A Review of MAN OVERBOARD! by Kathleen Rooney * Man Overboard! Kathleen Rooney Review

A Review of MAN OVERBOARD! (2026) by Kathleen Rooney

by Dr. Joseph Suglia

In MAN OVERBOARD! (2026), Professor Kathleen Rooney is attempting to write a beachread and a novel for poets at the same time.  Such an enterprise is difficult to urge, yet the authoress does so with exuberance.

This is an exuberantly written fantasia.

Professor Rooney writes as if she were a quaintrelle.  The novel’s prose-style reminds one of the socialite novels of Truman Capote and of Anita Loos.  At times, she impersonates her main character—Kick, a buffoonish young man who drunkenly falls from the deck of a cruise-ship into the Gulf of Mexico.  At other times, she sounds like Kathleen Rooney, poetess.  Many of her sentences are delightful:

Confronting the possibility of his death beneath the sea-swells, Kick’s greatest qualm is that he might never sleep with another woman again: “Dead men have no sex” [11].

Swimming underwater (not a pleonasm), Kirk turns his head to the left and sees an aquatic monstrosity: “A colossal stingray was flying silently not a foot from me, an eerie gray angel” [21].

Floating on the sea without control over direction or destination, Kirk fantasizes about coffee and vanilla ice-cream: “The ionic slurp of the ocean is the only reply” [57].  That is “ionic,” not “ironic.”  The ocean may be described as “ionic” inasmuch as ions are dissolved within it.  The Gulf of Mexico is a marginal sea, but it is, of course, connected to the Atlantic Ocean.

Kick has a colloquy with a sea-turtle with an unpronounceable name.  For some reason, the sea-turtle is wearing a motley cap.  Kick remarks to us: “Her bells jingle in the wavelets” [107].

It strikes Kick that he would be enjoying Thanksgiving with his family had he not slipped from the cruise-ship into the sea: “Puffy white clouds dot the sky like marshmallows atop the sweet potato casserole we’d be eating right about now were this a regular Thanksgiving” [129].

Kick remembers sighting what might be his double at the Nebraska State Fair: “At the dunk tank, a soggy clown in white greasepaint and a traffic-cone-colored wig sat on the collapsible seat over the water, daring passersby to soak him” [153].

As I was reading the text, I could not escape the impression that Professor Rooney had finally liberated herself as an author, despite the apparent influences of Capote and Loos.  She burned away all of the parasites that encrusted the side of her ship.

Self-anointed, uninvited guest-“editors” are parasites—endoparasites, even.  This is the sort of invirile man who would say loudly, behind an authoress’s back, that her first novel is “MY BOOK.”

Such invasive, invirile, invidious men are not poets; they are not even poetasters.  Such uninvited guests are non-poets who hastily type out groan-inducing, illiterate jokes which they call “poems.”

My advice to Kathleen Rooney would be to bream the hull of her ship—bream the hull of its limpets and barnacles by burning and scraping them off.  I would recommend that she detach the thick layer of marine growth that has accreted on the hull and pitch the gastropods and arthropods off the side of her ship and into the ocean—where they belong.

Dr. Joseph Suglia

THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST by Mel Gibson / An Analysis of THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST

IF YOU ARE AT LEAST TWENTY-EIGHT (28) YEARS OF AGE, CLICK THE IMAGE ABOVE TO READ MY NOVEL WATCH OUT: THE FINAL VERSION.

An Analysis of The Passion of the Christ (2004) by Joseph Suglia

Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ (2004) is a personal film.  An exceedingly, excessively, earnestly personal film.  “Personal” to the point of autobiography.  It is not merely a personal reinterpretation of the Jesus myth, but a hand-wringingly serious appropriation of that myth for the sake of a deeply personal program.

What that “deeply personal program” might be is worth pondering.  The film focuses on the condemnation, scourging, and crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth; the rest of his life is almost entirely bracketed out.  We see snapshots of his past in the form of flashbacks.  But these flashbacks seem forced.  They appear to be designed to make the torture seem relevant, i.e. “religiously” meaningful.

The film has an independent investment in brutality, in cruelty.  One suspects that Gibson has a particular interest in cruelty for cruelty’s sake–not for any “transcendent” purpose.

It is not accidental that The Passion of the Christ has horror-cinematic elements: the attack on Judas at the hands of screeching daemon-children, the ubiquitous presence of an androgynous Satan, the demotion of someone-or-other to Hell, etc.  The Passion of the Christ is, sensu stricto, a horror film.

Throughout, Jesus’s voluntary assumption of his torture and death is emphasized.  One of the strongest images in the film has The Christ embrace his own crucifix as if it were a lover.  It is repeatedly stressed in this work that Jesus loves his persecutors, loves his persecutions, and welcomes and affirms his own death.

Of course, there is scriptural evidence to support Jesus’s affirmation of his own mortality:  “How blest you are, when you suffer insults and persecution and every kind of calumny for my sake.  Accept it with gladness and exultation, for you have a rich reward in heaven; in the same way they persecuted the prophets before you” [Matthew 5:11-12].  Anyone who has read the Gospels and the Gnostic texts, such as The Gospel of Judas, knows that Jesus’ persecutors were acting according to a divinely ordained, prestabilized plan–a plan that Jesus had accepted in advance.

The undeniable accent on self-imposed violence, however, exceeds any “religious” justification.  There is a kind of bloodlust in this film, a joy in the systematic reduction of a human body to dead, shredded meat.  Religiosity, in this context, is used as a mere pretext for eroticized violence.

The Passion of the Christ is a violently pornographic film.  It portrays violence as something that is deeply gratifying.  It presents consumable representations of violence.  Predictably, the film’s creator and promoter is self-deceptive, dishonest, about its sadomasochistic dimensions.

Post scriptum: How is it possible that The Dreamers (2003) received an NC-17 rating for a smattering of male nudity and this film did not?  A “religious” subtext pacifies the MPAA, it seems…

Joseph Suglia

CLICK THE IMAGE BELOW TO READ MY MASTERPIECE TABLE 41: