On Following Jesus

I recently rediscovered a popular YouTube video that first made the rounds a few years ago but gets kicked up again every now and then when someone shares it anew via the TwitFace. If you’re not one of the 27 million (!) and counting who have watched this video, here it is:

It’s titled “Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus” and is an unremarkable spoken word piece about how Jesus and religion are entirely separate entities, and, generally, Jesus is good, while religion is bad. If my only intention were to respond to the video, this would be by far the shortest blog entry I’ll ever write, because the whole thing is, bluntly stated, a thoughtless, incoherent fit of theologically vacuous solipsism. The ideas expressed in this video are so stupid that I think even Christians should find it offensive. I don’t have the patience to point out everything that’s absurd about this, so I’ll limit my reactions to the most egregiously ignorant parts, starting with the very first line:

“What if I told you Jesus came to abolish religion?”

Well, I’d tell you to support this outrageous claim with at least one compelling reason why I should believe you, when Jesus himself said “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” (Matthew 5:17) Jesus lived and died as a devout Jew and preached that his followers should uphold the Torah of Moses. Not until Paul’s epistles do we get this idea that Jesus came to abolish the laws of the Old Testament: “But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.” (Galatians 3:23-6) Paul, incidentally, never met Jesus.

“If religion is so great, why has it started so many wars?”

Not all religions start wars. That phenomenon seems to be limited to monotheisms, and the answer to the question is simple – because God says to do so.

“Tells single moms God doesn’t love them if they’ve ever been divorced.”

Oh, how embarrassing for you… actually the Old Testament gives guidelines for when divorce is acceptable (Deuteronomy 24:1-2); it’s Jesus who says “Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery.” (Mark 10:11, Luke 16:18)

“In every other aspect of life you know that logic’s unworthy;
It’s like saying you play for the Lakers just because you bought a jersey.”

This is the “no true Scotsman” fallacy, which every group of Christians commits when talking about any other group of Christians. “Oh, they’re not real Christians. If they were, they’d do X and believe Y, like we at our church do.” There are as many ideas of what constitutes a real Christian as there are Christians.

“…Cuz it’s not a museum for good people, it’s a hospital for the broken.”

The entire idea of the inherently sinful nature of human beings and consequent need for salvation is a dogmatic Christian belief. This is the sort of thing that defines a religion. You can’t tirade against religion and yet somehow magically retain the doctrine of salvation through Christ.

“…Which is so different from religious people, and why Jesus called ‘em fools;
Don’t you see he’s so much better than just following some rules?”

Citation needed for Jesus calling religious people fools. Was he preaching in the temple when he did that? You know, to all those religious people following him around? Secondly, Jesus very explicitly told his followers to FOLLOW THE GODDAMN RULES. I’ve already mentioned the passage in Matthew. See also ALL OF THE REST OF THE GOSPELS. CHRIST.

  

“Now let me clarify, I love the church, I love the Bible, and I believe in sin.”

…wat? You love the church, love the Bible, believe in sin, but …you hate religion. What in the actual fuck are you on about? Is this a joke? If you’re keeping the church, and the Bible, and the major doctrinal teachings of the faith, what exactly do you hate? What’s the stuff Jesus is apparently better than? What the hell is “religion” if not the church, the Bible, and the major dogmatic beliefs?

“Jesus and religion are on opposite spectrums.”

On opposite spectrums of what? Do you mean different spectrums? Which spectrum is Jesus on, and which religion? What does this statement even mean?

“Religion is man searching for God, but Christianity is God searching for man.”

So not only is Jesus different from (and better than) religion, but now Christianity is too? Do you actually think you can get away with this sneaky implication that Christianity is not a religion? Like, for seriously?

“So know I hate religion, I literally resent it;”

At no point have you even come close to establishing exactly what you think “religion” is, so I have no idea what it is that you hate. You literally resent it? As opposed to… figuratively? metaphorically?

“Because when Jesus cried “it is finished,” I believe he meant it.”

I assume the reference here is to John 19:30, Jesus’ final words before his death. This profound utterance only occurs in John’s gospel; in Mark and Matthew he says nothing more than “My God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34, Matthew 27:46) I’ll also point out that John was written much later than Matthew, which is copied from Mark, half of which is disputed as inauthentic, sooooo… yeah Jesus probably didn’t say that. But by all means, cherry-pick your way to the lazy-ass theology you want other people to take seriously.

The Bigger Picture

My intentions are not simply to tear apart this ignorant rube for his disjointed ramblings and laughable attempt at promoting an untenable worldview. The fact that this video has gained such massive popularity attests to the reality that many, many people identify with this idea. Unfortunately for those who would embrace this pro-Jesus, anti-religion version of the Christian faith, espousing this view tellingly reveals at least one thing: the creator of this video and the people sympathetic to its message are profoundly ignorant about Christianity, the church, and Jesus. This is the more salient issue I’d like to address.

Now, before we go too much farther, let’s establish some basic facts in which to ground our epistemology (basically, how we can know shit) about Jesus. Hopefully everyone will agree with these rather uncontroversial claims:

• The life, deeds, and sayings of Jesus are matters of fact, not of opinion. He either did and said certain shit, or he didn’t, and there’s an objective answer – whatever you believe about Jesus is either true or false. He’s not whoever you want him to be, not different for everyone.

• The only way to know anything at all about Jesus is to read the New Testament. Even though it’s a historically useless hodgepodge of church-approved propaganda, it’s literally the only source in existence which even purports to give any factual information about the life, character, and deeds of Jesus. If you believe something about Jesus for which there is no textual support in the Bible, you’ve simply made some shit up and have no legitimate reason whatsoever to believe it.

I’m not even a Christian, and still it irritates me to discover the completely fabricated faith that so many Christians proudly endorse and loudly proclaim. This popular notion that Jesus was a forward-thinking, benevolent, anti-establishment guru is simply a fallacy, a caricature of the figure of Jesus as depicted in the Bible. Of course everyone gravitates toward the sublimely moral teachings and messages of good-will toward thy neighbor and turning the other cheek and not being judgmental. What about some of those less flowery things that Jesus also said? Where are the bumper stickers for these gems?

• “Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on… Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself.” (Matthew 6:31, 34; Luke 12:22)
• “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.” (Matthew 10:34-5; Luke 12:51)
  

• “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26)

Jesus was an observant Jew and failed messianic prophet. His followers all genuinely believed (including Paul, our most authentic source) that they were moments away from the end of the world and would be enjoying eternity with God in the immediate future. Since two millennia have passed now with no sign of Jesus’ return, Christians downplay the fact that much of what Jesus said makes no sense unless the physical world is about to end. We all understand that it’s generally a bad idea to live our lives as if the Rapture will happen tomorrow, and yet this central theme of Jesus’ message is entirely, and rightly, ignored.

Yes, some prominent ideas in the teachings of Jesus are admirable. But nearly every single religion and philosophy in the world embraces basic moral precepts like do unto others; Jesus was neither the first nor the only person to suggest that we be nice to each other. To deny the complete character of Jesus as reported in the very same source as the oft-repeated beatitudes and sermon on the mount reveals either ignorance or dishonesty, neither of which is an acceptable basis for a worldview, religious or secular.

Can Jesus and Religion Be Separated?

The short answer is no. The long answer is no, of course not, why would you say something so stupid? I can perhaps understand the desire to take the (idealized, edited) figure of Jesus and remove him from his milieu of organized religion, and all the intolerance, bigotry, and hypocrisy that comes along with it, because he should be above that sort of thing. The problem is that there’s absolutely no theologically coherent way to do that. Why? Why can’t you keep your homeboy Jesus and tell the Pope to go fuck himself?

Well, because there’s no such thing as Jesus outside of the church, outside of religion. The only reason we know anything about him at all, as we agreed earlier, is because members of the early Christian church wrote the New Testament, our only available source of information about him. Jesus himself didn’t write anything, nor did any of his apostles. Nor, in fact, did anyone who even saw the historical Jesus write anything about him. (The book of James, reluctantly crammed into the back of the NT, is a possible exception and a discussion for another time.) Paul, whose version of Christianity won out over that of his rivals Peter and James, is the single most influential writer about Jesus, and Paul didn’t become a follower of the movement until 20 years after Jesus died. The writers of the gospels all came later, in some cases much later, and are just following Paul and/or copying each other. Yet, this is the reality: this is all we have, and the only reason we have it is because the early church collected, edited, reorganized, and passed these writings down through the ages. If it weren’t for the organized religion that eventually grew out the Jesus movement, there would be no Jesus. We would scarcely have any idea that he even existed (and still, actually, it’s possible that he didn’t.) You can’t dump the religion without dumping Jesus out along with it.

A Lazy Theology

It might seem a bit ridiculous that someone like me, an unapologetic non-believer, would actually bother distinguishing between more and less respectable forms of Christianity. Generally my problem is not with the particular beliefs that a person holds as much as the means by which he has acquired them. There is an abyssal difference between a Christian who has thoughtfully and diligently plunged repeatedly into the depths of scripture, historicity, and textual criticism and a Christian who believes in Jesus because his mother used to read him bedtime stories from a children’s bible. Only one of those people holds a belief not worthy of immediate and unrestrained derision.

The massive irony of people who want to follow Jesus but don’t want to follow the rituals and strict rules of the church is that they’re doing precisely the opposite of what they claim. If your idea of Jesus doesn’t come from reading scripture; if your idea of Jesus is somehow different from the Jesus of the Bible; if you have a radically different idea of who Jesus was that just so happens to conform to everything you think is good and important, you’re not following Jesus. You already have a set of values you’ve acquired by some other means, and you’re simply looking for divine justification for what you already think. You make Jesus into whatever you need him to be in order to continue to live your life however you’d like and still sleep soundly at night, knowing that your immortal soul is safe. Think homosexuality is a sin? I'm sure Jesus agrees. Changed your mind about that? I'm sure Jesus is totally cool with that, too. You’re not following Jesus; Jesus is following you.

Star Wars Episode VII: Here We Go Again

It’s been nine years since the final installment of George Lucas’ tripartite ruination of one of the most storied franchises in cinematic history, and now we, the faithful admirers of the original Star Wars trilogy, must brace ourselves for Episode VII, currently under production and slated for a December 18^th, 2015 release.

Quite a lot has changed in the minds of adoring fans since the first time we all experienced the phenomenon of a new Star Wars film. Before the release of The Phantom Menace in 1999, there was decidedly more excitement than trepidation, and understandably so – George Lucas was at the helm, with complete creative control of the project, nearly limitless resources, and the latest and greatest digital technology. It’s difficult to imagine a film which was ever more highly anticipated before its release, or more bitterly disappointing after. The Phantom Menace was so categorically awful that it almost seemed like a joke. A New Hope, the original film, is basically a classic story of the hero’s journey set a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. The Phantom Menace, the first of the prequel trilogy, is a boring, convoluted, uninspired hodgepodge of people we don’t care about swinging lightsabers around for 2 hours.

