What have you done for me lately? That's a sports cliche regarding firing coaches, managers, etc. As in, yeah, you won two Super Bowls for a team that tried four other times, but we haven't won in a while so we're letting you go, Shanahan. I don't like Mike Shanahan or the Denver Broncos and this isn't even about the firing and hiring of coaches. But it is about people forgetting that Bill Walsh didn't invent the forward pass and that Emmitt Smith isn't the greatest running back ever.
Sports are a metaphor for our daily lives. If not a metaphor, at least a microcosm. Every president we have is the worst president ever while in office and gets better as he gets further away from the office (Dumbya notwithstanding). Life is terrible and hasn't ever been this bad. Things are wonderful and we've never had it so good. See where I'm going with this? Same with sports. Nobody has ever been as good as [fill in blank with today's latest phenom]. Every sportscasters uses hyperbole for each and every play. To hear them tell it, every week results in the greatest play they've ever seen. Nobody remembers and it started with playing sports for ridiculous amounts of money. The players, with few exceptions, don't care about the history of the game, they just care about the financial bounty awaiting them if they play it at a high level. Which is why it's always surprising when players actually work on their own time to correct deficiencies in their games. If the players don't keep the history alive, why should the fans care? I remember memorizing record books and knowing every all-time and season record for every sport (not hockey; hockey's not a sport; it's mayhem and chaos with surendipitous scoring). Every game I watched was a potential for a record-breaker. That doesn't happen today (notable exceptions, Tiger Woods and Peyton Manning).
Why is it that today everyone marvels at Peyton Manning practicing with his receiving core to establish timing and understanding each other's idiosyncrasies? Pretty soon people will forget the throws Marino used to make routinely that quarterbacks are lauded for making today. Now, I'm not going to write that Marino was the greatest QB ever because he wasn't and never will be. The greatest quarterback ever was and always will be Johnny Unitas. Why? Simple. He played when all the rules in football applied to all the players. Specifically, he played in an age where you were actually allowed to tackle the quarterback. There was no such thing as the slide to avoid contact. Moreover, roughing the passer usually required a stretcher.
That's not all. The field changed, the pass interference rules changed, and the ball changed. First, the field changed. Who remembers when the hashmarks were where the numbers are? What did that do? It eliminated one side of the field or another if it was the short side for runs and defenses were able to use the sideline as a twelfth defender. Pass interference? You were allowed to slap, hit, forearm, push, gouge, etc., until the ball was in the air. Think about it. A defender had to watch the QB while he was defending so he would stop whacking the guy when the pass was thrown. Wouldn't that make refereeing easier. The ref watches the QB until he throws the ball and then turns his attention to the object of the pass. If there's a touch of any kind, that's interference. Finally, the ball. It is now aerodynamically designed to fly straighter and truer. It is also, much easier to tuck under the arm for running backs. Go back and look at what Jim Brown was carrying around or what Johnny U was throwing and let me know if the players today could remotely be able to deal with that.
Players today could not deal with the other factors that the players in the 50s and 60s were dealing with. Not to mention that everyone of the players from those eras needed another job in the off season and sometimes during the season. Some guys had trouble getting to practice because they couldn't get out of their jobs in time. In those days, a $100 fine was punitive. Then there was the travel and how they had to travel. This is without mentioning the racial unrest that was in the country and in sports.
Next you have the way baseball was played and how it's played now. Players didn't have 50 bats waiting for them and could break one an inning and still have one. Players had two or three bats total and it was a chore to get new ones. There were no big endorsement deals to supplement their salaries. Ted Williams used to go to the bat manufacturing lumber yards to hand pick the wood to be used for his bats. And the way umpires throw out baseballs today, you'd think these things were made in Third World countries by slave labor (oh, sorry, sore subject). Players used to play until the baseballs were truly unplayable. That meant no longer round or with torn stitching. Go to a baseball game and count how many baseballs are thrown out by umpires in that particular game and I will bet that the amount would equal what a team used to go through in a month.
Baseball is the king of all sports because it embraces everything we like about competition and highlights the characters of the game. When Gaylord Perry got repeatedly accused of throwing a spitball (which only became illegal in 1920, although each team was allowed to designate 2 pitchers who could legally throw it; the next year it was completely outlawed, except of course for all active pitchers throwing it who were grandfathered in until they retired), it was considered quaint and entertaining. Perry basically getting undressed by umpires looking for where he kept his stash was exceedingly comical and folksy.
Another bit of sports lore found endearing in baseball was stealing signs. Famously, Bobby Thompson's "Shot Heard 'Round the World" was allegedly a product of sign stealing. In baseball, the response by true fans was and is, "so what?" It's a nuance of the game that makes it endearing and enduring. So when you tell me that Belichick filmed the Jets' sideline signal caller, I am prone to say, "so what?" I find it almost ridiculous that, in football, if one team's electronic equipment fails, the other team is required to turn theirs off. My answer would be, "tough, get better equipment."
Nowadays, the outcry against performance enhancing drugs is deafening, but it is the legacy of baseball that a player will try to gain every edge possible, even if it means hollowing out a bat and filling it with cork. "Who cares?" we say in baseball. All you have to do is catch the player. When you do, he's punished, but you don't take away the homeruns that occurred before. If so, you'd have to decide which games Gaylord Perry won using the spitball, which was considered cheating (most likely, it's all of them) and then toss him from the Hall of Fame. Or not. Ty Cobb is still in there and he makes today's bad boy athletes look like choir boys. I would propose that by attaching the "drug" moniker to these substances is part of the influence. Many of these substances are supplements that are used every day by people looking to increase their muscle gains. But because today baseball wants nothing but natural freaks to be their poster boys, anything remotely enhancing health or recovery is banned. Remember, even anabolic steroids were not outlawed in baseball until very, very recently. So you can't say it was cheating.
The other part of baseball that is charming is the way stars were treated. They were respected and revered. But they were not coddled. In fact, even today, baseball is the one sport that doesn't go out of its way to create stars. They let the stars shine and reap the benefits of that stardom in their later years. We all know that when Ted Williams was at bat and he took a borderline 2-0 pitch, the umpire was more than likely to call it a ball because of Teddy Ballgame's renowned reputation for having a discerning eye. Whitey Ford and Sandy Koufax got borderline strike calls because they were, well, Whitey Ford and Sandy Koufax. It didn't change the game's outcome. Those umpires didn't call balls strikes or vice versa, but if close, a star got the benefit of the doubt.
Now we get to the star-making sports machine: the NBA. No other sport uses its rules and the enforcement of those rules to create more stars than the NBA. The NBA is like the movie studios of the 40s and 50s. Just show up with charisma and we'll do the rest to make you a star. Nobody questions that Michael Jordan was supremely gifted as an athlete, but do we really need to call a foul every time he misses a shot or fail to call a foul when he, say, as a pure hypothetical, pushes off Bryan Russell to make the winning shot in the NBA Finals? He doesn't need help to be great if he is great. Larry Bird (one of my least favorite players of all time) had a great quote in an Eastern Conference final between his Pacers and the Bulls. After watching Scottie Pippen (maybe the single most over-rated player of all time) get away with foul after foul guarding Reggie Miller, Bird said, "If Pippen had to guard Jordan, he'd foul out in the first 5 minutes."
The latest anointed "star" is LeBron James. Before you start, I agree he is a great physical specimen and he has great basketball skills. That said, he doesn't need a complete pass to greatness. He's big and strong, but he's not a finesse player despite his claims that he is. Charles Barkley once said of Karl Malone, "If I had his body, I'd be the greatest power forward that ever lived." He meant that Malone did not attempt to improve and utilize his gifts to their potential. The same goes for LeBron James. Does he really need to be the best 3-point shooter on his team. Well, Michael Jordan improved his outside shooting so James feels he has to as well. Why? When you're 6'8" and weigh 250 lbs, you just go to the hoop all day and every lay-up is a potential 3-point play. Why won't he? It's too hard.
Meanwhile, the NBA has legitimate stars and exceptional athletes. It is possibly the one sport that the athletes playing today may be better than their predecessors (golf is probably one too, but it's not a team sport). You look around the league and wonder why there isn't more focus on players that didn't get elevated to the throne. The main example that comes to mind is Dwyane Wade. He puts everything onto the floor every time he suits up. He is clutch and is willing to accept the burden of carrying his team, even if his team isn't worth carrying. Then, he sacrifices his body on virtually every play. He plays better defense, is a better passer, and has a higher basket ball IQ than LeBron James ever will. What's the difference? He's 3 inches shorter and 50 lbs lighter. So he cannot attack at will or he will be crushed by the big bodies underneath. More importantly, he has the heart of a champion and James just doesn't. Yeah, James pays lip service to "being all about winning", but it seems he only wants to win in the regular season.
Today the debate is who are the greatest quarterbacks that ever lived? Joe Montana, John Elway, Dan Marino, Brett Favre, Tom Brady, or Peyton Manning. Not a single mention of Johnny U. The qb that not only executed the 2minute drill better, he invented it. Not a word about Sammy Baugh or Otto Graham or Bart Starr (the Joe Montana of his day). Too much is made in football about Super Bowl Championships like life did not exist before 1966. When I hear a reporter actually say that "LeBron James is the greatest athlete ever to play in Cleveland" I want to run (not fly, run) to Cleveland and hit him with a record book from the NFL and see if he's ever heard of Jim Brown. Jim Brown gained over 12,000 yards in 4 12-game and 5 14-game seasons. 114 games. Do the math. He averaged over 100 yards a game for his career. FOR HIS CAREER!!! He also averaged over 5 yards a carry and had 104 TDs in 114 games. Plus he did it as a Black man in an white man's world where he was subjected to all kinds of abuse, mental and physical. Lebron James would have to average a triple double for his career to exceed that level of greatness.
All I'm saying is go back and watch films or read reports of these players past. I don't mean the glowing references written well after their careers are past (much like past presidents, some old-timers get better with age). I mean the reporting of the games as they were played. But more importantly, watch films. Watch Dr. J virtually sacrifice his offensive game to play suffocating defense on Larry Bird. Watch Jim Brown carry a football or Johnny U execute the 2 minute drill like never before or since. See Jerry West or Oscar Robertson play with a never-ending passion. Witness the sheer joy of Willie Mays playing the game he loved and still loves. And never forget that all-time greats did not start showing up last week.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Friday, April 9, 2010
The Dante Club by Matthew Pearl
I think writing a book may be one of the most difficult tasks to undertake and complete. I admire anyone who can finish a book then get it published. That said, this book is way too much in love with itself. Too often artists, whether they be movie makers, authors, or musicians, want everyone to appreciate how much they put into their craft. George Lucas said that Jabba the Hutt's ship cost over $32 million and was on the screen for about 20 seconds. He said film-makers often ruin their movies by showing off how cool their effects are. Matthew Pearl wants everyone to know just how much he delved into the past and the period of his book. It wasn't pretentious enough to use Longfellow, Lowell, Holmes, Sr., et al as his main characters. He had to give them all kinds of idiosyncrasies in an attempt to make them his own.
However, if that was all that was wrong with this book, it would be passable because you can get past that. There are so many little annoyances that one can't help but notice them. That is, the story is enveloped by the little tidbits that Pearl can't help but throw in. This is almost like watching a small child with a little talent constantly saying, "Watch me, watch me." The story just isn't good enough to carry you past the speed bumps. You constantly stop reading or paying attention to your reading because you are repeatedly reading things that are hiccups, for want of a better word.
I read "On Writing" by Stephen King and I am having trouble applying all he said to my own writing. However, I have no trouble using those words of wisdom to analyze other people's writing. One of my favorite pieces of advice from Mr. King is to resist using adjectives. Let the drama of your writing set the tone without use of those descriptive terms. Maybe, at some point, Pearl will learn that lesson. His relentless use of the adjectives in order to let us know how or why something is being said is, to say the least, annoying. It also distracts us from the story. Like I said, any distraction from the story doesn't require much because it just isn't very compelling.
The piece de resistance is Pearl's decision to throw in a thoroughly unnecessary and boring rendition of how terrible it was in the Civil War. Telling you this will not give away the book, but the killer was exposed to the horrors of war and was indelibly scarred by the experience. In other words, Pearl is trying to convey that there was post-traumatic stress disorder during the Civil War. That is an incredible revelation since that was the most horrific war in this country's history with the most casualties and the most carnage. Give me a break. Not only that, he tries to use hints and symptoms to let us know that it was PTSD without saying it was PTSD so that he can feel that he is plowing new ground. Pathetic and obvious.
Here it is. Don't read this book if you value your time. I read it and almost stopped about a fifth of the way through, but it so offended my sensibilities that I knew that I had to finish it so I could write a valid review. I also hoped that the end would be one of those endings that would make the reading of the book worthwhile, but, alas, I was wrong. I regret reading it, but am glad I could read for your benefit. Luckily, it will spare me from reading any of his other books. I hope it helps you do the same.
However, if that was all that was wrong with this book, it would be passable because you can get past that. There are so many little annoyances that one can't help but notice them. That is, the story is enveloped by the little tidbits that Pearl can't help but throw in. This is almost like watching a small child with a little talent constantly saying, "Watch me, watch me." The story just isn't good enough to carry you past the speed bumps. You constantly stop reading or paying attention to your reading because you are repeatedly reading things that are hiccups, for want of a better word.
I read "On Writing" by Stephen King and I am having trouble applying all he said to my own writing. However, I have no trouble using those words of wisdom to analyze other people's writing. One of my favorite pieces of advice from Mr. King is to resist using adjectives. Let the drama of your writing set the tone without use of those descriptive terms. Maybe, at some point, Pearl will learn that lesson. His relentless use of the adjectives in order to let us know how or why something is being said is, to say the least, annoying. It also distracts us from the story. Like I said, any distraction from the story doesn't require much because it just isn't very compelling.
The piece de resistance is Pearl's decision to throw in a thoroughly unnecessary and boring rendition of how terrible it was in the Civil War. Telling you this will not give away the book, but the killer was exposed to the horrors of war and was indelibly scarred by the experience. In other words, Pearl is trying to convey that there was post-traumatic stress disorder during the Civil War. That is an incredible revelation since that was the most horrific war in this country's history with the most casualties and the most carnage. Give me a break. Not only that, he tries to use hints and symptoms to let us know that it was PTSD without saying it was PTSD so that he can feel that he is plowing new ground. Pathetic and obvious.
Here it is. Don't read this book if you value your time. I read it and almost stopped about a fifth of the way through, but it so offended my sensibilities that I knew that I had to finish it so I could write a valid review. I also hoped that the end would be one of those endings that would make the reading of the book worthwhile, but, alas, I was wrong. I regret reading it, but am glad I could read for your benefit. Luckily, it will spare me from reading any of his other books. I hope it helps you do the same.
Monday, March 22, 2010
I thought I Posted this Before but here goes again
I watch Tiger jump through the hoops set up by the media and then wait for the criticism from that media that Tiger didn't do exactly what they wanted him to do. Never mind that he didn't create a list of untouchable subjects or, as is unbelievably more prevalent, request editorial control. He can, as is his constitutional right, not answer questions that may tend to incriminate him. I'm not saying that he committed a crime, but if he answers the questions posed, he may be subjected to renewed charges by some overzealous state's attorney who thinks it's time to get her/his name in the papers.
For a while, I was giving the golf and sports media a pass and laying this all on the tabloid press. Incredibly, the most outraged media are the golf and sports media. Why? Because they feel that Tiger needs to give them the story that nobody else will get. Funny how the media claims that Tiger shouldn't get a free pass because he has managed to make everyone that works with, near, or around him way much more money than before. What's funny is that Tiger isn't giving the golf and sports media a pass and they are screaming "unfair."
Doesn't it appear to any sane person watching that Tiger Woods could slice his wrist on national t.v. and still be criticized for not opening up enough? I watch these sports "journalists" say that what more can you expect from him. According to them his interviews were controlled and he "dodged" questions by claiming they were private. How dare he think that he can have a private conversation with his wife or undergoing therapy without it being fodder for the media. One of these clowns actually had the nerve to say that Tiger had to tell us what he was being treated for because it is important to admit he has a disease. Gimme a break. Does whatever therapy he is undergoing have to be disclosed to all these media clowns? Hell no.
They all claim that they just want to know about golf, but he's told them when he's going to return. He's told them how much he misses the game. He's told them that everything that's happened is his own fault. He won't tell them what happened in his home before his car accident and he won't tell them how the accident occurred. Anyone that thinks s/he has a right to know those things is simply feeding their own prurient interests. There's no "need to know" here. This is all "wants to know." To some it would be interesting for Tiger to list all his mistresses and maybe give them a grade in their sexual skills and overall prowess. Is that news? Sure it is, if you're the National Enquirer or TMZ, but it isn't anybody's business. No one is entitled to know about his private life now anymore than before.
He didn't make this public; he didn't "use" his family to hone his image by greeting them on the final hole of a tournament; he didn't lie to the public. Did he do things secretively that he was obviously ashamed of? You bet. But if the public never found out about these affairs and he continued living that way, what we know then. It wouldn't matter as long as he continued to play up to his standards. I am of the opinion that he could not have continued that lifestyle and play golf at his high level. This may have been a man knowing he couldn't keep up this pretense sub-consciously wanting to get caught. He did. It's over. He doesn't have a squeaky clean image anymore. So what? He doesn't care. As everyone has said, if you liked him before, you still do and if you didn't, you still won't.
What's fun is watching all the Tiger haters who had to keep their hate to a minimum because they couldn't sustain a factual argument that he wasn't as good as everyone was saying. Now, they get to point to his refusal to allow them to poke and prod his personal life as a character flaw that underlies his weaknesses and the fact that he isn't too good to be true. One particular hater has said that what we saw in his interviews was just "the same old Tiger." Controlling and robotic. What this person was saying was that Tiger hasn't changed his ways without saying that Tiger is lying about changing his ways. It's easy to hide behind subliminal references so that you can have plausible deniability. You know, I didn't mean that; I was only saying that he wasn't revealing important information. Baloney. This is a person who once said he was tired of watching the saturation of Tiger on television coverage because he really wanted to see more of Paul Goydos. Paul Goydos?!?!?!?!?
Another on-air "personality" did a stand-up report from the Accenture Championship, in ranting about the timing of Tiger's public statement, that Tiger was "preventing" him from discussing Mike Weir's great putting round because of the timing of the statement. That's it! Tiger made me do it. Maybe if we strap Tiger to a chair and dunk him in a river and he doesn't drown, he's a witch. Here's the problem, the best and most interesting character in golf is one and the same: Tiger Woods. These clowns love to get attention by being contrarians and attacking Tiger. The problem with that is: they're in the minority. The players for the most part like Tiger. The media for the most part like him. Yeah, he limits his availability, but no one can refute that he gets at least ten times more requests for interviews and appearances than any other golfer. So if he controls his availability, he's not selfish. He needs time to himself as well as practice time. Tiger is just the latest "you-can't-win-for-losing" celebrity. I guarantee you that if Tiger said, "I'll answer every question everyone has at one press conference", somebody would be upset and characterize him as "controlling" and "robotic." Leave the man alone and let him do what we all want: play golf!
