Why I'm Losing My Mind

Well, it's not because I don't have enough material to draft my paper, or because I waited too long to start, or because I haven't given it enough thought.  I'm pretty sure that I feel like I'm going crazy because I've never written a paper like this one before.  The peer review is Friday (today's Sunday), and this entry is supposed to be about problems I'm having.  The way it's going so far is that I keep thinking of stuff I needed to put in my outline but didn't, so every time I finish one task (for lack of a better word), I have to go back and put something else ahead of what I just wrote.  In other words, this thing is growing in every possible direction, and it may be totally out of control.

The one "task" that's given me the most trouble is defining a term:  action hero.  I guess that if I knew more about action/adventure stories in the 1800s, I'd be able to come up with a more scholarly definition that would take that into account.  As it is, I'm basing the definition on a couple of sources (the Tasker article and the one about Gladiator), and I think/hope I've finally got it to work.

The argument itself is shaping up okay, thanks to that Slate.com article.  I'm refuting it point by point.  My conclusion sucks.  That's the next big problem.

Speaking of peer reviews, my feed just popped up a batch of articles about a group of academics "corrupting" the process of academic publishing.  Take a look:

Related articles by Zemanta

• Globo warmers corrupted peer review process (tech.bl0x.info)
• Video: Head of IPCC dismisses Climategate, relies on peer review (hotair.com)
• Former CRU chief: Hiding data is a critical part of science! (hotair.com)

Body Talk

I've been working my way through the Tasker book (Tasker, Yvonne, Ed. Action and Adventure Cinema. London: Routledge, 2004.), and it's really interesting.  I can already see that there are ideas I can apply to my project, even though -- of course -- they are writing about different movies.  One of those ideas has to do with bodies.  Apparently Tasker previously wrote a book about what she calls "muscular cinema" (she's a Brit), talking about the action films of the 1980s, when Stallone and Schwarzenegger were the big stars.  It's easy to see where she's coming from; just think of Rambo, and you can see a picture of Stallone where he's all sweaty and bulging with muscles.  Things changed when Die Hard was released, since Bruce Willis is obviously not of the same physical type.  
About half the authors of the articles in this book refer to the body issue.  One of the articles I like so far is by Steve Neale, titled "Maximus Melodramaticus:  Masculinity, Masochism and White Male Paranoia in Contemporary Hollywood Cinema."
Unfortunately, Neale writes in a pretty dense style, from my point of view, at least.  Here's an example:
"This distinctly fetishistic adulation surrounding Maximus/Crowe's quasi-bestial masculine persona belies a return of the repressed:  a nostalgic longing for a mythic masculine essence, a phallic presence  rather than a bricolage of 'decorative' and commodified signifiers.  Of course, this is exacerbated by the generic throwback to the 1950s epic and the national masculine certitude it worked to represent" (Neale 244).
See what I mean?  Quasi-bestial?   Bricolage?
Anyway, I'm trying to figure out where Robert Downey Jr. fits in the grand scheme of things in the action hero timeline.  My problem has to do with a movie of his that I saw a long time ago, Restoration.  There's a scene in that film where RD is naked -- with feathers -- and at one point he is walking away from the camera.  Far from being a hard body (even as hard as Willis), he's pretty flabby.  Not fat, but completely untoned, if you know what I mean.  And every time I see him in a film nowadays, I have that mental picture.  I wish I'd never seen it.