Here's a fairly nauseating sight for most Star Wars fans

The Phantom Menace was followed by Attack of the Clones in 2002 and finally Revenge of the Sith in 2005, by which time most people realized that George Lucas had no idea what the hell he was doing and was simply trying to make another bazillion dollars from the franchise. It’s clear from the prequel trilogy that George Lucas has absolutely no understanding whatsoever of what made the original films so magical and iconic – the characters and the story. Instead, he devoted all of his time and energy to producing cutting-edge CGI renderings devoid of all human emotion and realism so that he could shoot entire films in an air-conditioned sound stage rather than have to go somewhere interesting and build actual sets. The result is a series of poorly-written films, the plots of which are nonsensical and the characters of which are forgettable.

As a result of having suffered the acute disappointment of three of most underwhelming films I’ve ever seen, I’m extremely hesitant to get excited about Episode VII, even as more and more seemingly promising information is released about it.  Here’s what we know so far:

• J.J. Abrams is directing and contributing to the screenplay.
• Lots of original cast members are returning to reprise their original roles, including Peter Mayhew (Chewbacca), Anthony Daniels and Kenny Baker (C-3PO and R2-D2), Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, and Harrison Ford.
• The film is a sequel to Return of the Jedi, taking place 30 years later.
• The story is entirely new, not making use of any of the “extended universe.”
• George Lucas is a “creative consultant” and is not directly involved in the production of the film.

I think it’s safe to assume that this latest film simply cannot compare favorably with the original trilogy – it’s been too long, it’ll be too different – so the best it can hope for is to be less of a disaster than the prequels. Here’s why it could well go in either direction:

Episode VII will be better than the prequels, because…

• George Lucas won’t be able to ruin it from start to finish.
• Luke, Leia, and Han are back, and fans love these characters way more than Darth Vader and Obi Wan Kenobi, who appeared in the prequels.
• Lawrence Kasdan, the screenwriter for Empire and Jedi, is sharing screenwriting duties on the new film. He wasn’t involved in screenwriting for the prequel trilogy.
• J.J. Abrams is a competent director who won’t simply sit in a green screen studio for 6 months and then finish the movie on a computer.
• The prequels were such a disaster that it’s likely the new director will try to distance his work from them on purpose, hopefully steering things in a better direction.

Harrison Ford is 71, you guys. 71.

Episode VII will be even worse than the prequels, because…

• George Lucas still came up with the plot for this film, as well as the next two which follow it, so it could still have an unsalvageable concept at heart.
• Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, and Mark Hamill are all really old – Fisher is the youngest of them at 57 – and will probably play quite different characters from the Han, Leia, and Luke we all love. The stakes are much higher with these characters – ruining them in a bad Star Wars movie will be unforgivable.
• The events are set so far after the end of Jedi that there will be little connection to any established canon, which will make it feel like less of a Star Wars movie, and thus a strange setting for the familiar characters. The ending of Jedi was rather final; Vader and the Emperor died and the second Death Star was destroyed, effectively ending the reign of the Empire, so an entirely new conflict will need to be created, along with a new villain, and there’s a lot of room for that to go wrong.
• J.J. Abrams’ work on the last Star Trek movie received lukewarm reviews from fans, and I can’t help but feel that doing Episode VII is just another project for him – he’s also producing Mission: Impossible 5 and yet another new Star Trek movie in the near future.

Ultimately I have to admit that I’m at least extremely curious to see what happens with Episode VII. With the prequels, we all had the vague sense that they were going to be about a young Anakin Skywalker and his journey to becoming Darth Vader, so it all revolved around something we knew, something connected to the original trilogy. With the newest Star Wars films, we really have no idea whatsoever what the general plot will be, so VII is going to be a complete surprise. Bringing back some of the original actors after such a long time is a massive gamble as well; I suspect the success of the entire film will hinge upon giving Han, Luke, and Leia a proper, believable treatment.

Speaking more generally, I think sequel making for such an iconic series of films like Star Wars is simply an exercise in futility. Everything about the original trilogy is sacred; just look at the uproar when Lucas released the Special Edition of the original films, filled with cartoonish CGI nonsense which clashed jarringly with the familiar scenes we already knew and loved. What fans really want in a sequel is simply more of exactly the same thing that they already love. The time to make another Star Wars movie was in the early 1980’s, when the main actors were younger and technology hadn’t made massive forward strides in the digital realm. This is why the prequels don’t feel like Star Wars movies. They’re markedly different in every way that matters, which is apparently something that Lucas himself can’t even understand. A CGI Yoda comically bouncing off of walls in a frantic sword fight is not Star Wars. 

The original trilogy was filmed in actual locations, using actual sets and actors and models. That’s the only way to make a Star Wars movie. That is almost certainly not how Episode VII is going to be made, and for that reason alone I know it won’t be worthy of the name. At best, Abrams can only hope to do a better job with the new film than Lucas did with the prequel trilogy. He’ll accomplish that meager feat simply by not having Jar-Jar fucking Binks in it.