For a while, I was giving the golf and sports media a pass and laying this all on the tabloid press. Incredibly, the most outraged media are the golf and sports media. Why? Because they feel that Tiger needs to give them the story that nobody else will get. Funny how the media claims that Tiger shouldn't get a free pass because he has managed to make everyone that works with, near, or around him way much more money than before. What's funny is that Tiger isn't giving the golf and sports media a pass and they are screaming "unfair."
Doesn't it appear to any sane person watching that Tiger Woods could slice his wrist on national t.v. and still be criticized for not opening up enough? I watch these sports "journalists" say that what more can you expect from him. According to them his interviews were controlled and he "dodged" questions by claiming they were private. How dare he think that he can have a private conversation with his wife or undergoing therapy without it being fodder for the media. One of these clowns actually had the nerve to say that Tiger had to tell us what he was being treated for because it is important to admit he has a disease. Gimme a break. Does whatever therapy he is undergoing have to be disclosed to all these media clowns? Hell no.
They all claim that they just want to know about golf, but he's told them when he's going to return. He's told them how much he misses the game. He's told them that everything that's happened is his own fault. He won't tell them what happened in his home before his car accident and he won't tell them how the accident occurred. Anyone that thinks s/he has a right to know those things is simply feeding their own prurient interests. There's no "need to know" here. This is all "wants to know." To some it would be interesting for Tiger to list all his mistresses and maybe give them a grade in their sexual skills and overall prowess. Is that news? Sure it is, if you're the National Enquirer or TMZ, but it isn't anybody's business. No one is entitled to know about his private life now anymore than before.
He didn't make this public; he didn't "use" his family to hone his image by greeting them on the final hole of a tournament; he didn't lie to the public. Did he do things secretively that he was obviously ashamed of? You bet. But if the public never found out about these affairs and he continued living that way, what we know then. It wouldn't matter as long as he continued to play up to his standards. I am of the opinion that he could not have continued that lifestyle and play golf at his high level. This may have been a man knowing he couldn't keep up this pretense sub-consciously wanting to get caught. He did. It's over. He doesn't have a squeaky clean image anymore. So what? He doesn't care. As everyone has said, if you liked him before, you still do and if you didn't, you still won't.
What's fun is watching all the Tiger haters who had to keep their hate to a minimum because they couldn't sustain a factual argument that he wasn't as good as everyone was saying. Now, they get to point to his refusal to allow them to poke and prod his personal life as a character flaw that underlies his weaknesses and the fact that he isn't too good to be true. One particular hater has said that what we saw in his interviews was just "the same old Tiger." Controlling and robotic. What this person was saying was that Tiger hasn't changed his ways without saying that Tiger is lying about changing his ways. It's easy to hide behind subliminal references so that you can have plausible deniability. You know, I didn't mean that; I was only saying that he wasn't revealing important information. Baloney. This is a person who once said he was tired of watching the saturation of Tiger on television coverage because he really wanted to see more of Paul Goydos. Paul Goydos?!?!?!?!?
Another on-air "personality" did a stand-up report from the Accenture Championship, in ranting about the timing of Tiger's public statement, that Tiger was "preventing" him from discussing Mike Weir's great putting round because of the timing of the statement. That's it! Tiger made me do it. Maybe if we strap Tiger to a chair and dunk him in a river and he doesn't drown, he's a witch. Here's the problem, the best and most interesting character in golf is one and the same: Tiger Woods. These clowns love to get attention by being contrarians and attacking Tiger. The problem with that is: they're in the minority. The players for the most part like Tiger. The media for the most part like him. Yeah, he limits his availability, but no one can refute that he gets at least ten times more requests for interviews and appearances than any other golfer. So if he controls his availability, he's not selfish. He needs time to himself as well as practice time. Tiger is just the latest "you-can't-win-for-losing" celebrity. I guarantee you that if Tiger said, "I'll answer every question everyone has at one press conference", somebody would be upset and characterize him as "controlling" and "robotic." Leave the man alone and let him do what we all want: play golf!
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo and Who Played with Fire by Stieg Larrson
Ok, these books are great. They have suspense, action, scenery, plot. They can't be beat. I'll get the only thing I don't like out of the way because it is so minor. They're set in Sweden so the names, places, streets are names I can't pronounce or have any point of reference, so that slows me up a little. But, the stories are so good and the action so relentless that it hardly matters. I'll tell you what matters: Mr. Larsson has passed away. He died in 2004, but he left these books behind and they have been published, finally, in the states.
When you read these books, you read about incredible feats performed by the most unlikeliest of characters and you never once question them. You know you have read books where you think that the book is good, but some of the things are contrived if for no other reason than to make the story take the proper turns. The "Girl" books don't do that because the characters always act as they should in the appropriate circumstances. Each character has a personality and a set of values that you are aware of and absolutely buy. Once that happens, you're immersed in the story.
