down demos they shared with friends before their final stages of completion, Clément and Bertrand reconstructed an album of 12 tracks.

Unfinished though they might be, each song is a marvelous thing to behold. Their stunning 2016 single "Eclipse," with its cinematic video, might have been one of the most immediate songs on the record, but it's the pulsing "Chalawan," with its guttural howls, fluttering flute-like passages, and driving, hypnotic beats that truly mesmerizes.

6. Purple Disco Machine - “Body Funk” & “Devil In Me” (TIE)

Whenever a bevy of guest artists appears on a debut record, it's often best to approach the project with caution. 85% of the time, the collaborative partners either overshadow the proceedings or detract from the vision of the musician whose name is emblazoned across the top of the LP. There are, however, pleasant exceptions to the rule and Tino Piontek's Soulmatic is one of the year's most delightfully cohesive offerings. The Dresden-born Deep Funk innovator, aka Purple Disco Machine, has risen to international status since 2009, releasing one spectacular track and remix after another. It should go without saying that this long-awaited collection, featuring everyone from Kool Keith to Faithless and Boris D'lugosch, is ripe with memorable highlights.

The saucy, soaring "Mistress" shines a spotlight on the stellar pipes of "UK soul hurricane" Hannah Williams. While it might be a crowning moment within the set, its the strutting discofied "Body Funk", and the album's first single, "Devil In Me", that linger long after the record has stopped spinning. The former track with its camptastic fusion of '80s Sylvester gone 1940s military march, and the latter anthem, a soulful stunner that samples the 1968 Stax hit "Private Number", and features the vocal talents of Duane Harden and Joe Killington, feels like an unearthed classic. Without a doubt, the German DJ's debut is one of the best dance records of the year.

Next Page
Related Articles Around the Web

Subverting the Romcom: Mercedes Grower on Creating 'Brakes'

Julian Barratt and Oliver Maltman (courtesy Bulldog Film Distribution)

Brakes plunges straight into the brutal and absurd endings of the relationships of nine couples before travelling back to discover the moments of those first sparks of love.

The improvised dark comedy Brakes (2017), a self-described "anti-romcom", is the debut feature of comedienne and writer, director and actress Mercedes Grower. Awarded production completion funding from the BFI Film Fund, Grower now finds herself looking to the future as she develops her second feature film, alongside working with Laura Michalchyshyn from Sundance TV and Wren Arthur from Olive productions on her sitcom, Sailor.

Keep reading... Show less

Under the lens of cultural and historical context, as well as understanding the reflective nature of popular culture, it's hard not to read this film as a cautionary tale about the limitations of isolationism.

I recently spoke to a class full of students about Plato's "Allegory of the Cave". Actually, I mentioned Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" by prefacing that I understood the likelihood that no one had read it. Fortunately, two students had, which brought mild temporary relief. In an effort to close the gap of understanding (perhaps more a canyon or uncanny valley) I made the popular quick comparison between Plato's often cited work and the Wachowski siblings' cinema spectacle, The Matrix. What I didn't anticipate in that moment was complete and utter dissociation observable in collective wide-eyed stares. Example by comparison lost. Not a single student in a class of undergraduates had partaken of The Matrix in all its Dystopic future shock and CGI kung fu technobabble philosophy. My muted response in that moment: Whoa!

Keep reading... Show less

'The Art of Confession' Ties Together Threads of Performance

Allen Ginsberg and Robert Lowell at St. Mark's Church in New York City, 23 February 1977

Scholar Christopher Grobe crafts a series of individually satisfying case studies, then shows the strong threads between confessional poetry, performance art, and reality television, with stops along the way.

Tracing a thread from Robert Lowell to reality TV seems like an ominous task, and it is one that Christopher Grobe tackles by laying out several intertwining threads. The history of an idea, like confession, is only linear when we want to create a sensible structure, the "one damn thing after the next" that is the standing critique of creating historical accounts. The organization Grobe employs helps sensemaking.

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.