Feminism's PR Problem

I'm a sympathizer with the Feminist movement - let me state that clearly for the record - but I wouldn't call myself a Feminist, if only because I think the term implies some level of activism. I support the goals of Feminism (as I understand them, anyway, i.e. equal opportunities for women in general) but don't actively campaign for change in any appreciable way, so I'll leave the term for those out there on the front lines. As a supporter of the ideals of the movement, I have to admit that it's becoming difficult to watch as it struggles to find a unified voice and a consistent and helpful tone. I'll point out two recent examples of what I think are unmitigated PR disasters on the part of the Feminist movement in order to illustrate exactly why a change in strategy might be advantageous.

Rape Culture

This phrase has been thrown around on social and mainstream media and debated at length, and it seems to have real staying power - proponents of the movement like this phrase and aren't backing away from it. Sadly I think it's a miserable coinage with way more deficiencies than insights, and it's far too flawed for too many reasons to be a catalyst for sweeping positive societal change.

Let me first articulate what I understand to be the general sense and usage of the term "rape culture", in case any of my criticisms of it stem from a basic misunderstanding. "Rape culture" broadly refers to the various ways in which society (particularly Western, and perhaps chiefly American) encourages, ignores, or tacitly endorses sexually aggressive behavior towards women. There are many examples of this, such as victim-blaming, slut-shaming, and probably some other hyphenated buzz-words. To be clear, I don't for a second dismiss the notion that these phenomena do actually occur, are harmful to women, and must be curtailed. My problem is with the phrase "rape culture," which sucks for a couple of reasons.

First of all, it's absurdly hyperbolic. Simply two words that, without very specific context, paint an overly broad and inaccurately dour picture of society. As a culture, we abhor rape. We have laws establishing severe punishments against rapists. I would even contend that it is perhaps the only issue imaginable on which people agree without exception. What sane person would ever argue that rape is acceptable in some situations? The idea is laughable. There are cultures elsewhere in the world that have different views on the permissibility of rape, certainly. To American society on the whole, it's utter anathema. The term "rape culture" is blind to these truths.

It's also unnecessarily provocative. There's no non-confrontational way to accuse someone of contributing to rape culture. While it's not the same as calling someone a rapist, it's still far too close to be an acceptable way to engage someone, particularly if you'd like that person to be sympathetic to your position. People who don't consider themselves to be rapists are not going to respond positively to any intimation that they are a party to the act in any respect.

"Rape culture" shifts the focus from delinquent individuals to society as a whole. Rape is a violent, antisocial, aberrant behavior. People who rape are criminals and need to be held accountable for the decisions they've made. "Rape culture" seems to undermine the idea of individual culpability by providing some sort of larger context that contributed to a rapist eventually committing the act. I don't think asking why does our society produce rapists? is as relevant a question as what's wrong with this person who feels that rape is acceptable?

The issues raised by proponents of the "rape culture" trope are real. There are aspects of society that do not adequately point out appropriate and inappropriate behavior regarding sexual relations between consenting adults. Work does need to be done in order to reduce the instances of inappropriate sexual conduct, especially among college-aged people. The term "rape culture" is not, however, a particularly well-crafted encapsulation of these societal imperfections. It's a hammer for a job requiring a set of surgical instruments.

#BanBossy

I'm actually more bothered by this latest PR abortion than "rape culture", as I think it's even more misguided and even less effective. Perhaps you've seen the Twitter hashtag, or this commercial featuring some prominent women:

This video has more than 2 million views at the time of writing, and innumerable others have seen it on television. There is some serious star power behind this one, including Beyonce and Condoleezza Rice. The video recommends banning the use of the word "bossy" because it discourages young girls from taking leadership roles. This entire idea is so profoundly stupid that I'm having difficulties articulating my befuddlement in words. I can sum up my feelings succinctly with a popular internet meme:

Ok, let me try to peel away the layers of bullshit from this onion of ignorance. First, there is absolutely no sense whatsoever in trying to ban the use of a word, especially a word like bossy, which is not vulgar or offensive. It's a normal English word that normal people use every day in normal conversation. Even if every single person in America saw this video, there is no practical hope of people ever collectively deciding to stop using this word, or any word at all. You can't make a 1-minute video and expect 300 million people to alter their behavior or their lexicon.

I must admit, though, that I am categorically opposed to banning any word for any reason. Words convey meaning, and by removing a word, we limit the ability to express ourselves in spoken or written language. While it's certainly true that there are extremely offensive words that should be used with extreme caution and at the risk of severe consequences, there is no rationale for completely forbidding the use of a word. I'm speaking here about extremely offensive discriminatory slurs, which does not describe bossy in the slightest.

Bossy is a word with a specific meaning, and if we arbitrarily decide to remove it from our language, we become incapable of clearly expressing that idea. Here's what the word means, according to dictionary.com:

given to ordering people about; overly authoritative; domineering.

We have words for things so that we can describe those things accurately when necessary. There exist in this world people who are overly authoritative and domineering, and we can rightly call these people bossy. That's what they are, that's what the word means. There's also the apparently unappreciated irony of issuing such a strong prohibition in such a, you know, bossy way.  I'd say forbidding people from using a word is overly authoritative, wouldn't you? Perhaps if you'd like to dissuade people from using the word bossy you might go about it in, say, a less bossy way? Did the writers of this ad really not even consider how hilariously hypocritical this is? 