As you read from one to the other (there is a third coming out, "The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest"), the story is exposed and several new layers fall away slowly, but relentlessly, until you are seeing a more overarching plot than the mini-plot that unfolds in the context of the individual books. Then you realize that Mr. Larsson was a master story-teller. Finally, you feel sad because Mr. Larsson will never write another book again and you feel somehow cheated (there 3 more books in various stages of writing that Mr. Larsson left, but there seems to be a probate fight on who gets them, then you have to worry if the writer who completes them will have the same insight and vision as Mr. Larsson; so, in short, we're screwed out of some really great stories).
Back to the books. Fun rides, great twists, and constant surprises. The main character is Lisbeth Salander. You guessed it, she has a dragon tattoo. She is an uber-computer genius. She also has several body piercing, other tattoos, not to mention several psychoses and neuroses and is completely anti-social. You know what, you end up loving her and sympathizing with her. Interestingly, the first book also introduces Mikael Blomkvist (I hope I spelled that right), who is a journalist with ethics and virtually the entire story is about him and his conflicts. However, there is a a couple of what can only be called sub-plots about the main character (huh?) that are insightful about the character and are necessary for character development. Yeah, I was confused too, but it starts to come together in the second book and you enjoy the book because it always has some conflict that must be resolved.
I completely recommend reading these books and then reading the third. I can't vouch for the "unwritten" ones, but l'll read the first one and let you know. Grab these books, read them in order (my favorite recommendation in any series; I mean, would you read "The Return of the King" before "The Fellowship of the Ring"?), and enjoy yourself.
When you read these books, you read about incredible feats performed by the most unlikeliest of characters and you never once question them. You know you have read books where you think that the book is good, but some of the things are contrived if for no other reason than to make the story take the proper turns. The "Girl" books don't do that because the characters always act as they should in the appropriate circumstances. Each character has a personality and a set of values that you are aware of and absolutely buy. Once that happens, you're immersed in the story.
As you read from one to the other (there is a third coming out, "The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest"), the story is exposed and several new layers fall away slowly, but relentlessly, until you are seeing a more overarching plot than the mini-plot that unfolds in the context of the individual books. Then you realize that Mr. Larsson was a master story-teller. Finally, you feel sad because Mr. Larsson will never write another book again and you feel somehow cheated (there 3 more books in various stages of writing that Mr. Larsson left, but there seems to be a probate fight on who gets them, then you have to worry if the writer who completes them will have the same insight and vision as Mr. Larsson; so, in short, we're screwed out of some really great stories).
Back to the books. Fun rides, great twists, and constant surprises. The main character is Lisbeth Salander. You guessed it, she has a dragon tattoo. She is an uber-computer genius. She also has several body piercing, other tattoos, not to mention several psychoses and neuroses and is completely anti-social. You know what, you end up loving her and sympathizing with her. Interestingly, the first book also introduces Mikael Blomkvist (I hope I spelled that right), who is a journalist with ethics and virtually the entire story is about him and his conflicts. However, there is a a couple of what can only be called sub-plots about the main character (huh?) that are insightful about the character and are necessary for character development. Yeah, I was confused too, but it starts to come together in the second book and you enjoy the book because it always has some conflict that must be resolved.
I completely recommend reading these books and then reading the third. I can't vouch for the "unwritten" ones, but l'll read the first one and let you know. Grab these books, read them in order (my favorite recommendation in any series; I mean, would you read "The Return of the King" before "The Fellowship of the Ring"?), and enjoy yourself.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Sopranos Review
I just finished watching the entire series of The Sopranos. All I can say is: What's the fuss? This was a mediocre show that broke the TV barrier for sex and violence. So what? All I saw was a bunch of people playing stereotypical characters. As much as the show payed homage (or stole, depending on how one looks at it) to The Godfather, it had none of that movies' depth or richness. There were no complexly drawn characters or interest story lines. Everything was cliche and predictable. In fact, even the unpredictable was predictable. That is, when the story was stalling and meandering aimlessly, they did the unexpected. But it was unexpected because it was out of character and unrealistic. For a show that seemed to flaunt its grittiness and truthfulness, it resorted to the perceived reality of the mob to save it from inanity.
The show worked best when it was giving us comedic moments. But there are just so many caricatures one can take. Paulie was a ridiculous joke that never quite found a punch line. Christopher was a catchall character who personified all the traits the writers couldn't bother to create individual characters for. Junior and Olivia were Simply along for plot relief: if the writers lost their way, they had these two do something to keep the story moving.
I had heard a great deal of hue and cry over the ending of the series. It was anti-climactic, but it was that because it was supposed to be. There was no climax to the story because the story was going to continue as it had before. In other words, the creators, and this is the one truly unique take of the show, told the audience with that one final scene that what you have just witnessed was a snapshot of life in the mob (even though I still don't believe this is how it was or is) and that Tony and his crew will continue down the same road they always have dodging the feds and jealous families from other states, etc., while the Soprano nuclear family will continue to have its typical familial mini-dramas that all families live through.