Then there's the justification for the campaign: "By middle school, girls are less interested in leadership than boys, and that's because they worry about being called bossy." Ok. This sentence contains two statements, both reported as facts, with the latter explaining the former.  If you're going to tell me that I can't use a word anymore, you'd better have some god damn conclusive evidence that directly correlates being called bossy as a child with not wanting to be the CEO of a Fortune 500 company. Not evidence that discouraging young girls from being assertive leads to this consequence, but that being called bossy does. I've tried unsuccessfully to find the study that apparently gave rise to this whole ridiculous campaign. It was reportedly done by the Girl Scouts of America, but I don't see anything relevant on their publications list. If anyone knows what perhaps legitimate work has been bastardized for this commercial, let me know. 

Does it really matter anyway, though? What sort of study could even substantiate a claim like this? Surely the number of girls who abandoned their ambitions specifically because someone called them bossy when they were children must be incalculably small. How many middle school girls would you even have to ask before someone gave that specific answer, that she willfully modified her behavior solely out of fear of being called bossy? And I'm to believe that this is so pervasive a problem that it warrants banning the use of a word? The simpletons who came up with this ad must imagine that I'm even denser than they are.  

Let's have another look at that definition, shall we? Given to ordering people about; overly authoritative; domineering. Do those sound like strong leadership qualities? No, of course not. Bossy people are not leaders, they're bullies. They're insecure, antisocial brats who don't know how to interact with other human beings in a positive and productive way. Bossy children, if the word is being applied correctly, should not be fast-tracked to management positions. They should be educated about how to engage with others without being assholes. 

Here's what this incomprehensibly poorly conceived campaign is actually trying to say: "Hey guys, let's all recognize positive leadership qualities in children and make sure we encourage rather than stifle them, especially in girls." Unfortunately that was too long to be an effective Twitter hashtag, so some marketing genius boiled it down to #BanBossy, ensuring not only that the message would be overshadowed by its own preposterousness, but also that Feminist initiatives would continue to come across as aggressive and confrontational.

So here are just two recent examples of why Feminism needs to fire its PR team and try again with a novel approach. I certainly don't profess to have all the answers, but I think these examples can provide some good advice on what not to do, namely implicate innocent people in an unspeakable crime and attempt to remove perfectly useful words from the English language for completely misguided reasons. The most frustrating thing about all of this is that at the core of both of these campaigns is not just an important message, but a message that most people would absolutely sympathize with, if only it could be offered in a way that didn't immediately cause aversion and reactionary opposition.

If I were pressed on exactly how to go about accomplishing the goals of Feminism in a more effective way, I would say that there is no magic bullet, no catch phrase or hashtag that is going to change the world. Instead, efforts need to target the roots of problems rather than simply treat the symptoms, the superficial manifestations of deep-rooted cultural tendencies. Education and raising awareness are indispensable parts of the solution; they must, however, be framed in a consistently positive, non-confrontational way in order to be taken seriously.

Yeezus - A Review

And now for something completely different, a review of a hip-hop album.

Full disclosure: I really have no idea who Kanye West is. I don't live in the US, I don't have a television, I don't listen to the radio, I don't go to dance clubs. I'm being completely honest when I say I can't name a single Kanye West song, and I wouldn't know him if I saw him. The only things I know about him are that he apparently says crazy shit in interviews and Jimmy Kimmel made fun of him recently. I think he may have also been the jackass who gave birth to the short-lived but memorable "imma let you finish..." meme, but I'm not entirely sure of that.

I haven't really paid attention to recent developments in hip-hop, and by "recent" I mean since about 1993. Much of the music I listen to these days is extremely aggressive metal that frightens most people, like this and this and this. Still, there has been much ado about this Yeezus album, so I'm curious to see what all the fuss is about. Apologists for these big-time rap stars are always waxing philosophical about how they're doing such creative and innovative things with the genre, so I'd like to find out exactly what the hell that means. And to be fair, I'm going to give this album an even-minded, unprejudiced listen, and point out anything positive, commendable, or interesting I find in it. Lest you question my thoroughness and dedication to this endeavor, I'm going to go track-by-track, start to finish. Let's get to it, bitches!

The Name and Artwork

I have absolutely no idea what the intention of the title Yeezus is. The obvious connection is with Jesus, the chief mythological figure associated with the Christian religion. I have no idea what this misspelling is supposed to imply, connote, or intimate, and I'm not even going to try to figure it out. As far as I know it's just a word that Kanye made up, as I've never seen or heard it anywhere else. If it's a reference to something, it's lost on me. (Note: I've since discovered that Kanye goes by Yeezy, so that offers some explanation. I did not know this when I began the post.)

Then there's the album art: there isn't any. Apparently this album is shipping in a clear jewel case with a sticker on it. I'm not really sure what to make of that either, although I'm sure "professional" music critics will pontificate ad nauseam about what the intended message is. To me it's interesting, a novelty, a quirk from the mind of an artist who may or may not be insane.

This album also has more producers than Miley Cyrus has excuses to disrobe. I'll admit that I'm not really sure what a producer actually does, but I can't imagine that 25 of them are necessary to make 40 minutes of recorded music. I also have no idea who these extraneous people are. (I thought I knew one of them, but after investigation it turns out that I don't know the difference between Lupe Fiasco and Bruno Mars.) And now, at long last, my much-anticipated review of Yeezus:

On Sight

Oh dear. I think I've made a terrible mistake. Well, no matter, I will soldier on! I'm going to listen to the rest of this mess if it kills me. Ok so this first track... um... well, it's incredibly synth-heavy, kind of like the sort of sounds that come out of a plasticky Casio keyboard, and a full 34 seconds go by before Mr. West's vocal arrival. I'll confess that I generally hold the predictable, stereotypical white-folk view that rap/hip-hop lyrics are simply disgusting glorifications of profanity, violence, degradation of women, sexual conquest, and material culture, so I was looking forward to educating myself via this widely-celebrated release.

Unfortunately, the fourth word on the album is fuck, the fifth line mentions famous luxury automaker Mercedes-Benz, the sixth contains a distasteful simile about Parkinson's disease, and the twelfth intimates that Kanye intends to penetrate your (the listener's?) wife. The second verse finishes with the subtle line but I got her back in and put my dick in her mouth. Definitely some serious innovation going on here.

There is one slightly clever line - she got more niggas off than Cochran - although I can't be sure that Kanye wrote it, since there are 11 names with writing credits on this track. So I guess this suffices for an introduction to the new album: Kanye is a monster about to come alive again and a real nigga back in the house again. The title, though... "on sight," lacks any context whatsoever, and so I have absolutely no idea what it's supposed to mean. What's on sight? Whose sight? Does that phrase mean something when used in a vacuum like this? This hasn't gone well so far, but I have a good feeling about the next track, based solely on the title.

Black Skinhead

Ok, so... the first thing I noticed about this track is that it's basically just Gary Glitter's Rock 'n Roll Part 2 with rap lyrics over it. Seriously, I want Kanye to be quiet so I can yell "rock 'n rooollllll HEY!"

This is apparently the first "single" to drop from Yeezus, and I've seen it described as having "a strong anti-racism message." The song does have lyrics like They see a black man with a white woman / At the top floor they gone come to kill King Kong and Stop all that coon shit / Early morning cartoon shit, but that's about it. He also says that he's being persecuted by conservative Baptists and Catholics, but I'm not sure why that should be... I mean given Kanye's need to dress in fancy clothes and jam his dick into people's mouths, I think he's ripe for the priesthood. Kanye for Pope!

I must also draw attention to the lyrics in the hook (what white folk call the chorus, or what extremely old white folk call the refrain) - I keep it 300, like the Romans / 300 bitches, where the Trojans? First of all, I have no idea what "I keep it 300" could possibly mean, but more importantly, the 300 Kanye is probably referring to were Greeks, not Romans. The heights of their two respective civilizations are separated by several centuries, so it's not a trivial error. The second part of the lyric is just hack writing; everybody makes Trojan/condom jokes.

This song also displays incredibly lazy and uncreative writing. Kanye (or whoever else of the 11 people also listed as writers) frequently rhymes lines with the same word, and in the second verse, those words are almost exclusively "shit" and "bitch." Rolling Stone magazine inexplicably dubbed this track the 3rd best of 2013. They assert, "Next time someone says America is post-race, play 'em this, and watch their head explode." First of all, anyone who suggests that America is post-race probably has a learning disability. Second, from what I've heard from the first two songs on this album, Kanye is incredibly preoccupied with the fact that he's black, and everything he's said so far has reinforced negative stereotypes, not ameliorated them. If this song really does have an anti-racism message, it's presented so opaquely that I can't seem to find it. I'm really excited about the next track though, which has an even better title than this one!

I Am a God

I'm really confounded as to how "Weird Al" Yankovic's name isn't among the 15 with writing credits on this track, as it makes me literally laugh out loud. Maybe Al's using an alias because he doesn't want to ruin his white-boy street cred? Anyway... supposedly Kanye wrote this song after being told by a fashion designer that he could come to a posh runway show, but only on the condition that he not go to any others. To this he thoughtfully remarked, "Cause it’s like, Yo! Nobody can tell me where I can and can’t go. Man, I’m the No. 1 living and breathing rock star. I am Axl Rose; I am Jim Morrison; I am Jimi Hendrix." I'm sure if Jim Morrison were alive, he'd be happy to swap stories with Kanye about how his new fashion brand didn't take off right away either. Is this asshole serious? Does he hear himself talk?

I guess I should at least talk about the track, since a gaggle of producers slaved over a hot MacBook to ensure its unquestionable quality. There's an incoherent bit of sampling at the beginning which doesn't seem to have anything to do with anything, and then most of the track is a fuzzy, monotonous, pulsating womp punctuated with little synth noises between Kanye's hilariously tactless lyrics. He actually says I am a God / So hurry up with my damn massage / In a French-ass restaurant / Hurry up with my damn croissants.

How am I supposed to take this seriously? This whole song comes off as a desperate attempt by Kanye to convince himself that he's powerful and relevant. I can only assume that he's the least confident person on the planet, craving attention and validation from everyone, and if he doesn't get it, he apparently goes off on a megalomaniacal tirade. There's obviously a disconnect between how Kanye feels about himself and how others feel about him. Ironically these are not the words of a god; they're the words of a person who desperately wants to be a god, but simply isn't. I bet Axl Rose never had to tell anybody to hurry up with his damn croissants. Axl always had his croissants on time, ditto Jim and Jimi. When you are a god, you don't actually have to say so, Mr. West.