All in all, the show delivered solid acting by the principals, but the characters, in truth, didn't call for huge stretches. The plots and twists, such as they were, would never have kept an audience interested if it wasn't for all the gratuitous sex and violence. The machismo segment of society that was enthralled with this show loved the show so they called it "ground breaking." It was that, but only because of the medium not because of the content.
The show worked best when it was giving us comedic moments. But there are just so many caricatures one can take. Paulie was a ridiculous joke that never quite found a punch line. Christopher was a catchall character who personified all the traits the writers couldn't bother to create individual characters for. Junior and Olivia were Simply along for plot relief: if the writers lost their way, they had these two do something to keep the story moving.
I had heard a great deal of hue and cry over the ending of the series. It was anti-climactic, but it was that because it was supposed to be. There was no climax to the story because the story was going to continue as it had before. In other words, the creators, and this is the one truly unique take of the show, told the audience with that one final scene that what you have just witnessed was a snapshot of life in the mob (even though I still don't believe this is how it was or is) and that Tony and his crew will continue down the same road they always have dodging the feds and jealous families from other states, etc., while the Soprano nuclear family will continue to have its typical familial mini-dramas that all families live through.
All in all, the show delivered solid acting by the principals, but the characters, in truth, didn't call for huge stretches. The plots and twists, such as they were, would never have kept an audience interested if it wasn't for all the gratuitous sex and violence. The machismo segment of society that was enthralled with this show loved the show so they called it "ground breaking." It was that, but only because of the medium not because of the content.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Roid Run On
Stop asking for apologies if you aren't going to accept them. A sport talk show host says, why can't Alex Rogriguez just admit he did it, he was wrong, and move on. Because no one will let him. He does just that and there are critics that claim he lied in his apology, he hand picked his interviewer, he was not contrite enough, he was sincere, etc. So, if we have this straight, sports talk show hosts, anchors, reporters, whatever, not only want the apology, they also want to script it and make sure that the apologist says exactly what they want him to say. Barry Bonds got it right. Shut your mouth and watch everyone else stumble and bumble along claiming innuendo and rumor are enough to certify that he did any performance enhancing substance. If you're smart, you'll realize that no apology is ever going to be enough. The cycle of sport stories is indignation at the wrong-doing (whatever that might be, not necessarily steroids or supplements or whatever), demand for an apology. If there is no apology, the story lives on with the emphasis on what a horrible human being the athlete is for not only doing this abomination, but not being "man" enough to admit it and apologize. Then, if he does apologize, there is the critique of the apology. It didn't go far enough; it didn't admit what we wanted him to admit; he lied; he held back; pick one. Cover sports and leave the human commentary to those with brains who are writing about much more substantial individuals than sports athletes.
Monday, February 9, 2009
My Roid Rage
I am sick and tired of idiotic, uninformed, unctuous, and did I mention idiotic sports "journalists" talking about the "steroids" scandal. Until one of these geniuses defines for me what was used by these sports atheletes, whether Bonds, Rodriguez, McGwire, or whoever, I am not going to get even remotely excited. There were/are any number of supplements that are "performance enhancing." Any number of these are available to anyone who walks into your neighborhood GNC or other sports nutrition outlet. And any one of them would register a positive in a urine test by baseball or any other sport for that matter. Anything that you or I could buy without a prescription would probably qualify as a "steroid" in today's hysterical atmosphere. Anabolic steroids have a distinct and limited medical meaning. Just calling any supplement, which is now unauthorized by the baseball (or any other sport's) "steroid" policy, a "steroid" is lazy and, worse, irresponsible.
Further, who cares? Anyone who believes in the worst will tell you that every player was on steroids. Fine. How is that not a level playing field? If everybody's doing it, then no one had a competitive advantage. I know that offends the phony parents who claim that we have to look out for our kids, but tough. If parents are waiting for baseball, football, and basketball players to properly bring up their children, they deserve what they get. Meet Pacman Jones.
Another important point is that these supplements, whether actual anabolic steroids, HGH, or some other supplement, only work if the player is exercising and working out with weights. The myth is that these supplements automatically make you stronger, better, faster. Wrong! All they do is help heal your muscles that you tear up through exercise. Cases in point: The Canseco twins and the Giambi twins. Jose and Jason are multi-millionaires and Ozzie and Jeremy are....exactly! Barry Bonds hit the ball. McGwire and Sosa hit the ball. Steroids don't improve your eye at the plate. If anything, pitchers would benefit way more from "steroid" use than hitters because the fatigue that their arms suffer would be minimized and their recuperation would allow them to get in more work on their mechanics.