New Slaves

This is anti-racism track number two, and certainly a clearer effort than the first. No time to waste when your songs are only a few minutes long and filled with samples of other artists' work, so Kanye gets right to it: My momma was raised in the era when / Clean water was only served to the fairer skin / Doing clothes you would have thought I had help / But they wasn't satisfied unless I picked the cotton myself... he goes on to decry this form of "new slavery" for blacks, which is material culture. What you want, a Bentley? a fur coat? a diamond chain? / All you blacks want all the same things. Ok, so, you know what might be a great inspiration to these newly-enslaved people? A guy who didn't have all of those things, who didn't rap about how awesome he is because he has all of those things, when he's not rapping about how terrible all those things are. Pardon me for not taking the message seriously when it comes from someone who can't be bothered to take his own advice.

Kanye also bravely proclaims, Fuck you and your corporation / Y'all niggas can't control me, although his main goal in life seems to be to become a corporation and control other people. Then he says things like You see there's leaders, and there's followers / But I'd rather be a dick than a swallower and then simultaneously expects his message to be taken seriously. At a certain point, it doesn't matter how magnanimous and well-intentioned your message is; if you can't express it without the words nigga, pussy, dick, fuck and suggestions of rape and violence, nobody is going to listen.

Musically, the track is rather sparse for the most part, lacking a strong back-beat during the verses. It certainly pushes the vocals to the front of the mix, and thus far this track has the largest collection of lyrics, so it makes sense. There's an inexplicable, jarring break at about 2:50 when the track completely splices into some other, completely different track with auto-tuned vocals. Not sure what is going on here, and then things get even more surreal when this gives way to an excerpt from an old Hungarian pop song called "Gyöngyhajú lány." Kudos, Kanye; I certainly didn't see that coming.

Hold My Liquor

This is the closest thing to actual introspection and artistry that I've heard on this album so far. While generally it has been predictable, superficial, commercial diarrhea, this song seems to have a hint of personal truth to it. The track is rather simple, with minimal instrumentation and really just a muted pulse to keep time for the lyrics, which deal rather candidly with substance abuse. Of course if Kanye wants to be a rock star then he'd better have a drinking problem, and that's really the theme of this song.

I will say that I thought we were done with auto-tune, but it's all over everyone's vocals but Kanye's, and it's really a shame because I just find it distracting from the message of the words. Kanye's sole verse is a somber, brooding, apologetic, self-deprecating soliloquy about the all-too-common pitfalls of the rock star lifestyle, particularly the transient and ephemeral nature of alcohol-fueled frivolity. Bonus points for using the phrase "late night organ donor" to characterize a booty-call.

I think the reason that this song is the only competent one thus far is that it's the only one that's been even slightly relatable. It deals with a universal theme and actual human experiences and emotions, and all of this is related in a relatively straightforward way. I don't think there's anything particularly artful about Kanye's verse as a composition - the cadence is incredibly monotonous and unvaried, and there's nothing earth-shattering about the rhymes or language, but this is the first thing he's said that I've actually heard. Let's listen on and see where things go from here...

I'm In It

...oh. um. The next track is a brash, brazen, and bawdy account of non-committal copulation crafted with all the subtlety and nuance of a Black Friday Walmart brawl. Seriously, there's something to be said for being direct, but Kanye's dropping rhymes so tawdry they'd make Dr. Ruth turn a bashful shade of crimson. An erotic act is related with what I can only characterize as startlingly blunt detail, with such artful phrases as eating ass, eye fucking, your titties - let 'em out, and my personal favorite, put my fist in her like a civil rights sign.

Kanye's jarringly tactless lyrics are accompanied by random bouts of incomprehensible Rastafarian-sounding raspy babble, and the "hook" includes a vocal performance by someone who can actually sing, making the section between 1:40 and 2:10 the only listenable part of the song. I can't let this one go without also mentioning the profoundly stupid lyrics and the beginning (As I turn my Blackberry off / And I turn your bath water on / And you turn off your iPhone) and the very end (Uh, I be speaking Swaghili). Swaghili? Really?

Blood on the Leaves

There's really no sugar-coating this one - it's a 6 minute auto-tuned nightmare. The song begins with a sample of a music recording of the poem "Strange Fruit," which was written as a response to racism in America in 1937, and bits of the recording are inserted quite annoyingly throughout the track. This song actually has four verses, which as far as I can tell chronicle an unpleasant experience that Kanye had with some gold-digger type. The last verse (mercifully the only one not auto-tuned) has the most salient presentation, addressed affectionately to all my second-string bitches.

Generally it seems to be a commentary on the dangers of sleeping indiscriminately with every woman one encounters and then running into problems when one of them invariably gets pregnant. It is surely a lamentable situation when one must decide between paying the lawyers or the Mercedes dealer. Woe unto you, Kanye, and the contemptible wealth you have amassed! Mo' money mo' problems, amirite? This song is long, boring, and unlistenable thanks to a complete overuse of auto-tune. I also fail to see the connection between the content of the poem in the sample and the subject of this song. Somebody's gonna have to explain that one to me.

Guilt Trip

This is part 2 of the Vulnerable Kanye saga, although this one doesn't work nearly as well as Hold My Liquor does. It should work in theory, as it's a song about unrequited love, the one who got away, possibly the oldest theme in the history of songwriting. I'm just not buying it from Kanye, perhaps because he's not selling it too well. This song is light on lyrics, and we only get a superficial analysis of this failed relationship. It doesn't help that the vocals are fucking auto-tuned again. If I can just pause for a second (your album's pretty good, Kanye, and imma finish it...) to elucidate why I find it so detrimental, it can be explained (like so many things) by the internet. Once the internet gets hold of something, it gets run into the ground at fiber-optic speeds. As far as I'm concerned, once the Bed Intruder dropped, that was the end of auto-tune as a legitimate practice in music. It's a joke now, and it instantly takes me out of the song.

Ill-advised production decisions aside (I guess all 417 producers agreed that auto-tune was a great idea), this song just seems like filler. It only has one verse, in which Kanye vaguely describes a girl with whom things just didn't work out for some reason. Why? Maybe it's cause she into Leos / And I was into trios, plus all the trips to Rio. Those lines just seem forced to me, dictated by the rhyming words rather than any sort of effort at storytelling. The rest of the track is occupied by more incoherent guest vocals, and then a whiny outro that pitifully sobs If you love me so much then why'd you let me go? over and over.

Send It Up

This track, the penultimate composition on Kanye's mighty opus, is nearly three minutes of my life that I can't have back. As far as I can tell it isn't about anything, and I have no idea what "send it up" means. That's problematic, because a considerable portion of the song is simply repetition of the phrase "we can send this bitch up, it can't go down." Whatever that means.

According to Mr. West, This is the greatest shit in the club since 'In Da Club.' I do remember that song - when I heard it the first time I thought the guy doing the vocals was either half-asleep, not speaking English, or both. Kanye's awake for this one, but he couldn't be bothered to find his rhyming dictionary (nor could the 30 other people involved in the writing and production of this gem, apparently). "Club" is paired in the next four lines with ... "club." In fairness though, he pronounces it "cluhh," which probably makes finding a suitable rhyme more difficult.

There's more Rasta-babble at the end, this time by a fellow named Beenie Man. I assume he was one of the housekeeping staff at the Parisian hotel where Kanye wrote and recorded much of this record, because there is no other explanation for why he should be a part of the music business. Toss this track on top of the last one in the "filler" pile.

Bound 2

The Wikipedia page for this song says that critics generally found it to be the best track on the album, so I'm going to listen to it extra hard so I don't miss anything. As the page notes, "this song  incorporates numerous samples into its production, including prominent elements of the song "Bound" (1971) by soul group Ponderosa Twins Plus One." That's a pretty accurate description, but I'd say something more like "this song is Kanye West pressing 'play' on the song "Bound" (1971) by soul group Ponderosa Twins Plus One and then talking over top of it." I guess he did add some original elements, like the part where someone called Charlie Wilson sings over top of distorted synth farting noises which would probably rattle any American-made car apart if played at even a moderate volume. It just doesn't work, talking over top of this sample, and Kanye's vocals constantly drag as if he's forever just slightly behind the beat.

Lyrically, there are definitely some gems in here. The second verse really hits me where I live: I wanna fuck you hard on the sink / After that give you somethin to drink / Step back, can't get spunk on the mink. Preach, brother. The album probably reaches its glorious peak later in this same verse when Kanye becomes the first human being to rhyme Thanksgiving with Christmas.

The end of the second verse is a fitting end to the album, I think, and a great summary of how I'm feeling right now: But first, you gon' remember how to forget / After all these long-ass verses / I'm tired, you tired, Jesus wept.

Amen.

Conclusions

I tried, really I did. I really want to get it, to understand why people rave about this guy, even if I don't actually appreciate it on some deep level. I can happily admit talent when I see or hear it, even if I don't particularly like it - maybe I don't dig it, but I get why other people could. I do not understand why Kanye West is famous.

Even in the context of the rap/hip-hop genre, there are people I genuinely respect as talented artists. The old school guys back in the late 80's actually had a purpose for their art; it was a response to the racism, police brutality, and general difficulty in life that they grew up with and experienced first-hand for so long, and their music was a fiery, passionate reaction to that situation. Songs like Fuck tha Police actually had a real story to tell, a useful social commentary about the state of race relations in the impoverished inner cities of the US. Songs like that come from a powerful creative source, and I completely understand why people bought that stuff by the millions.

Even to take other contemporary artists as a point of comparison, there are rappers who can sing relatively well (R. Kelly), who can perform some serious vocal acrobatics (Busta Rhymes) and who are obviously quite gifted at writing lyrics, whether they be funny, aggressive, or offensive (Eminem, Eminem, and Eminem). Kanye West isn't any good at any of these things. At all.

Maybe there's something about the music? But if that's the case, how much credit does Kanye deserve for the final product, when every song has multiple writers and producers credited? Ironically, despite the apparent collaboration of dozens of people on this record, the backing tracks on Yeezus are rather spartan. It's a complete contradiction that the efforts of so many people resulted in such an anemic soundtrack. What were they all doing? I assume Kanye just pays people to stroke his fragile ego while he makes his albums and then gives them "producer" credits.

I'm really trying to reconcile all the glowing critical reviews of this album with the reality of my perception of it, and I'm failing. As far as I can find, there's nothing even remotely interesting on this album, let alone praiseworthy. Kanye seems to be famous despite his music, not because of it, and I think critics are simply falling victim to their own psychological aversion to the inevitable cognitive dissonance arising from the stark difference between Kanye the artist and Kanye the brand. Kanye's popularity can't be denied, and so his talent must be affirmed in order to square the circle. Perhaps we should all encourage Mr. West to pursue other avenues; I certainly don't want him to make any more music.