Finally, everyone, stop calling this "cheating." A) nobody has defined for me that what these players were ALLEGEDLY taking was illegal except with perscription; B) even if that were true, there was no rule in baseball against it; and C) if everybody was doing it, nobody had a competitve advantage. If a "juiced" pitcher is pitching to a "juiced" hitter, the competitive balance is served. May the best muscle man win. This cheating talk comes from dweeby sports talk show hosts, writers, anchors, etc., who could never play and never had to deal with the pressure of performing in the most competitive of arenas. It's interesting that the sports media who were actually in sports aren't breathing fire and brimstone against those accused; they are mouthing the proper platitudes about how it's wrong, etc., but they aren't condemning these guys and taking their actions personally. It is only the jealous wannabes that whine and complain and bemoan it as a personal affront to all true sports fans. Please....spare me.
I am not advocating illegally enhancing anyone's performance, but let's not be too hypocritical about it. Nobody was saying, as McGwire, Sosa, then Bonds were nearing their records that they should stop. Nobody stopped going to watch Marian Jones dominate her sport or Lance Armstrong dominate his. Not fans, not owners, and not the media. McGwire had a bottle of androstenedione in his locker in plain sight of reporters. Tickets were sold and money was taken in. Let's not start now demanding our money back. We got what we paid for and what we deserve.
To say that the Hall of Fame would be diminished if we included any of these players is ludicrous. It would be one thing if the Hall was a symbol of true, unspoiled greatness, but it's not. Lawrence Taylor and Michael Irvin, both caught (as in actually seen) taking an illegal narcotic. Both are in the Football Hall of Fame. Ty Cobb, the biggest racist ever to strap on cleats is in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Nevertheless, the hitter who passed Cobb's hit record is not in, but Jim Rice, for crying out loud, is. This is not some sacrosanct temple. So, should Bonds be in, yes. Should McGwire, yes. Even Palmeiro, idiotic as he is, should be in. If Gaylord Perry, who never made any bones about throwing a spitball (without actually admitting it), which is clearly cheating, is in the Hall, no one can arbitrarily bar these men who were only giving us what we wanted.
Further, who cares? Anyone who believes in the worst will tell you that every player was on steroids. Fine. How is that not a level playing field? If everybody's doing it, then no one had a competitive advantage. I know that offends the phony parents who claim that we have to look out for our kids, but tough. If parents are waiting for baseball, football, and basketball players to properly bring up their children, they deserve what they get. Meet Pacman Jones.
Another important point is that these supplements, whether actual anabolic steroids, HGH, or some other supplement, only work if the player is exercising and working out with weights. The myth is that these supplements automatically make you stronger, better, faster. Wrong! All they do is help heal your muscles that you tear up through exercise. Cases in point: The Canseco twins and the Giambi twins. Jose and Jason are multi-millionaires and Ozzie and Jeremy are....exactly! Barry Bonds hit the ball. McGwire and Sosa hit the ball. Steroids don't improve your eye at the plate. If anything, pitchers would benefit way more from "steroid" use than hitters because the fatigue that their arms suffer would be minimized and their recuperation would allow them to get in more work on their mechanics.
Finally, everyone, stop calling this "cheating." A) nobody has defined for me that what these players were ALLEGEDLY taking was illegal except with perscription; B) even if that were true, there was no rule in baseball against it; and C) if everybody was doing it, nobody had a competitve advantage. If a "juiced" pitcher is pitching to a "juiced" hitter, the competitive balance is served. May the best muscle man win. This cheating talk comes from dweeby sports talk show hosts, writers, anchors, etc., who could never play and never had to deal with the pressure of performing in the most competitive of arenas. It's interesting that the sports media who were actually in sports aren't breathing fire and brimstone against those accused; they are mouthing the proper platitudes about how it's wrong, etc., but they aren't condemning these guys and taking their actions personally. It is only the jealous wannabes that whine and complain and bemoan it as a personal affront to all true sports fans. Please....spare me.
I am not advocating illegally enhancing anyone's performance, but let's not be too hypocritical about it. Nobody was saying, as McGwire, Sosa, then Bonds were nearing their records that they should stop. Nobody stopped going to watch Marian Jones dominate her sport or Lance Armstrong dominate his. Not fans, not owners, and not the media. McGwire had a bottle of androstenedione in his locker in plain sight of reporters. Tickets were sold and money was taken in. Let's not start now demanding our money back. We got what we paid for and what we deserve.
To say that the Hall of Fame would be diminished if we included any of these players is ludicrous. It would be one thing if the Hall was a symbol of true, unspoiled greatness, but it's not. Lawrence Taylor and Michael Irvin, both caught (as in actually seen) taking an illegal narcotic. Both are in the Football Hall of Fame. Ty Cobb, the biggest racist ever to strap on cleats is in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Nevertheless, the hitter who passed Cobb's hit record is not in, but Jim Rice, for crying out loud, is. This is not some sacrosanct temple. So, should Bonds be in, yes. Should McGwire, yes. Even Palmeiro, idiotic as he is, should be in. If Gaylord Perry, who never made any bones about throwing a spitball (without actually admitting it), which is clearly cheating, is in the Hall, no one can arbitrarily bar these men who were only giving us what we wanted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)